CNN announced that 15.3 million people watched the first Democratic debate, and approximately 23 million people watched the first GOP debate, both setting records.
Despite the successful TV ratings, there were complaints from the candidates about the quality of the questions and the general format. Perhaps it is time to expand the scope and complexity of these presidential debates, making them both more engaging and more rigorous in their communication of information.
Debates can be an excellent method of expanding a person’s thinking and reasoning skills. I have taught an upper level speech class at Wilberforce University where students debate controversial issues, such as abortion, gun control, etc. First, we learn the basics of what a debate really is. Below is a very brief description of two typical debate formats:
Parliamentary debate: This is probably the most well-known style that features the individuals from two teams competing against each other.
Teams follow a set of procedures for arguing their side of an issue and allowing an individual on the opposing side to respond. Additional questioning back-and-forth helps to expand on the topic and clarify any unfocused arguments.
Karl Popper debate: This style has risen in popularity as the format that many high school debate students learn. It focuses on the development of critical thinking skills, and tolerance for different poins of view. To facilitate these goals, debaters work together in teams of three, and they must research both sides of each issue. This style is similar to the Lincoln-Douglas debate format. Each side is given the opportunity to offer arguments and direct questioning of the opposing side.
I require my students to come to class and be able to debate either side of an issue, regardless of their personal opinions. They do not know which side of the debate they will be representing until the class begins. They also fill out a worksheet that lists what they already know about the issue; who might be affected by this issue; why they think the issue is important; along with three arguments in favor of, and, in opposition to the issue. They also include the sources that they use. We review the credibility and thoroughness of those sources.
Why not expand the scope and complexity of the presidential debates?
This could even include asking family members to participate. I remember watching the 2004 presidential debates and wishing that John Kerry’s two daughters would debate the Bush twins. This would help reveal to the American public the poise, likability and general education of the family members. This is often a strong indication of the character of the presidential candidates themselves.
A more practical option would be to expand the dialog during the presidential debates to allow candidates to ask question of their opponents. Moderators could also challenge the candidates to explain what they believed would be the best argument against their position, when they formed their opinion on the topic, what sources of information they relied on, and many more creative possibilities.
About the Author