The Absolutely Best Debate
James Kwak
277

How do we label someone the winner of a debate if the facts show that they lied over and over? That’s not a winner in my book, and by proclaiming a liar the winner, we have in fact lowered our standard on lying. In a way, we are promoting lies/lying, by associating it with winning.

Do we really place interruptions over facts? I place facts first, but let your conscience be your guide. I think this is a failure in the debate system caused by multiple factors: The debate schedule doesn’t allow enough time for complete answers, and I don’t think the moderator should be held accountable for controlling the candidates. The moderator has questions to ask, and a limited amount of time to ask them. Here is my suggestion to help fix this problem, install a button for the candidates to push whenever they hear a false claim. Pushing the button would capture the point at which the false claim was made. This would allow two things: (1) It would allow the candidate to continue listening to the other candidate without interruption. You can lose focus when you hear something you don’t agree with and you try to store it in your memory while still listening to what the person is saying. This is very hard to do and it happens all the time in normal discussions. People will not hear you message if they are distracted. (2) It will cut down on the interruptions while allowing for playback of the controversial statements. Of course, this would take more time, but I think it’s worth it.

Is it easier to remain calm when you’re not being honest? I don’t think so. As far as I understand, lie-detectors show a spike when a lie is manifested. You have to be a Sociopath (a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience), very skilled at lying, or you believe what you are saying is true. My solution, there should be a lie detector attached to the candidates so that we can see when they’re not telling the truth. They would probably object to that.

Should we object to lies, or allow them to stand? I think the lies have gotten us to this point (on both sides of the isle). If you allow lies, you lose all accountability; it’s hard to hold the right person responsible when you don’t know the truth. And we all know, if you tell a lie enough times, people will start to believe it. Side note: No news outlet is the only credible source of information or facts.

Politicians, be honest about why our vote is important and what we will receive if our vote is given. If a politician can answer those two questions for every question asked of them, I will be satisfied.