Don’t change the debate format!

Don’t change the debate format!

Posted on October 3rd, 2020 by Scott Warnock

People across the world are dismayed, disturbed, and appalled by the U.S. Presidential debate Tuesday.

Following from these responses are cries to change the format in any future debates to control the verbal combatants, particularly the incumbent, who acted, unsurprisingly, in an egregious manner.

I’ve been seeing these perspectives through the lens of many younger people, including my own kids, who haven’t experienced many debates. Many asked: Is this the way it is supposed to be? Is it always this bad?

Trying to see what they had seen got me thinking, and those thoughts lead me to say firmly to all those who want to change the format: No way! Keep it as it is!

I’ve always wondered about the purpose of presidential debates. A debate is an artificial communication and interaction scenario that enables us to see the debaters in a narrow, particular way: On a stage, answering complicated questions against a tight clock.

In this environment, verbal dexterity, humor, and partisanship take precedent over traits like team-building, contemplativeness, and open-mindedness. Traits that might make you an excellent president may not show up in a debate venue, not to mention the value of silly attributes like good looks and even height.

While I enjoy debates, I never saw them as a tremendous predictor of who would be a good president/leader. In fact, as you saw Tuesday, they may not even show who’s a good debater.

How can a candidate articulate how to address climate change or health care reform in a two-minute comment? At one time, debates were perhaps a way for people to see candidates and to put those candidates’ ideas put under pressure, but now candidates are visible in many other ways. Maybe there was a time, oh, say, back when Lincoln debated Douglas, that you had a mono-media view of your candidates. That time is past. If you want to see Biden’s plans, for instance, just go to his website.

Oh, and forget all that stuff about looking presidential. When you step off Air Force 1, you look presidential, despite massive contradictions otherwise.

So why change the format? Tuesday night was not a shit-show–it was perfect. If, for some reason you didn’t already know about the behavior of the incumbent, you got to see that behavior in front of a world-wide stage.

You got to see the level of listening and truth telling and respect. Of course, if there was any doubt about that person’s stance on white supremacy–well, it’s now more difficult to defend that platform plank.

He laid it all out for the world to see because the debate format provided the platform. You saw how he is. If you vote for him, then you are saying that is how you want to be represented.

By the way, younger viewers I spoke with were frustrated in general with the candidates. But I noticed the debate let them see behavior for what it was. I’m just telling them that despite the bluster about voter fraud that their vote will decide how much they accept what they saw on that stage.

Author Bio
Latest Posts

Scott Warnock

Scott Warnock is a writer and teacher who lives in South Jersey. He is a professor of English at Drexel University, where he is also the Associate Dean of Undergraduate Education in the College of Arts and Sciences. Father of three and husband of one, Scott is president of a local high school education foundation and spent many years coaching youth sports.