Political debates: who wins and who loses? The obvious debate winner is the election winner. This is different from college and high school debates, when an expert judge picks the winner. Things are not always so simple, however. In 1858, Abraham Lincoln debated Stephen Douglas at seven different locations around Illinois. They were running for United States Senator from Illinois. Lincoln lost the election. However, newspapers across the country printed transcripts of the debates. These reports made Lincoln a household name. His views about slavery became known nationwide. Very likely, the debates, which Lincoln lost in 1858, helped him spread his opinions so he could become a serious presidential candidate in 1860.
In recent years, presidential debates have degenerated into name-calling fests. Issues are no longer discussed in depth. Although most pundits felt that Hillary Clinton won the 2016 debates, she lost the election.
Partly, the debaters no longer understand how to debate. Here are some ideas which result in better debating:
1. State your conclusion before you give your argument.
2. Explain why your conclusion is right.
3. Give evidence, citing appropriate sources as needed.
The debate formats in 2016 did not lend themselves to this simple approach. The speeches were too short, and the questions did not follow themes with any consistency. The debaters got personal all too often. Thus, in-depth explanations and proof were lacking. One-liners and talking points are poor debating methods.
Attitude change resulting from name-calling, fear-mongering, and personal attacks results only in short-term attitude change, and has little effect on behavior. Going to the polls to vote is behavior, and behavior tends to be more deeply seated when reason and evidence underlie it. I imagine that the methods that Clinton and Trump used in 2016 tested well in focus groups, but focus groups aren't the election.
So - state your case, explain it, and prove it. It's not magic.
No comments:
Post a Comment