“UnPresidential Debate”

The debacle of two junk yard dogs contesting a heckling debate, improperly labeled “Presidential Debate” on 9/29/2020 demonstrated the validity of two Scriptures from Proverbs. These two verses are variously cited by skeptics as invalidating the Bible since they contradict each other. They are Proverbs 26:4, 5. 

“4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes.”

If you respond to foolishness with similar foolishness, you are descending to the lowest common denominator. On the other hand, if a foolish act or statement is not rebuked and disputed, the one lacking wisdom believes he has carried the argument and won the debate. The differentiation is in the definition of “fool.” Behaving sophomorically, or more accurately, in a junior high, juvenile manner, must be countered with a wiser, more mature response. And in some instances, ignored completely.

The “Babylon Bee,’ in a satirical a couple of months ago predicted the winner of this year’s Presidential election: The winner will be the candidate who can keep his mouth shut the most. Tuesday night’s exhibition seemed to fulfill that scenario. That seems to validate the advice from Proverbs.

Conversely, allowing such behavior to go unchallenged and without refutation will encourage the perpetrator to believe that the action or statement was acceptable and effective. As we can clearly see, the two verses do not contradict, but complement each other.

Please excuse the somewhat vulgar illustration, but it seems appropriate: last night’s interaction between two candidates for the highest office in the land devolved into a p...uh, let’s forego the vernacular and substitute a technical term, a urinating match, which neither won nor escaped with dry clothes.

Vice President Biden, notice the use of the honorific as opposed to demeaning nicknames or descriptions, Vice President Biden won the “contest” because he incited President Trump, notice  again the honorific as opposed to “clown,” into behavior coincident with the image that has been painted of him. The Democratic position is that the current occupant of the White House is a rogue, rule-breaking, bulldozer of a man who will stoop to any level of activity to accomplish his goals. Last night’s behavior reinforced that image.

On the other hand, Mr. Biden, likewise “peed away” his success by descending to the same behavior of name calling, rudely interrupting, and attempting to outshout the Incumbent. One commentator characterized the 90 minute exchange as “mud wrestling.” Seems apt. In a “live debate” in college, our opponents were extremely loud, vociferous, though pretty articulate and polished speakers. After one episode of literal shouting by our opponents, my colleague stepped to the podium and commented, “Wow! That speech had a lot of  heat but no light. Let’s shed a little light on the subject.” (We won the debate.) Another way to phrase that would be, “Volume does not equal veracity.”

As a former debater, debate coach, and debate judge, this observer would rate this “debate” as a double loss. Debate rules do not allow for such an outcome and a draw goes to the negative. So, depending on how the topic is couched, we determine the winner by the negative position.

“Resolved, Joe Biden should be the next President of the United States.” Negative wins, No.

“Resolved, Donald Trump should be the next President of the United States.” Negative wins, No.

And to the organizers of this spectacle, we give an unqualified, unmitigated grade of “F.” Academic, scholarly debate consists of opening statements by both contestants in which they state their positions and responses to the opposition’s position. In some formats a short period of cross-examination follows each “constructive speech.” These periods are followed by rebuttal speeches where each side variously attacks the opposition POSITION, not personnel, and defends their own position. These rebuttal speeches alternate for a series of two turns for each team, followed by an appeal for the decision. The judge then makes his decision and we all go home, or on to the next round of the tournament.

There are cardinal errors which, in a properly judged contest, precipitate defeat for one side or the other. The first is not adhering to the topic of the debate. In contemporary terms, a Justice of the Supreme Court should not be confirmed during an election contest period. Both candidates must respond to that question and not introduce alternate issues, such as the repeal of the Affordable Care Act or inadequate response to the pandemic. Not topical.

Mr. Trump had a perfect opportunity to respond, AFTER that comment, that Mr. Biden had strayed from the focus of the issue and supported his position with the declaration from Justice Ginsburg four years ago. Instead he interrupted and engaged in a near shouting match.

A second immediate cause for failure in the debate is failing to respond to the opposition arguments. Instead of focusing on pointing out errors in the premise, logic, or application of the proposed policy, the opponent draws attention to an alternative problem. Case in point from last night. The coronavirus threat was mishandled by the current administration. A misdirected approach was offered by coupling the “robust economy” of the previous administration to an abject failure of the current administration to maintain the economy and instead plunged the country into a disastrous economic decline. Not responsive.

First analysis was that the introduction of the current state of the economy was non-topical. Instead of engaging with increased volume rebuttal, the President should have waited until the comment had been completed, then, refuted the comment with first the “zenophobic racist” comment made by Mr. Biden immediately after the China travel restrictions were imposed. Then, with a comment on topicality, address the “robust economy” that had accelerated to the highest Dow Jones point in history, and incidentally surpassed recently, plus the lowest unemployment figures in decades.

Oh, yes. And never, in the course of academic debate does one contestant ever interrupt or talk over an opponent. If this were basketball or football, it would result in an immediate ejection. I love soccer and gross violators get a red card and ejection. Most sports have a cumulative rule, stating that several lesser, not ejection worthy, offenses also accumulate to merit ejection. I, and probably Moderator Wallace, wished for such a ruling last night.

One final caveat, that my debate coach stressed repeatedly was, “Never address your remarks to the opponent. You will never convince him, and indeed, that is not your goal.” The object of debate is to convince the audience, often a single person, the judge. Talking to the opponent is both a waste of time and a losing strategy. Talk to the crowd. Win the debate. Mr. Biden addressed his remarks to the camera, and the watching audience on several occasions. Obviously he was aiming for the “Reagan effect,” evoked by Ronald Reagan when debating Jimmy Carter. “If you are better off than you were four years ago, vote for Mr. Carter.” Masterful.

My analysis of the “debate” is as follows. A drowning man thrashes wildly, and madly grabs anything or anyone in the vicinity. My lifesaving instructor, some four or five decades ago, counseled us, as novice lifesavers-in-training that our best opportunity to save a drowning man is to knock him out, so that you can pull him to safety. Otherwise he will fight you, even to the extent of grabbing you in a bear hug, resulting in both of you sinking...and you know what. That image came to mind last night as President Trump flailed about in deep waters.

Vice President Biden returned the favor by flailing his “arms” violently about, splashing water everywhere, but making no progress. Ultimately, both sunk. Mercifully it ended after only about 95 minutes.

Next debate: No common open period for comment and dissection of each other’s statements. Absolutely no interrupting or talking over the other person. A specified, enforced time limit must be imposed on each participant’s speeches and rejoinders. The Senate and House of Representatives operate by such rules. All courts in the land impose penalties on lawyers who violate protocols of the court and the Judge. Give the moderator a gavel, and have him literally bang it on a table to overrule and drown out violators. (Maybe a switch on the microphone of each contestant should be activated or deactivated in a appropriate time and manner.) 

And finally, kindly and gently remind each candidate of the rules, or that he did not respond to the question at hand. Pre-prepared diatribes, rants, and accusations should be summarily ruled out of order. Hockey has an interesting rule. Violations result in the guilty party being sent to the penalty box for a specified period of time. Cut the microphone of violators and allow his opponent to deliver his remarks without interruption.

And with that, I invoke my original observation. I endeavored to not fall into the same morass of “fool vs. fool” myself as I wrote this at 3:00 in the morning. There was an old cartoon, called “Spy vs. Spy” which consisted of two inept, undercover agents competing with each other to perform the most outrageous, and counterproductive antics. Our national situation is far to serious to descend into such shenanigans. 

Nuff said. Over and out. The Old Debate Coach and Logician

PS. This only cost me about 85 minutes of sleep, after spending a couple of hours in bed cogitating about it. That was about the amount of time required to produce this angst. Nighty night.

PSS. Could someone with connections get this over to the President or at best his campaign office? And, while we are at it, go ahead and communicate it to the Biden camp. I am an equal opportunity, unbiased judge.