Oct 12, 2020 5 min read

The problem with presidential and vice presidential debates is that they are not debates at all.

A debate is a format for dialog in which opposing sides, be they individuals or groups, each present an argument about the same subject and then refute each other’s arguments on logical and factual grounds. That would be nice to see in the world of politics, but the objectives of what are called debates are considerably different.

The apparent objectives of what are currently referred to as political debates are to allow two people seeking the same office to perform before an audience, attempt to demonstrate their command of facts, show how poised they can be under pressure, see if they can trip up their opponent and toss out the most currently popular catchphrases. Sub objectives are to dominate the discussion and get the most talk time.

One major difference between what we call political debates and real debates is the moderator. In real debates, the moderator is virtually invisible. In our current political debates, the moderator has become the second member of the liberal team. Chris Wallace appropriated 25% of the talk time in the first debate and Susan Page cut off Vice President Mike Pence before he could make his point on many occasions in the second. Now we have the moderator of the third debate, former Joe Biden intern Steve Scully, asking for advice on how to go after Trump. When does this stop?

A second major difference is the form and mode of questions. In a real debate, both sides are presented with the same question and are allowed adequate uninterrupted time to present a well-developed answer. The other side is then allowed adequate time to present a well-developed rebuttal. The moderator’s job is to keep the parties on topic. That obviously did not happen with either of the debates so far. In the vice presidential debate, one candidate was presented a statement and had two minutes to answer. The other party had only 15 seconds to respond. One can tell a lie in five seconds. The response will likely take a lot longer. Kamala Harris had many five-second moments. The other part of this is that when the moderator is effectively a member of one team and lobbing softball questions to her teammate it seems a bit unfair. When moderator Susan Page opened the questioning with an editorial on how bad she believed the COVID problem is and then asked Harris, “How would the Biden administration handle COVID?”, one got a flavor that it would not be an even- handed evening. Several of the questions demonstrated bias or were premised on incorrect assumptions.

While the second debate was certainly less raucous than the first, nine topics in 90 minutes are too many. It can only lead to shallow answers and little real information. Important are the topics not covered, such as gun control, immigration, a meaningful question on abortion, Harris’ prosecutorial record and Biden’s involvement in the Steele Dossier and Russian hoax – all questions liberals don’t want to discuss. Page also neglected to ask about Biden’s statements such as “You ain’t Black,” “Blacks aren’t diverse,” his flip-flops on fracking and a number of others.

There is no doubt Pence won this debate on the basis of poise, facts, presentation and substance. He forced Harris to demonstrate her far left beliefs and lack of policy. Harris came across as overbearing, abrasive and snarky as well as short on facts and substance. These are essentially the same reasons she went nowhere in her presidential campaign.

The bigger question is what to do in the future with debates. Clearly, the current format does not work if providing the American people with information and an opportunity to really evaluate candidates is what is desired.

Maybe we should stop calling them debates and call them forums. Then, in 90 minutes, limit the discussion to three topics. For a topic, allow one candidate to present his or her position for five minutes uninterrupted and then the other candidate to present his or her position uninterrupted for the same time. Then allow each candidate five minutes of uninterrupted rebuttal. Finally, allow 10 minutes of back-and-forth discussion. Such a format would allow the positions to be put on the table and rebutted, then open discussion with questioning to follow. We definitely must eliminate the shameless moderator bias. Moderators should be non-media, such as business executives capable of running an effective meeting.

Above all, the current Commission on Presidential Debates must be replaced. It has demonstrated it is biased and agenda-driven. As importantly, they do not know how to run an honest debate. America deserves much better.

Dave Ball is vice chairman of the Washington County Republican Party and a Peters Township councilman.