In a few hours, the presidential candidates will engage in a “debate” with tremendous consequences. The impact their words have on the voting public may determine the results of the upcoming election. But, is what is about to happen an actual debate and will the public be informed in the manner expected from a debate?
Actual debates have some obvious differences. An actual debate is evaluated by judges looking for specific things. As neutral observers, the judges are to evaluate how well the participants support the position they are advocating and contest the position taken by their opponents. The quality of arguments is what matters. Are positions taken clear? Is a clear rationale provided for the position and is evidence offered to support the position? Are the rationales and evidence provided by the opponent accurately identified and disputed with evidence? Redefining the issue being debated, drifting from the topic, and personally attacking an opponent are evaluated as irrelevant (a waste of the allocated time) or reason for a more negative evaluation.
The debates leading to such important decisions for the nation are likely not to meet these expectations. The American people and not neutral judges will evaluate the performance of the participants. The actual moderator may not be able to keep the participants from deviating from the agreed upon topics. Reactions of the viewers may not be based on the quality of arguments and the accuracy or existence of the evidence offered in support of the evidence. Showmanship rather than substance may be what gains participants credit.
Argumentation (debate) is being taught in schools because it develops the skills of critical thinking. This focus is deemed necessary because so much information floats around that requires a critical eye and because people, in general, are not good at carefully evaluating the information they encounter.
I must say that while my position may seem biased it bothers me greatly that affiliation of voters with the two candidates taking the stage this evening can be related to the level of education of those who tend to back each candidate. Of course, there are many exceptions, but this difference stands out in analyses of possible predictive variables. As an educator interested in critical thinking and sound reasoning this just seems like a reason for concern.
So, my suggestion is to be critical when you listen tonight. Are the candidates staying on topic? Are candidates making clear explanations for the positions they propose? Is there evidence offered for these positions?