Last night, we got something we’ve long waited for: a real debate between two major candidates for national office, in this case, for vice president of the United States.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Democrat and running mate of Vice President Kamala Harris, squared off against Ohio Senator JD Vance, Republican and running mate of former President Donald Trump. Although they couldn’t be more divergent in their positions, views, and political stances – none of which I will discuss here – they both seemed committed to a respectful debate. I’ve watched every debate since the first one – JFK versus Nixon in 1960 – and was more than delighted to see a return to civility on the debate stage, as rare as that has become.
What constitutes a formal debate?
Maybe it’s just me, but I appreciate a good formal debate rather than a couple of combatants slinging around sound bites, platitudes, and bromides at will, with no or little respect for the rules and procedures, thinking that the one who screams the loudest ingest wins. That’s reminiscent of the food fight in Animal House.
As a member of my high school debate club and intermural debate team¸ I’ve been watching – election after election for 64 years with hopes of seeing a good mutually respectful debate. There were some but not enough. Last night we got one.
Claim, Warrants, and Proof
Casting off, for a moment, the larger issues of rhetoric, context, and presentation because brevity rules here, making a winning argument that can be fairly adjudicated involves your claim (what you are contending), warrants (reasons for your claims, and proof (evidence and logic to support your position). Both Walz and Vance complied, thereby precluding a brawl that erupts when one boxer fights by Marquess of Queensbury Rules and the other one doesn’t – or if neither does.
Two effective moderators
Of course, strong enforcement of the rules of engagement is crucial, and with the exception of two brief but noticeable moments, Nora O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan, both of CBS, provided exactly that. In one, Vance just wouldn’t stop talking over an instruction to stop (time elapsed), and in the other, both candidates refused to give way. But in a 90-minute debate, we had 89 civil, respectful minutes.
One thing missing
By agreement on both sides, there was to be no fact checking going on, and it was glaring at times. But in keeping with my promise not to discuss politics, suffice to say it would have been nice – and practical.
But in the meantime, hats off. We had a real debate. It could have been more substantive at times, but it was a real debate