It is possible, and even likely, that the coming presidential debate, if it happens, will be heard and seen by more people than any previous debate in the world's history. That sounds like a big claim, but television is a big magnifier.
Most famous debates have been small affairs, in parliaments, learned societies, schools, or indeed outdoors, like the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 that often went on for three hours, during which most of the audience had to stand. In the age of mass media, audiences have expanded enormously. The Trump-Clinton debate in 2016 drew 84 million armchair viewers. But the level of anticipation raised by Trump versus Harris is beyond anything in recent history.
Most of us would like to hear a real debate, of course, but we are not likely to get one. A debate is not a shouting match but a spirited exchange of contradictory ideas. Argument is an ancient and noble activity and one of the very best ways to stimulate the sluggish brain cells and perhaps learn something at the same time. The ancient Greeks and Romans cannot, in most ways, be held up as models of democracy, but they valued rational debate very highly. I quote: “They expected political speeches to be a lengthy, careful, thorough examination of a case, crafted to persuade on the basis of logic rather than charisma.”
At my old school, not long after the decline of the Roman Empire, they tried to teach us some of those techniques. We had debates in which we had to argue one side of a question, then switch to the other side and argue for that. It taught us to see both sides, even if we only believed one side. It wouldn’t do any harm for modern schools to teach thinking in this old-fashioned way. It’s fun, and it may even open some closed minds.
That’s the problem in a nutshell: the art of debating has declined into a crude sport where the only point is to win. But debates can’t be won or lost like a football game. Arguments over such things as politics, religion or the economy are un-winnable because everyone has a ton of opinions and almost no facts. There are no “right” answers, so the debate can roll on indefinitely, providing hours of intellectual entertainment or, indeed, decades or centuries of intellectual entertainment.
This is also why debates about the future are so futile, whether they are about global warming or the World Series, the fate of your pension plan, or the next end of the world predicted for 2026. There are, by definition, no facts about the future. My opinion is as good as yours. Indeed, mine is better than yours if I have thought about it and you haven’t.
That’s why it’s so disappointing, but not surprising, to hear debates in which nobody is thinking at all. They always end up with increasingly shrill assertions of what each side believes (but cannot prove) to be true. “Yes, it is,” “No, it isn’t,” like two five-year-olds.
In the present frenzied political atmosphere we can hardly expect a rational debate. It would be like Abraham Lincoln debating Jefferson Davis on the eve of the Civil War. But, this time, the whole world will be watching, and judging, and keeping the score.
