The Presidential Debates

The Presidential debates have been uninformative, unpersuasive, and boring. In fact, they haven’t been debates at all, just stump speeches the candidates derive from phrases on 3"x5" note cards carried onto the platform by the candidates or pre-set on the candidates' rostrum by one of their assistants. Result: no spontaneity, no substance, just abstractions and generalities.

Many politicians have tried to belittle their opponents by calling their arguments "tactics from a high-school debating society." I use the word "tried" advisedly, because as an ex-high-school debater, I remember the discipline that was required in argumentation: facts and logic, not abstractions, were acceptable to judges. I remember that post-debate "spin-doctors" were non-existent: my debate coach, Mr. Callahan, would not accept our excuses when my colleague and I lost a debate.

If more politicians used the discipline, logic and argumentation techniques taught to high-school debaters, there would be less distortion of facts, certainly less lying, and more positive political assertions that voters could evaluate before deciding whom to vote for. I think that the form and structure of a real debate, which I offer in the following paragraphs, would enliven the discourse and keep our minds cool, no matter how hot the issue is.

The following debate format is borrowed from the National Forensic League (http://www.nflonline.org/), and adapted to the limitations of a televised event.
1. The candidates would debate a question. For example, Resolved: the Federal government should support higher education through grants to colleges and universities. One candidate would debate the affirmative; the other would debate the negative.
2. The affirmative must define the terms of the resolution, and must present a plan to accomplish the goal stated in the resolution. The negative must show that resolution is faulty in concept, the plan will not work, or concede the resolution and offer a different plan.
3. The debate would last one hour with the following order of speaking:
Affirmative constructive speech lasts fifteen minutes. Cross examination by the negative for five minutes
Negative constructive speech lasts fifteen minutes. Cross examination by the affirmative for five minutes.
The negative speaks in rebuttal for ten minutes.
The affirmative speaks in rebuttal for ten minutes.

Four resolutions would be selected so that both candidates would be given two opportunities to be for a resolution, and two times against. For example, for this campaign season, the following resolutions would have been appropriate:
Resolved, the United States government should remove its military forces from Iraq.
Resolved, the United States government should eliminate all regulations that control banks and financial services.
Resolved, the United States government should provide to all American citizens the same health care and health care insurance that it provides members of the US Senate and the US House of Representatives.
Resolved, The United States should mandate the teaching of creationism in public schools.

The first topic would not be announced until two weeks before the first debate. At the end of the first debate, the topic would be announced for the second debate, which would follow in two weeks. Likewise for the third and fourth debates.

No personal attacks would be allowed, nor any questioning of the opponent’s patriotism. Candidates might refer to their opponent’s record if it were appropriate and germane to the question. If candidates digressed, whether in constructive, cross-examination, or rebuttal, they would be interrupted by the moderator and told bluntly to get back to the topic being debated. If candidates exceeded their time limit, the moderator would turn off their microphone. The candidates would have no say about the rules or the resolutions.

They have applied for the job of President of the United States and are interviewing for the position. I have never known an employer who asked a job applicant what questions should be asked at an interview, how much time the applicant should be given to answer questions, or the subjects of the questions to be asked.

This format and these rules ( there would have to be others, I am sure) would go a long way to inform and persuade voters, who are the employers. The candidates are the hired help. Wanna-be hired help.