The political discussion format of debate is almost old as politics itself. The first debates started as public speaking events in Ancient Greece: the greats like Aristotle and Plato used rhetoric to try and persuade people they were debating to agree with them. They were also trying to persuade people who were watching the debates as well.
The American presidential race started nationally televising debates in 1960 between John F Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Similarly to the first debates held in Ancient Greece, the purpose of this debate was to change the minds of the audience. Where it differed is that they were not trying to change the minds of their opponents, to do so would be to accept that they are wrong and their opponent’s way of thinking is better.
The purpose of a debate is not to endlessly argue your side and have a rebuttal for anything your opponent may say. The point of a debate is to compromise, or in the end admit that your opponent’s rhetoric has bested your own and you must concede. This issue is, when you are arguing that you are the best candidate for political office, the choice for who is better is not made in the debate. That choice is made by voters in voting booths. In this format, no one concedes, a winner is never decided until election day, and the debate winner is never clear.
It has been 60 years since the first televised American presidential debate and we have made absolutely no progress in the process for comparison of one candidate to the other. We base the debate winners off of who can come up with the best soundbites in their two minutes of time that they have to talk about certain topics. This becomes even harder when candidates can barely finish what they are trying to say without their opposition interrupting them.
Debates hardly do what they are supposed to. Only about 10% of voters make their minds up based on debates. Much of this is done with influence of the media’s decision of who is the “winner” and “loser” of the debate. The problem with this is the winner has nothing to do with who has the better policy ideas, but has everything to do with who is a better debater/talker.
The first 2020 presidential debate was undeniably a mess. The candidates talked over each other and argued with the moderator because they know that it’s not about pushing their point: it’s about coming out on top. The debate was hardly that– it was more so a 90 minute-long argument. Sure, this is partially the fault of the candidates, but with the format of debate they barely stood a chance of success.
It’s hard to come up with a solution to a problem like this because we’re so used this being how it is. It isn’t ideal, but for 60 years this is what it has been. Generally, people don’t like change when it comes to election processes. Unfortunately until a change is made it seems we are just wasting our time watching these arguments– sorry, debates. Informalizing the process might help: if the candidates feel like they are actually speaking with each other instead of standing at stiff podiums in front of large crowds, then maybe they will actually finally talk.
Mikayla Rochelle is a senior studying strategic communication at Ohio University. Please note that the views and opinions of the columnists do not reflect those of The Post. What are your thoughts? Tell Mikayla by tweeting her at @mikayla_roch.
