WHEN A DEBATE IS NOT A DEBATE

    This past Wednesday' s ninth Democratic Debate on NBC/MSNBC was not a debate. Neither was any of its predecessors. It's hard to believe this observation has not been previously noted because it's an obvious one.

     When we think of a debate, we imagine a formal discussion with two opposing teams.  Debates are a respected, prestigious discipline, and anyone on a university debate team is considered likewise. 

      Other kinds of debates have influence as well. Consider the first TV political debate between Presidential candidates Kennedy and Nixon. Did these debates decide the outcome of the election? Specifically, did Kennedy's Presidential win owe its success to the TV presentation? Viewers watching the two men on TV declared that it did; radio listeners believed that Nixon had won. No doubt the difference between seeing images and  hearing words figured in these conclusions.

     Images still hold weight, but it's really what candidates say ( content ) and how they say it ( delivery ) that count in the TV debates today. In a nut shell, debates are language - driven, and more to the point, they are not examples of the traditional meaning we associate with the word, "debate."  Instead, what we heard last Wednesday was, as usual, essentially public speaking of the persuasive kind. 

     The first question for the candidates lent itself to persuasive techniques: stating a claim and giving proof ( or reasons why a person's claim was acceptable). For example: Bernie Sander's claim stated that he was a better candidate than Mike Bloomberg. Then he explained why, citing reasons like his opponent's "stop and frisk" policy. Bloomberg's claim ("I am the candidate you should vote for") provided proof / reasons, too ( "I'm from New York, I'm a manager,  I was a mayor"). 

     Oddly enough, such proof becomes like a "post it note," a metaphor that Elizabeth Warren used to describe candidates' policy plans. Or like memorizing talking points as another candidate explained. These definitions of proof are not  what we should utilize for the recent Democratic Debates. Yet many candidates do so.

      However, we must note that Warren was the most eloquent ( and spontaneous) of the candidates as far as language usage, notably when she was defending Amy Klobuchar forgetting the name of the Mexican President:  " I understand she forgets a name. This happens to everyone. You make a mistake wth the economy. You ought to be held accountable. You make a mistake and lie about a person. You ought to be held accountable.  Forgetting a name does not mean you don't understand Mexico." 

     Warren ended her presentation with a clear claim and proof as well: " I am a fighter. I fight for the family." ( She then gave examples). Her last sentence was, " I will fight for your family." (She also indicated in an interview that the ending was spontaneous.) Quite a feat. Obviously, images are important to Warren. Her use of "fighter" conjured up  potent pictures as did her words.

     We must remember other points about good public speaking: delivery. Although it's usually not something we talk about, it surely must play a part in a candidate's success: Again, Warren's voice is calm, smooth, and focused. It hits the right note: not too high, low, fast or slow. Klobuchar's tone  is deep and masculine, something that might put some viewers off. Mayor Pete's voice is like Warren's: steady, serious, pleasant. Joe Biden's and Bernie Sander's voices are often animated; Mike Bloomberg's is not.

     However, the salient point is perhaps not whether these candidates are really debating or not. It's whether it will make a difference.