I watch nearly every Presidential debate and typically come away annoyed. I wish these events were given a different name. You may disagree and find the time spent watching a debate is informative whether you disagree or agree with my position on the label.
As a starting point, here is a my description of an actual debate:
A debate is a structured argument where two sides present their positions on a specific topic. Typically, one side supports the topic, known as the proposition or affirmative, and the other side opposes it, known as the negative. The goal is not only to present arguments but also to effectively counter the arguments of the opposing side.
I equate debate as a special case of argumentation and I have written multiple posts about the value of argumentation in an educational context. In this context, debate is an experience that develops content knowledge and critical thinking skills in the debaters/learners. It offers this impact because it depends on mastery of evidence and impromptu analysis and response to positions and rationales made by an opponent. It is about evidence and reasoning. It is about careful monitoring of the positions and supporting evidence presented by an opponent and the generation of well-reasoned and evidence-based counter-arguments. Academic debates are competitions evaluated by knowledgeable judges who consider the quality of the evidence and the logic of both the case made and the criticism of the case made by the opponent. If the public is the judge in a political debate, is the public evaluating the same characteristics?
I did debate a long time ago, but my more scholarly interest was largely influenced by the work of Deanna Kuhn who wrote a book based on her research and analysis of the literature titled “Argue With Me”. Some of her research could be described as a study of the development of argumentation skills. More immature behavior contains more of the following characteristics:
- Ignoring Counterarguments: People often ignore counterarguments or opposing views. This can lead to a one-sided argument and doesn’t allow for a comprehensive discussion of the issue.
- Lack of Evidence: Arguments often lack evidence or supporting information. People may make claims without backing them up with facts, data, or logical reasoning.
- Personal Attacks: Instead of focusing on the issue at hand, people sometimes resort to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. This can derail the argument and prevent a productive discussion.
- Emotional Reasoning: People often let their emotions guide their arguments, rather than logical reasoning. This can lead to heated arguments that don’t necessarily lead to a resolution or understanding.
- Overgeneralization: People sometimes make sweeping generalizations or absolute statements in their arguments. This can oversimplify the issue and ignore nuances or exceptions.
- Straw Man Fallacy: People often misrepresent the opposing view in order to make it easier to attack. This is known as a straw man fallacy and it prevents a fair and honest discussion of the issue.
My recommendation is that you consider how frequently the content of a Presidential debate typifies such characteristics.
So, Presidential “debates” resemble the argumentation interactions of inexperienced and untrained adolescents. Instead of presenting well-structured arguments supported by evidence, candidates often resort to tactics such as personal attacks, deflection, and empty rhetoric. Given the preparation candidates spend in preparation and the expertise they can consult, it seems they are preparing for something other than an evidence-based given and take on key issues. Candidates realize it is not really a debate.
So how should we think about these televised events?
- These events are less formal in structure and often adapt their format to suit television broadcasting and public interest. They usually involve timed responses to questions posed by a moderator, with opportunities for rebuttal and follow-up questions.
- There are no official judges or scores. The “winner” is often determined by public opinion, media analysis, and subsequent polls rather than by a formal judging system. The objective is more about swaying voters and less about scoring technical points on argumentation. Reactions include responding to more than evidence and position, but perceived personality characteristics such as “toughness”. Accepting this as a goal of the process encourages hyperbole and personal attacks.
- The content often includes broader policy discussions and can be more about appealing emotionally to voters. Candidates might focus on soundbites, personal anecdotes, or attacking their opponents rather than detailed policy exposition.
I wish this situation was not the case, but my wishes have little to do with what television and political organizations believe attracts viewers and encourages voters. It seems the process is more about motivation than education.
I don’t know how the process might be changed. I like the Democratic proposal for the two scheduled debates. Turn off the mikes when it is not one candidate’s time to speak. This might limit the interruptions, but I expect participants will yell at each other anyway. Moderators seem unable to control the process even though they try.
Politics is not my personal area of expertise so I asked Perplexity about research that evaluated the impact of Presidential debates on voting behavior. A summary of the response follows:
Presidential debates generally have a small to negligible effect on shifting voter preferences or changing election outcomes. A large-scale study across multiple countries found that debates neither helped undecided voters make up their minds nor caused voters to switch candidates. Similarly, an analysis of U.S. presidential elections from 1952-2012 found that a candidate’s standing after the debate season was best predicted by their standing before the debates.
Maybe I should quit worrying about the impact and just enjoy the show.