Notes from my Knapsack 10-1-20

Notes from my Knapsack 10-1-20

Jeff Gill

 

It's debatable

___


Presidential debates have come to Ohio, and will continue, including a vice-presidential debate, through October.

 

You may be aware that there's an election in November, early in month. Time is running out to get registered if you aren't (Oct. 5 deadline), or you can start now to plan for early voting in Newark in a few days from now, if you are already registered and prefer to skip the Election Day ceremonials (Nov. 3, just to be clear).

 

Having done a little debate in school, I have to admit to a general level of bafflement at what we call debating for presidential candidates. I could call it Kabuki theatre, but that would be equally unfair to Japanese culture.

 

Debate as a competitive form involves knowledge of subject matter and the ability to directly refute or override your opponent's arguments. Famously, you have to be ready to argue either side of a subject, with the skill being honed your ability break down the case pro- or con- into its constituent elements, and work with them convincingly in complete sentences.

 

Presidential debates have two opponents facing each other (sometimes three in the recent past), but there the comparison breaks down. Moderators are pretty actively engaged themselves, and their role as I think of them is to state the proposition under review, and to haul the debaters back on topic if they wander off too far into the weeds. A more traditional debate form would have the moderator say "George Washington said in his Farewell Address: 'The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible.' Given that instruction, our proposition tonight is that the United States should have minimal foreign entanglements. Mr. Trump, winning the coin toss, you will argue for the resolution; Mr. Biden, you will argue against it."

 

Instead we have a moderator or moderators saying things like "Do you think our foreign policy is heading in the right direction?" which is so open ended as to leave the moderator nothing to moderate. How do you say you're off-topic if you've defined the topic so broadly?

 

And perhaps a traditional debate would not serve us so well in the process of determining who would make a better Chief Executive. I can't help thinking that we could do better than the so-called "presidential debate" format, though. Some suggest a cage match, which just gets you the strongest and meanest, so that's a no for me; other athletic competitions have been proposed, a lower-impact ninja warrior course, but I don't see that sorting mechanism getting us a better occupant of the White House.

 

I'd be interested in some sort of listening competition. Have the two of them sit and hear at the same time a series of presentations, both personal and factual in nature, and then give them a test on what they just heard. That's the sort of head-to-head competition that might help us in seeing who is really more ready for the office.

 

Jeff Gill is a writer, storyteller, and preacher in central Ohio; he's been debating all sorts of things recently, too often with himself. Tell him what arguments convince you at knapsack77@gmail.com, or follow @Knapsack on Twitter.