I have unfortunately lost access to the trusty Oxford English Dictionary, so, loathe though I am to do it, we will turn to Merriam-Webster:

debate: a contention by words or arguments as A) the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure or B) a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides

It’s fairly obvious that our current topic falls within definition B: “a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.”  So let’s take this bit by bit:

• “regulated discussion”: The current debates fit this, ostensibly.  It depends, of course, on whether Tom Brokaw’s desperate attempts to make Obama and McCain stick to their time limits qualify.  In the end, however, I think that in the ideal debate the regulation comes from the debating parties themselves rather than a third-party moderator.
• “of a proposition”: Again, we ostensibly fit this idea.  The debates are usually framed around a series of questions put to the candidates.  The candidates then reply via their alloted time.
• “between two matched sides”: This is the only part that we get completely correct.  We may even get it too correct, thanks to today’s TV culture.  Candidates are matched in time, posture, terminology, and more, all to remove any possible advantage one could have from appearences.

On the surface of the definition we seem to be doing fairly well, yet anyone who has watched a political debate knows that something is horribly wrong with the system.  But where have we gone wrong?  I would suggest it is because we need to look earlier in the definition of debate: “a contention by words or arguments.”  And there we find it: we’re lacking arguments. Debates today are far too much about one of three things:

1. Look at my record.
2. Look at his record.
3. Soundbyte.

What they are not about is arguments, at least in the traditional definition (again from Merriam-Webster): “a reason given in proof or rebuttal.”  I do not call “he voted to raise taxes 94 times” or “he will give $4 billion in tax breaks to oil companies” a logical line of reasoning.  Whether or not such statments are true, they are not a logical proof of why the candidate in question will be effective or ineffective.

Reason would sound like:

• Tax cuts for American families, which I propose to provide, will put more money in their pockets, allowing them to invest and thus increasing our savings rate and promoting future growth in GDP.
• Following a surge-like strategy in Afghanistan will promote confidence by putting enough troops on the ground to deal with the violence and begin building relationships with local leaders.
• Following a surge-like strategy in Afghanistan will not work because the problem is not with the number of troops but with how we engage both our enemies and our friends.
• Offshore drilling should not be pursued because the effects are minimal, especially when seen in light of the global oil market.

Instead we get politicians arguing back and forth only in the sense of “argument” that means “two children quarelling.”  They say plenty of words, but with very little logic behind them.  The problem, I suppose, is as much with us, the audience, as with the candidates.  Both candidates are intelligent men who can present a logical argument if they want to (and if you don’t think this is true you’re deluding yourself) .  But, sad to say, soundbytes and accusations are what work on us and thus that’s what the candidates use.

The solution?  There probably isn’t one.  But here’s a rough idea of what I think should be tried someday.  Instead of a debate in front of a live audience, with millions more watching on TV, the two candidates sholud be locked in a room together for a day.  They would be given a list of topics that to consider together, with two allowable means of responding:

1. A joint proposal laying out how to solve the issue.
2. Separate essays on the issue, in which mentioning the other candidate is forbidden.

The debate over the course of the day could be recorded if necessary, but it would not be live.  Afterward the candidates would have a chance to address the audience.  On each issues they would either present their joint proposal or give an outline of their essay, again without mentioning the other candidate, and the logic behind their idea.

It would, of course, be nice to have a live debate in which the candidates could discuss ideas and argue about the logic behind them instead of who did what.  I just don’t think that’s possible in today’s media.  My idea is an attempt to force such conversation.

Granted, it probably would not be as interesting to watch (I said we were part of the problem, didn’t I?).  But it would at least force the candidates to give “a reason given in proof” for their “contention by words or arguments.”  Then we could really have a debate.

• Washington Post – Debate Live Fact Check
• Fact Check.org

Before reading those, however, you might read this article on ideology and evidence.  What it says is worth keeping in mind, especially for those of us who already support a candidate.  It is too easy to read the fact checks looking for things the opposing candidate did wrong and skimming over those parts that reflect badly on our candidate.  I know I often find myself doing that.  You have to carefully force yourself to read what is right and wrong about both sides.

Protestants are convinced that the Catholic church is in error.  Americans are convinced that Muslims are violent.  Republicans are convinced that Democrats know nothing.  Democrats are convinced that Republicans know nothing.  Atheists are convinced that there is no God.  Christians are convinced that evolution is ridiculous.

The problem, as I see it, seems to lie in the fact that

1. We can’t all be right.
2. There are very smart people advocating most major positions.

It’s hard for me to get past the difficulty that this presents.  In fact, I think it’s hard for most people to get past this difficulty, which leads to a set of rationalizing behaviors which tend to only make the situation worse.  There are several possible forms these take:

First is denying the first statement of the dilemma .  This is a particularly weak solution, as the fact remains that in many situations there are only two possible options.  There was evolution, or there wasn’t.  God is or isn’t.  Both cannot be true at the same time.  (At least, not that I know of.  Philosophers feel free to correct me.)

The second solution is to admit that we may be wrong.  Humans do not like to do this.  In fact, humans will go so far as to do damage to their material wealth before admitting they are wrong.  Such stubbornness renders this option particularly unappealing.

The third, and by far the most common, option is to deny the second statement of the dilemma.  Obviously other people are not “very smart” if they do not hold the same positions we do.  It is far easier to deny the intelligence of other people than to admit that we may be wrong ourselves (and even unintelligent sometimes).

This has led to a disturbing rise of ideologues in our society, especially within pop culture.  Take politics, for example.  The Conservatives seem to dominate in the traditional media, with such inspired models as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Ann Coulter.  The Liberals, on the other hand, are to be found on the internet, with the likes of the Huffington Post, Digg, and Reddit.  While the medium may be different, the style is the same: dismissing opponents as unintellegent or uneducated, refusal to acknowledge alternative viewpoints, and a desire for attention.

Sadly our culture seems to buy into this.  People love to watch ideologues, to glory in their self-righteous destruction of all that is so evidently false.  They repeat the talking points they learn from the TV shows or the internet, with little research or thought of their own.  Ask most ardent creationists why evolution is wrong and the response won’t have anything to do with science.  Or ask most Liberals why we should hate big business, and you won’t hear any nuanced response acknowledging the usefulness of market oriented corporations.

I fall into this pattern of thinking more often than I care to admit.  Too frequently I dismiss someone else as hopeless because they don’t agree with me.  “But it’s so obvious,” I think to myself, “why can’t they just understand?”  At this point I am saved from either offending someone or making a fool of myself only by a resolution I came to a number of years ago.

When I first arrived at college I was somewhat taken aback by the number of arguments I witnessed in which neither party seemed to have a full grasp of the issue at hand.  Too often people stuck to their own position without listening to the other person’s arguments.  It reminded me of something my brother told me when I was a freshman in high school: “If you’ll just shut up and listen, you’ll learn a lot more.”  Thus I subconsciously resolved not to become involved in an argument until I felt that I could make an excellent case for my opinions.

Of course, I have been less than perfect in staying out of arguments.  It’s far too easy to fall into them, as you probably know.  Yet perhaps we should all stop and think a while before becoming too convinced of our own position on an issue.  Are there otherwise intelligent people who take an opposite view from us?  Have we actually read and researched enough to consider ourselves knowledgeable?  Are we prepared to be wrong?  Unless we can answer yes to all three, and especially to the last, maybe we’re a little more convinced of our position than is good for us.