Well, it's an election year. This means we citizens get frequent calls from pollsters, platform fliers stuffed into our mailboxes, constant donation requests, and of course, televised debates. Or do we?
I don't think we actually get debates... it's just the wrong term for what happens when candidates face off to discuss policy.
Perhaps my definition is too narrow, but I always thought a "debate" was when two sides, each with opposing views on a particular topic, would share and compare arguments advocating for their respective positions. I thought a debate was a structured affair with more or less equal time to make uninterrupted points and to offer salient rebuttals. I also thought a basic tenet of debate was that you had to support your perspective with generally well-vetted facts.
Anyone who more or less agrees with this definition of a debate would likely conclude that we don't really have Presidential debates. We have Presidential "squabbles", characterized by personal attacks and petty innuendo. Each side cherry picks facts and shares them out of context, each side usually exaggerates (or even lies) when convenient, and each side expends as much energy denigrating the other's character as they do critiquing their arguments.
What is really sad is that this is the formula that seems most effective in swaying voter opinion. Many of us essentially vote for the squabbler most capable of witty comebacks and contemporaneous slander. These are probably not the best criteria for identifying competent leadership.
My preference would be for the voters to identify the issues that are most important to them in any given election, and then see a series of short debates that focus on one issue each time. For example, this year we might have had short debate on economic policy, followed by a short debate on border control, followed by other short debates on the climate or guns or abortion.
Such single topic debates would elucidate where the candidates agree and where they differ. Importantly, with only one topic to cover, the debaters would have the time to "explain" their plans rather than just "refer" to them. They could also cite the sources of their information and fact checkers on each side could participate in the rebuttals using referenced sources.
This would yield useful information to help voters determine which candidate's policies are most aligned with their personal priorities. Seems like a better plan than circulating memes on social media...
