Debating has been a time-honored enterprise, sometimes
called a contest, sometimes called a competitive sport. Most debates involve at least a challenge (or
challenges), but what few people recall, perhaps,
is that debates have always been centered around a proposition that is argued
according to certain rules, and within certain parameters. Let’s take a brief look at how debates are variously
defined in dictionaries:
“To take part in a formal discussion or a contest in
which opposing sides of a question are argued”
“To dispute about, especially in a meeting or
legislature”“A formal contest of skill in reasoned argument, with two teams taking opposite sides of a specified question”
“To discuss opposing reasons; argue, deliberate, dispute about”
“Debate is contention in argument, especially
formal discussion
of subjects before a public assembly.”
It seems clear from these definitions that some sort
of serious deliberation is involved in debating. It also seems that there are some parameters
or rules by which a debate is contested, and that there is some sort of
proposition, question, or issue that is the object of the debate or
deliberation. Nowhere, apparently, is there any reference
to a debate being about insults, innuendo, mocking, or personal attacks of
character or persona. In fact, the
basic rules of debating discourage such behavior, just as they discourage general
statements or declarations not backed up by detailed explanation. Perhaps most of all, a debate is not the
place for raising tangential issues or sidetracking the issue(s)-at-hand. Instead, debating is meant to stay focused on
the issue(s), and attempt, through cogent and detailed argument, to prove or
disprove a proposition, or to show, through the best arguments and proof, what
side of an issue is preferred.
With that brief attempt
at providing some definition, let us look at some rules of debate, keeping in
mind that rules do vary based on the locale or the purpose of the debate. For instance, some debates are quite formal
and competitive and the rules are more detailed. In other situations, where the purpose may be
less competitive, the rules may be more basic.
Some basic rules of debate:
(with references from englishtutorlessons.com.au/basic-debating-rules; englishtutorlessons.com.au/basic-debating-rules;
englishtutorlessons.com.au/basic-debating-rules)- To declare that the other side is wrong is not enough. You
have to show why the
other side is wrong. This is best done by taking a main point of the
other side’s argument and showing that it does not make sense. In order to
establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and
logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it
is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts
must be accurate.
- Try to rebut the most important points of the other side’s
case. No
new constructive arguments may be introduced in the rebuttal period. Reply
to the major negative arguments before the last rebuttal.
- If
there is a questioning period, the questioner may ask any fair, clear
question that has a direct bearing on the debate. The questioner may use
the period to build up any part of her own case, to tear down any part of
the opposition's case, or to ascertain facts, such as the opposition's
position on a certain issue, that can be used later in the debate. The
questioner must confine himself to questions and not make statements,
comments, or ask rhetorical questions.
- Do not criticize the individual speakers, criticize what
they say. One writer – Jack O’Dwyer – reminds us: “(I) was a member of a
debating team in college and the No. 1 rule was that no ‘personal remarks’
about debating opponents were allowed. Only subject matter could be
discussed. Anyone who broke this rule was immediately slapped down.”
- The manner is how you present what you say and the best
manner style is definitely not to shout and thump the table but to keep
calm and present your points with a clear speaking voice.
“Beginning
with the 1976 election, the League of Women Voters sponsored the televised
Ford-Carter debates, followed by the Anderson-Reagan and Reagan-Carter debates
for the 1980 election, followed by Reagan-Mondale in 1984. After studying the election process in 1985,
the bipartisan National Commission on Elections recommended ‘[t]urning over the
sponsorship of Presidential debates to the two major parties’. The CPD was
established in 1987 by the chairmen of the Democratic and Republican Parties to
‘take control of the Presidential debates’. The commission was staffed by
members from the two parties and chaired by the heads of the Democratic and
Republican parties.”
The formats for the 90-minute
debates are supposedly “designed to facilitate in-depth discussion of the
leading issues facing the nation,” but they instead cover everything from the
size of the parking lot to the temperature in the auditorium. Much space is devoted to just such format
details. The rules governing conduct of
the debate itself are also detailed in terms of format, but lacking in much
substance as regards actual rules of debating.
For instance, here are samples of the summary format for the last debate
that aired:
Second presidential debate (October
9, 2016, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO)
The second
presidential debate will take the form of a town meeting, in which half of the
questions will be posed directly by citizen participants and the other half
will be posed by the moderator based on topics of broad public interest as
reflected in social media and other sources. The candidates will have two
minutes to respond and there will be an additional minute for the moderator to
facilitate further discussion. The town meeting participants will be
uncommitted voters selected by the Gallup Organization.
All debates
will be moderated by a single individual and will run from 9:00-10:30 p.m.
Eastern Time without commercial breaks. As always, the moderators alone will
select the questions to be asked, which are not known to the CPD or to the
candidates. The moderators will have the ability both to extend the segments and
to ensure that the candidates have equal speaking time. While the focus will
properly be on the candidates, the moderator will regulate the conversation so
that thoughtful and substantive exchanges occur. The CPD is in discussion with
technology and civic groups that will provide data to the moderators to assist
them in identifying the subjects that are most important to the public.”
Finding rules of actual debate is
much more difficult. So what we have
here is a Commission basically devoted to details of venue, set-up,
participants, and entertainment, rather than a Commission devoted to
substantive discussion of critical issues.
In spite of all the hype about substantive questions collected from
audiences through social media and elsewhere, it was not until about the
87-minute mark in the debate that the questioners/moderators actually had gotten a
trio of major issues into the debate – namely the Supreme Court, guns and race.
So, in conclusion, let me present
some observations about the debate itself and then I have a few suggestions for
future debates.
- What we saw was not a debate but a mud-fest. It basically
followed no rules but those of format, and even that did not work very
well, since one of those rules was that one speaker will not invade the
other’s space during the time when one or the other is speaking. Donald Trump violated that provision
with major frequency and impunity.
- In such a mud-fest, there are no winners or losers, just two people who are covered with mud
- On the subject of winner and loser: this is nothing but a huge farce perpetrated upon the gullible public by a media intent on boosting ratings and promoting absurd speculation.
Real debate
winners are judged by qualified judges who follow particular criteria for
scoring debates and judging winners based on those scores and on those
criteria. In Presidential debates – and
in subsequent polls taken afterward – there are no criteria used to rate performance
or to score results. The judgment of ‘winner’
is entirely emotional and subjective.
The question asked of those polled is entirely without any criteria
attached, and thus each person polled uses their own measuring stick, their own
criteria and their own feelings. All of
which immediately makes all such polls invalid simply because there is no
common bases on which to decide who won.
Such a poll is not a “national” poll – it does not measure according to
a common national standard – it is simply a poll of individual sentiment,
meaning that every answer is made according to that one individual’s beliefs
and emotions, not according to objective criteria.
- A
review of the basic rules of debate (above) indicates that this was not a
debate, in any sense of that word:
- Innuendo, questionable accusations, inaccurate statistics, allegations of wrong-doing,
personal insults, made-up or slanted stories, and most of all, threats of
reprisal, are not the foundations of a debate; in fact, they are contrary
to the basic rules of debating.
- The lack of substantive evidence either in rebuttal
or presentation of one’s side of an issue was so lacking that one has to
wonder – why bother? What is the
sense of even having a debate if no actual evidence is brought forth to
prove the efficacy of one’s side? Mr. Trump failed miserably on this
criterion; Mrs. Clinton at least presented some figures mostly in
relation to healthcare and taxes.
- There
were no substantive arguments presented on
major issues. The issues all took
flight so that matters of personal conduct could be vetted before an
anticipatory audience. Once again,
those who benefitted from such foolishness were not the voters, but the
entertainment companies and their sponsors. Left in the dust were major issues like:
joblessness and job creation, crumbling infrastructure, Social Security,
Medicare, single payer health system, gun violence, immigration,
etc. Every time a serious issue
was proposed or even suggested, it was quickly undermined and abandoned
in favor of personal attacks and accusations, which are antithetical to
any substantive debate.
- Because
there were no rules of debate, the antagonists were allowed to veer away
from the issue at hand and to shift the emphasis
to other unrelated issues or accusations.
Such behavior is unacceptable in real debates. One must stick to the issue at hand and
not introduce new issues or material or propositions. Not only does this produce a version of
chaos, it violates a basic rule of debate. The job of the moderator of a debate is
to call the protagonists on this when it occurs. The two moderators did try to do that
at times, but were mostly unsuccessful, mainly because the rules were not
clear nor accepted nor adhered to by either side.
- Finally, the manner of presentation was simply not important, mostly to Mr. Trump who snorted and sniffed, scowled and grimaced through most of the debate. But, of course, the major flaw in his manner was to invade his opponent’s space for purposes of distraction and pestering (bullying?) his opponent. Such behavior is not acceptable in any real debate, and it should have been called out by the moderators. However, they were hamstrung by lack of rules and sanctions (subtraction of points) and so did nothing. Another sign that this was far from a real debate.
What, then, might be done to make
the third Presidential Debate into something that resembles a real debate with
some basic ground rules? I have a few
suggestions:
- Have issues-based questions or propositions prepared before the debate in a format that allows for an argument positive or negative from both sides; examples:
o
RESOLVED, the infrastructure of this
nation must be 25% rebuilt or refurbished within the next 8 years; OR:
o
What specific projects would you
propose be undertaken to begin rebuilding the infrastructure of this nation in
the next 8 years?
o
Automation is an imminent threat to
many blue and white collar jobs within the next decade; what would you propose
to do: 1) to prepare our workers for job loss and 2) to prepare the nation for
on-going high unemployment caused by such automation
o
What will you do in your first term
to start, maintain and invest in alternative fuel businesses, to reduce fossil
fuel pollution, and act to protect workers who lose jobs
- Allow enough time for each proponent to advance their answer or plan in some detail – perhaps 5 minutes for presentation and 3 minutes for rebuttal; limit the number of issues discussed to 5 or fewer (there can still be wide audience participation online which can lay some groundwork for the prepared questions)
- Ban all innuendo,
accusations and personal attacks, and stick to the issue-at-hand
- Score the debate based on criteria put together by experts in the debate field, and judged
by such experts. Allow points to be withdrawn based on rule violations
- Ban all polls for winners following
the debate, unless those polls are based on the expert criteria used to
score the debate
- Stick to the issues
and ban all side-tracking or changing of subject
- Civil manner of presentation
must be enforced by moderators: no personal attacks, no encroaching on
other’s space, no interruptions, no threats
- No in-house audience participation at all except at beginning and end when they may applaud as allowed
If we’re going to have Presidential
Debates, let us at least follow some basic rules: keep on the subject-at-hand,
provide logical and cogent arguments, lay out positions and proposals that are
backed up by facts or acceptable means of proof, and provide time for presentation
and rebuttal without interruption. It’s
past time to hear what Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump plan for us, instead of
being subjected to what they abhor about each other (and want us to believe, as
well).
