Presidential Debate 1 – Reaction
Hope all of you got to see the Presidential Debate this evening between Senator McCain and Senator Obama. I thought Obama did a much better job in the debate from the perspective of argumentation and debate principals. Here are a few thoughts:
- Strategic Concessions
- Being Civil
- “Doesn’t understand”
I thought Senator Obama did an excellent job pointing out agreements he had with McCain to avoid opposing good ideas. Obama did a good job of pointing out the agreement and then adding a “but…” to separate himself from his opponent. We agree on the premise but disagree on the conclusion. That way you avoid having to debate everything and instead focus on only the big picture ideas.
Here is an example from the
transcript.
MCCAIN: Senator Obama is the chairperson of a committee that oversights NATO that’s in Afghanistan. To this day, he has never had a hearing.
…
LEHRER: I know, OK, let’s go to the latter point and we’ll back up. The point about your not having been…
OBAMA: Look, I’m very proud of my vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and as he explains, and as John well knows, the issues of Afghanistan, the issues of Iraq, critical issues like that, don’t go through my subcommittee because they’re done as a committee as a whole.
But that’s Senate inside baseball. But let’s get back to the core issue here. Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families.
They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.
And so John likes — John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.
You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong. And so my question is…
I think more debaters would be well served to concede to more arguments in debates to focus on those issues that provide the clearest path to winning the debate. McCain on the other hand, kept saying that Obama is wrong, Obama is wrong. He was opposing everything he said which is a much harder task than only opposing the main ideas. One looks much stronger in the debate when they can actually point out agreements with the other side yet support one own’s side and argument. I don’t think any of Obama’s concessions made him look weak.
Senator McCain, at times, appeared to me at least to really lack civility towards Obama. Time magazine, in the reference below points out that:
But while mocking his opponent on a few occasions, which reflected his acute disrespect for Obama, he did so in an insufficiently sharp and detailed manner
Judges, I think at least subconsciously, are influenced by the civility of the debaters. It is harder to vote against someone who is civil and for someone who is being rude. As I watched the debate I really liked when the news showed the two men on split screen because you could see how each was reacting to each other’s points.
This quotation also brings up an important point – when we have disrespect towards our opponents – it shows. I know for me it took a lot of practice and dedication to force myself to act respectful towards the competition. My high school coach had always taught us to ‘destroy and conquer your opponents.’ That kind of approach makes it hard to treat them with respect – but let me assure you – debate becomes a lot more fun when you respect the other side!
This was one area that I thought Obama did not do as well on as well. A few times his reaction was rude as well. It’s harder in a public debate because the positions each side is attacking are those at the core of each candidate’s run for the presidency. That’s one reason I love academic debate – it provides a forum for people to present arguments that are separated from their own personal beliefs. Regardless if you like or dislike the Cuban embargo, debate allows you to both support and argue against the Embargo. This allows for a lot more respect because you know the debater is simply presenting the arguments on their side of the resolution – it’s not necessarily anything the debater believe in.
This was one of McCain’s most unappealing tactics in the debate. I’ve found that usually the person accusing the other of ‘not getting it’ is actually the person who doesn’t get it – particularly in a debate. This is a pretty serious charge that McCain is leveling against Obama – not only is he wrong he lacks an understanding of the issue – and one that I think most people watching the debate see right through:
MCCAIN: I’m afraid Senator Obama doesn’t understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy. But the important — I’d like to tell you, two Fourths of July ago I was in Baghdad. General Petraeus invited Senator Lindsey Graham and me to attend a ceremony where 688 brave young Americans, whose enlistment had expired, were reenlisting to stay and fight for Iraqi freedom and American freedom.
I was honored to be there. I was honored to speak to those troops. And you know, afterwards, we spent a lot of time with them. And you know what they said to us? They said, let us win. They said, let us win. We don’t want our kids coming back here.
And this strategy, and this general, they are winning. Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq.
It reminds me of the tactic some debaters employ of calling every argument the other side presents “a fallacy!” No, a fallacy is a specific thing – a flawed argument. Just because the other side is presenting points in their favor which you disagree with mainly because of the side you are assigned in the debate does not make the arguments a fallacy. Senator McCain seemed to use “doesn’t understand” as a shortcut for “I disagree.” However, it comes across as rude and lazy to rely on the first phrase rather than the second.
What did you all think of the debates? How can you use what you saw in your NFA-LD debates?
Here are a few articles discussing the debate:
Time
Transcript
Presidential Debate Video
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
I think the key idea is consistency theory, which is explained in communication theory as a person’s tendency to ignore that which he or she doesn’t already agree with, and emphasize that which they do agree with. If we come across something we fundamentally disagree with, it produces cognitive dissonance. Basically, we view the presidential debates with a strategy to remove or reduce our cognitive dissonance.
Every person I’ve spoken to about the debates saw it as “their” candidate won. Maybe a good exercise would be to ask students to review the high points from both. I think the same thing happens in academic debates as well, though to a much lesser extent. Hence my axiom that, “There are only two kinds of interventionists, those that admit it, and those that don’t.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Danny, I don’t think you understand how debate is supposed to work..lol… I wholeheartedly agree with you about McCain’s use of “he doesn’t understand”. I believe that he was told by his campaign to make those statements in order to try and paint Obama as someone who doesn’t understand any of the issues and is to naive to run the country.
However, I think Obama did an excellent job of “controlling” the debate and where it was going. By always being courteous and giving McCain his due, much like you stated, but also by many of his mannerisms and many of his attacks on McCain.
In terms of debate I think that the control, or momentum, of the debate is always key to winning a debate because creates a perception that you are winning and allows you to make your points while also leveraging your arguments against your opponents.
Those are my views of why I think Obama won the debate but people may differ on them.