home news sports culture ideas up-to-date

You are viewing
Volume 38 Issue 4
October 17, 2000

To return to the current issue please click here.

Rules of Engagement
Bush-Gore debates lack formal structure

BY MIKE TORRES
MESA LEGEND
Submitted October 17, 2000

Now that Vice President Al Gore and Texas Governor George W. Bush have squared off in the first two of three debates scheduled, political pundits and laymen alike are left discussing whom they think won.

The debates, however, may more aptly be called “oratories,” believes one MCC instructor.

A true debate includes a clash on issues and a volley of specific questions aimed at debunking an opposing viewpoint, according to MCC Director of Forensics Erin Adams.

While she may encourage her students to tune in, Adams, MCC’s debate team adviser, does not consider this year’s presidential debates as accurate examples of her discipline.

“The whole goal of forensics or argumentation is to persuade, to change attitudes or behaviors,” Adams said. “And the presidential debates have gone away from challenge, and more toward speech.

“They are nothing more than joint press conferences.”

	Jim Allen/MESA LEGEND
	Sophomore Brad Timmons practices the art of debating in his COM222 argumentation class.

What is important to a debate and what is not, Adams added,  is also being discussed within the forensics community. “Some believe evidence supporting an argument or claim is most important, while some would say delivery (is),” Adams said.

While debates have been a part of politics for as long as there have been politicians, the landscape of the forum forever changed in 1960, when then-Senator John F. Kennedy trounced Richard Nixon in what was the first-ever televised presidential candidate debate. Kennedy’s cool demeanor and Nixon’s sweat-soaked brow left an indelible impression on viewers, and had a major impact on the election.

During the recent presidential debates between Gore and Bush, everything from the length of questions to the temperature of the venue were negotiated beforehand. And the format in each debate has included rules against direct dialogue or questioning by the candidates.

“The second debate (Oct. 11) was the farthest thing from a debate as possible, because the candidates weren’t able to cross-examine their opponent as in a real debate,” Adams said.

Without the ability to question one another, Adams feels the middle-of-the-road voters, those that are undecided and waiting for one of the candidates to earn their vote, are left wondering where the candidates stand on the issues.

“The media have such an influence on the actions of the candidates, down to the way they engage their opponent, that they hold back their natural reactions to what the other candidate is saying,” Adams said. And this won’t change “until the media keep their objectivity and don’t tell the viewer who won,” Adams added.

Recent polls suggest this year’s presidential race to be as tight as ever, and the middle-of-the-road voter will play a major role in deciding who the first president of the 21st Century will be.

The candidates will attempt to speak to those undecided voters during the debates.

“Candidates are so scared to make a mistake that the differences between the candidates on the issues are blurred,” Adams said. “They’re afraid of being hammered in the press if they attack their opponent on the issues.”

While the debates continue, the public is charged with the duty of sifting through the rehearsed stump speeches and finding the real issues in the media frenzy.

Back to Top | Previous Page | Home