Leaders’ debates are perhaps the most over-rated, media-hyped and uber-analyzed events in politics, though they rarely have a meaningful impact on electoral outcomes.
The seemingly different debate styles of President Trump and Vice President Pence are examples of the same thing, what a political communication scholar calls ‘authoritarian white masculinity.’
A saucy, perfectly delivered retort by Democratic vice presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen didn’t hurt the Bush-Quayle ticket. But it dogged Dan Quayle for the rest of his political career.
Functional political debates, like healthy democracies, require participants who respect the process and follow mutually agreed-upon rules.
A politician who wields a comeback with skill can use it as both a bludgeon and a shield, damaging the opponent without hurting their own popularity with voters.
Three new approaches in the field of competitive academic debate offer ideas that could help presidential debates serve both their public purposes.
It’s easy to perceive a political opponent as being uncivil – and that opens the door for an uncivil reply as well.
The only satisfactory debate arrangement everyone agreed to nearly 60 years ago largely remains in place today – the game show format.
Debates may help voters identify which candidate shares their views but they do not help them think critically about those views. That’s because presidential debates don’t live up to their name.
We can justify different standards for different Twitter users by turning to the philosophical ideas about public debate.
The creation of a new debate commission in Canada should ensure televised showdowns between party leaders amid federal election campaigns are transparent and a boon to democracy.