Breaking it Down: Why Today’s Presidential Debates Are Terrible

This piece is part of a series of articles produced in a special topics class taught by Professor of Law, Jurisprudence, and Social Thought Lawrence Douglas on the upcoming election. Articles may have been reviewed by Douglas as well as other members of the class prior to submission to The Student.

As a competitive debater for about a quarter of my life now, I have noticed that the public’s only exposure to debate comes about once every four years during the presidential (and vice-presidential) debates. Televising these debates has been an American tradition since 1960 when John F. Kennedy debated Richard Nixon just a little over a month before the election that would happen later that year. However, as the years have gone by, presidential debates have drifted further and further from what was sold in the past as the true purpose of debate, which is to inform the general public.

In competitive debate, the purpose is to convince. To convince a judge to vote for us, yes, but also to convince the judge that our side of the issue is right. What decides if you win or lose is your ability to argue your side best while skillfully rebutting the opponent's arguments. Herein truly lies my gripe with today’s presidential debates: Their purpose is no longer to educate voters and convince them to side with one candidate or another on certain issues. Rather, they have turned into a spectacle where candidates espouse talking points that mildly relate to the question at hand. Rebuttals in this format today do not actually tackle underlying assumptions or logic about the arguments being made but rather tend to focus on the candidates themselves.

The average voter may tune into the debate to better understand the issues, but they are incredibly unlikely to leave the experience more informed. They likely come in at a low baseline, as studies have shown that the average voter knows just 1.3 of the three most important news stories of the month. But when they listen to the debate, they are unlikely to become more informed on the issues themselves.

Today, campaigns complain that the presidential debate has very little sway on what voters choose to do, barring disaster. While earlier this year, a poor debate performance essentially sealed Joe Biden’s fate in the presidential election, it seems unlikely that the performance given by Harris will do much to impact the presidential election. The reason that Biden’s performance mattered was not because of what he said policy-wise, but rather that the way he was speaking raised further concerns about his age. The substance of what candidates say rarely has an impact these days. In many ways, today’s presidential debates feel very much like two parallel campaign rallies that happen to have more targeted questions directed by moderators. Candidates tend to fall back onto the same talking points they preach in their stump speeches across the parts of America that actually matter in this election.

Still, is there really any alternative? Today, most political candidates do not have extensive formal debate experience and likely are not taught what makes an argument good. The advisors who did the debate prep for both Harris and Trump had no competitive debate experience and were really closer to policy advisors than anything else.

There is a fundamental disconnect here between the format of the debate and what actually occurs during it. During the debate, candidates are given specific questions, time to answer, and time to respond to their opponent. This debate format is designed so candidates spend time talking about the issues at stake in the election and the issues that concern their electorate. The format implies this is a debate about the issues. However, in practice, that is not what the debate has become. Rather than a debate about what one ought to believe about certain issues, the debate has turned into a contest of character, and both candidates seem to assume that voters have already made up their minds. This difference is subtle but consequential. It completely changes the way candidates approach how they answer questions.

For example, if asked a question about disposable water bottles in a debate concerning the issues, my answer may look something like this: “I believe disposable water bottles pose a great threat to our environment. They are a major source of plastic pollution because they often end up in waterways, where they break down into microplastics that take thousands of years to disappear. This is a major threat to not just human health but also the health of the environment we live in, ultimately contaminating our food and water supplies. Conversely, reusable water bottles are relatively easy to use and would reduce the use of disposable water bottles; thus, if elected, I would subsidize reusable water bottles.”

On the other hand, in a debate that is about me as a candidate, I may say something more like this: “Disposable water bottles pose a huge threat to us, which is something I have said since I first held elected office. Over my four years as Governor, I worked hard to push for legislation that subsidized reusable alternatives. My administration passed three pieces of legislation that increased reusable water bottle use by 60% in my state and reduced the number of disposable bottles sold by 25%. If elected, I would get similar legislation passed at the national level to protect the health of this great nation.” The latter response crucially already assumes the listener has prior knowledge about the issue at hand and aims to convince the listener that I am the better candidate to fulfill what I feel is the best course of action to rectify the problem.

Looking at the debate between Harris and Trump, we can see that both almost exclusively used the latter style of answer.

Take for instance, Harris’ answer on fracking. Harris simply stated that she is in support of fracking and explained how her past policy record supports this conclusion while never explaining to the voters why her position is the correct one or why they should care. She used the question in order to contrast her upbringing to that of Trump, something only tangentially related to the question. Sure, it was a tough question and she was likely told to deflect it, but it shows a deeper problem of a lack of engagement on the real issues. When faced with the issue of Ukraine, again, she turned to her record on Ukraine instead of what her plan is, why it is best, and why Americans should care. Harris did touch on explanation, but it was often rushed and poorly explained.

Note that Trump’s response was far worse. Almost all of his answers went completely off-topic and rarely provided any real background to the audience. He never provided or engaged with the merits of any plan, instead resorting to false information and ad hominem attacks. While Harris may not have been educational, Trump actively worked to make the average voter less informed, spreading countless pieces of misinformation during the debate.

It has not always been like this. Watching the first-ever televised debate between Nixon and Kennedy, it looks a lot more familiar to the type of debate I have familiarized myself with over the past five years. In many ways, it is still a pitch for the candidates for president, but there is far more logic and analysis presented as justification for why voters should feel certain ways about issues. For the vast majority of presidential debates today, this level of engagement and argumentation simply does not occur.

Take, for instance, a question posed to Kennedy about his plan for farm subsidies. Kennedy starts by explaining why farmers need subsidies and why every American voter would be impacted by the collapse of the agricultural industry. Only after he explained the issue did he state what his plan would be to solve it.

Nixon is given an opportunity to respond and actually engage with the substance of Kennedy’s claims. He explains how Kennedy’s plan would raise consumer prices, presents an alternative model, and explains why that model would solve the issue.

This productive back and forth filled with explanation and context does a surprisingly good job at educating the everyday voter about an issue they may not care about otherwise and gives them space to decide for themselves how they feel about the proposed plan. This never occurred in the debate between Trump and Harris.

Herein lies the true reason why these modern presidential debates can feel so useless. The candidates presume the person listening is both already informed and already has an opinion about the issue at hand. For the vast majority of American voters, especially undecided voters whom the debate is supposedly for, this is simply not the case. Presidential debates are no longer a tool to change the minds of the public because we do not treat them as such; we treat them as an opportunity to cement a base. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the average voter leaves the debate feeling no more informed than when they tuned in. Many may argue that the debate still serves an important purpose: to rile up the existing base and get them excited. But that is, in fact, already the primary purpose of things like rallies, which are almost exclusively watched and attended by people already in the politician’s base. The debates are supposed to be a place where a national audience can become more informed in order to make a decision in November rather than a sad dueling rally where neither candidate really makes an attempt to reach across the aisle.

The thing is, we could go back to the days when debates looked like debate, but that would take change from the candidates themselves. It is far easier to dodge questions, pivot to talking points, and make personal attacks than to engage with the substance of the real issues. In many ways, what we see is a far easier version of the debate for the candidates themselves, so they have no real incentive to change it. In the process, it is the public that is getting shortchanged.