The great debate of 1858 was between Lincoln and Douglas and was part of an election campaign in Illinois. It was a civil exchange of ideas, beliefs and theories. It wasn’t resolved by a duel, violence, insults or threats.
There was no argument with the moderator. The question in issue was of no surprise. There was no prize, no declared winner. The object was to give people an insight into the thinking, personality and behavior of the senatorial candidates. The electorate was being given a choice.
Since 1896 the election debate has become a brawl. The contestants ignore the questions and make prepared speeches. They interrupt one another and trade insults. They stalk around the stage. It’s a televised argument. The issue becomes who has the nastiest retort. Who has the better makeup. Who can get away with the most outrageous statement. This debate is not an attempt to have an enlightened discussion of the burning issues of the day, but a personality contest to denigrate your opponent. It’s one step above Rudy Giuliani’s suggested “Trial by combat”.
Those who watched the Kennedy-Nixon debate on television found Kennedy to be the winner. Those who listened by radio found Nixon to be the better. Nixon’s lousy makeup hurt his appearance.
I don’t think that my debate with Senator Claude Pepper as told in my podcast, caused many people to switch sides. People have a personal attachment to their beliefs, strongly tied to their identity and hardened by group beliefs and propaganda. They resist change.
In school, as a debater you were assigned a proposition to defend or contest. You didn’t have to personally believe in your position. You presented your thoughts and were judged by your analysis, logic and eloquence. No one dared to interrupt your presentation. Almost every high school had a debate team. To be captain of the team and a successful debater was a significant step toward college admission. There were national competitions with prizes to the winners. The step from college to law school was easier with a strong recommendation from the debate team coach. Nowadays a presidential debate is confrontational and proves very little inspiration. When fact checked for truthfulness, the results are dismal. Why is it important to determine who is the more aggressive liar and the more offensive candidate? Unless we significantly change the rules, the presidential debate is a dinosaur whose time has passed. ~ Lewis