The Need for Debate

While the debates may not have a huge impact on the overall outcome of the presidential election, I believe that they matter very much. The debates are the one event where the American public gets the watch their leader, and potential new leader, be challenged on their policies and beliefs and provide support for their political point of view. In very few contexts is it appropriate to challenge the President about his particular stance on an issue or his progress as our leader. I found it fascinating to watch the two candidates finally address their policies and ideas straight to the American public.
The other reason I believe the debates are important is that they force the candidates to solidly explain the reasoning behind their political positions, and more importantly, their plans for change. While we can read about these things online and brush up on the facts, there is a certain effect if “hearing it from the horses mouth” that resinates strongly with me. The debates allow people to judge the demeanor, attitude, viewpoint and ideology of each candidate. This is especially important for undecided voters. Even for me, a decided voter, I found it extremely valuable to have the facts surrounding the most pertinent issues surrounding the debate (namely: the economy, health care, education) laid out by the men who will be in charge.
Overall, the debates require the candidates to stand up and account for their decisions. I believe it is a very valuable part of the election process. There is more the the race than deciding on a winner– it is a learning process that offers Americans a great opportunity to get involved in politics and their government, get educated on the issues, get motivated to vote and fight for the changes that they want to see in their country. The debate is a fantastic outlet for people to utilize when it comes to accomplishing these goals.

2 Responses to “The Need for Debate”

  1. Malcolm says:

    Interesting article. I like your stance on the fact that “hearing it from the horse’s mouth” can really resonate with people. It’s something I didn’t think about, because, after all, these candidates are repeating policy numbers and facts from their entire campaign. Hearing and watching each candidate spell it out on a national stage can really clarify voters’ decisions. I would argue that might be more of an image thing as well, as in how well does each candidate deliver his or her ideas? For many voters that is an important deciding factor. But how many people watch the debates and feel that they really learned the truth about issues and policy? One of the top twitter trends last night was Big Bird. It just makes me wonder how many people really feel motivated by the issues in the debate rather than being drawn into the spectacle of it all. But I like the inclusion of the debates as an important aspect in the democratic process and I hope it remains that way.

  2. Ben Cooper says:

    I agree that debates provide an outlet for a broad public to become more involved in the political arena. I think that you accurately state that the debates spur public discussion about issues that becomes a learning experience for everyone involved. The lack of specificity and abundance of lies (or simple misstatements of facts) inhibits this a bit. I believe that the candidates can easily mislead a large portion of the public with statements that might be founded in facts which prevents education. I believe that there is value in hearing defenses of policies straight from the candidates, but this also creates a venue for misinformation.

    One issue that you point out that I did not consider in writing my post was that it puts the candidates’ positions to. The test. I believe this is true to a point. First I don’t think that a debate is the proper or only appropriate venue for criticism. I think that the lack of I formation available to the candidates on the stage prevents a thorough discussion of issues and this is why debates tend to be superficial. Everyday the media and the public have an opportunity to criticize and allow candidates an opportunity to respond. While this response might be influenced by advisors and others, it provides a more “real-world” response.