Political debate has long been a crucial part of democracy and a way for people with different viewpoints to express them. Debates allow candidates to share their views on important issues and policies, allowing voters to learn more about the options available to them. But in a time of heightened polarization, many Americans seem frustrated by the very idea of political debate. They wonder, what is the point of two people with different viewpoints trying to find consensus when it often seems like they are engaging in a conflict, not a conversation?
The original purpose of debates is to help undecided voters compare and contrast the platforms of the various presidential contenders. The first debates of 1956, between Adlai Stevenson and Dwight Eisenhower, exemplify this original purpose, with the focus on the platform rather than the candidate.
Over time, however, the format of debates changed. Debate formats shifted from three-hour events to brief exchanges that focused on specific, high profile issues. The shortened format reduced the opportunity for the candidates to speak at length about their platforms, and the format lent itself to pat, rehearsed answers that offer little insight into the candidates’ positions.
Despite the decline in the overall quality of debates, there is still value in having them. Studies show that voters have improved knowledge of the specific candidates and their policies several weeks after watching a debate, and they are more likely to vote for a candidate that shares their policy priorities.