The July 31, 2019 Democratic Primary Debate: Once Again, a Terrible Format Wrecked the Debate

Last night’s Democratic presidential primary debate was, as expected, a pathetic excuse for a debate. I’m not a media pundit and I’m not going to speculate as to who won. It’s too early to tell. The only winner that matters is who wins the presidential election in November.  Instead, I’m putting on my debate specialist’s hat to figure out what went wrong.

 The big problems were, for the most part, not the debaters’ fault:

First, the speeches were too short. It is hard to work out a decent argument in 30 seconds or a minute. It can be done, yes, but it’s not easy.

Second, the moderators, as usual, did a terrible job. News reporters want to come up with good news. They are not trained how to produce a good debate.

In this post, I’ll talk about the first problem. My next post (stay tuned) will discuss the second problem.

So, first. To make a complete argument on an important issue probably requires at least four or five minutes. To make a good argument, a debater must state a point, explain it, and give evidence to prove it. The late Robert B. Huber, who was for many years a terrific debate coach at the University of Vermont, explained this beautifully in his now out-of-print textbook. The debaters last night were talking about complex issues like healthcare and immigration. A few seconds are not enough to explain policy and issues on topics like those. The debaters had time to say what their points were but not to explain or prove them.

Kamala Harris, US Senate photo

Example #1: Consider, for example, when Kamala Harris was asked to respond to a point about healthcare policy. Her answer went like this:

“Yeah, let's talk about math. Let's talk about math. Let's talk about the fact that the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies last year alone profited $72 billion, and that is on the backs of American families.

“And under your plan, status quo, you do nothing to hold the insurance companies to task for what they have been doing to American families. In America today, diabetes patients, one in four cannot afford their insulin. In America today...”

And then the moderator, Jake Tapper, told her that her time was up:

“Thank you, Senator.” Boom!

Harris then made a futile effort to try to squeeze in a few more words, whereupon Tapper told her: “Your time is up, Senator.”

Now, Harris tried to make what seemed like a reasonable point and she even presented one fact to support her position, but her time ran out before she could complete her argument. This was, alas, what happens with such a chaotic, overscheduled format.

Michael Bennet, US Senate photo

Example #2: Michael Bennet did a somewhat better job of making an argument during an exchange about child separations at the southern border. His method was to make one simple point without trying to elaborate on it:

“I think this is one in the end that we agree with. There's not a single person on this stage if we were president would ever separate a child from their parents at the border. And that is what this... (APPLAUSE)

“That is what this administration has done in the American people's name. They have turned our border into a symbol of nativist hostility. The symbol of this country before Donald Trump was president was the Statue of Liberty. That should be the symbol of the United States of America, not Donald Trump's words.”

And, at that point, the moderator cut him off. Time had already run out. Still, Bennet had squeezed in a complete argument.

Bennet could make a complete argument only because he narrowed his focus to one single part of the immigration problem, basing his argument on a simple shared value He didn’t try to give economic or sociological statistics. He made his argument, but at the cost of being shallow.

There’s been much controversy about the Democratic National Committee’s decision to allow so many candidates to climb onto the debate stage. Many of these candidates know they have no hope of becoming president and I can only speculate on their motives for running. If we had, let’s say, four candidates on the stage, it might be possible to have a decent debate. A good debate requires in-depth argument, but the crowded format didn't make that possible.

P.S.: Intercollegiate debating was the highlight of my college education (although I have much praise for the outstanding classes that I took at the College of William and Mary), but schools afflicted by tight budgets have cut back their debating programs; the last university at which I taught did not even offer intercollegiate debate and speech contests. Here’s a wonderful article in The New Republic about the benefits of debate education. Debate education teaches research and critical thinking skills; debaters learn to see both sides of a topic without falling victim to bothsidesism. By the way, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and Ted Cruz (among others) had debate experience.

P.P.S. I also blogged about format weaknesses in the previous Democratic primary debates:

The First Democratic Primary Debate: A Poor Format Wrecked the Debate

The Second Democratic Primary Debate: The Poor Format Wrecked This Debate Even Worse

And here are my comments about the apocalyptic July 30, 2019 debate.