Why do we engage in debates? – The Colgate Maroon News

If you’ve been on social media at all in the last week, then most likely heard Former President Donald Trump said, “They eat dogs in Springfield,” or as he responded when asked if he had a plan, he had “concepts of a plan.” While the purpose of a presidential debate should be to inform voters about their candidates and thus help them make informed voting decisions, our most recent debate merely provided instant fodder for our TikTok and Instagram feeds. Frankly, it’s a shame. Our current presidential candidates should behave with decency and respect for one another, but instead they have resorted to name-calling and nonsensical digressions. None of the candidates actually answered any questions. Recently, Kamala Harris asked Donald Trump for a debate, but he declined. Honestly, can you really blame him?

Our debates were so uncivilized that the candidates’ microphones had to be muted to prevent them from talking over each other. As political polarization increases, so does mutual respect for someone on the other side of the political spectrum. Let’s watch a debate with Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012the difference is clear. Not only do the candidates actually discuss politics and be polite, but they also recognize each other’s humanity. First of all, at the start of the first presidential debate of 2012: former President Obama and Senator Romney greeted each other with a warm handshake and what appeared to be an exchange of pleasantries. Senator Romney even joked that the day of the debate was Obama’s anniversary. proverb “Congratulations to you, Mr. President, on your anniversary. I’m sure this was the most romantic place you could imagine. Can you imagine such a remark during a modern debate? It seems unbelievable. At the end of the debate between Obama and Romney, the two men shake hands again and say goodbye with a smile. During our last presidential debate, former President Trump did not walk up to Vice President Harris to shake her hand, but Harris had to walk to Trump’s podium to greet him. The interaction was cold, awkward and completely different from the warmth we’ve seen in previous presidential debates.

Our debates have become mere entertainment, which is not the ideal way to engage people politically. While watching the recent Trump-Harris debate, I remember bursting into laughter with my friends after hearing Trump’s comment about pets, then texting my parents, “Did you hear that?!” That was crazy!” That’s not what we should be doing while watching a presidential debate, but here we are. As I watched the debate, I learned nothing new about either candidate and didn’t get a proper answer to any of the moderators’ questions: frustrating, I know.

I believe that the recent debates have done nothing to help us be politically educated and engaged citizens. So why should we continue to have them at all? Yes, debates allow us to determine which candidate might be better suited to be president, but the bar seems to be set low: whoever appears more competent or articulate wins. In other words, which candidate spent the least time ranting about utter nonsense? If only our debates could once again focus on public policy, international affairs, or the state of the economy, perhaps we would be less disappointed with the state of our nation. Perhaps most disappointing is the lack of mutual respect between the current presidential candidates. In 2012, it was clear that the two candidates respected each other, even though they disagreed on most policy issues. Today it seems as if the two candidates fundamentally do not understand or respect each other. Until this mutual understanding comes about, our debates will continue to look like train wrecks. Our presidential debates should be, first, informative and, second, entertaining. I don’t want my future president to make snarky remarks; I want to know what they will do for the country.