The article critiques the nature of political debates during election campaigns, arguing they are largely ineffective in changing minds or influencing outcomes. Rather than facilitating meaningful discourse, debates are portrayed as oversimplified exchanges that primarily serve media interests. The author reflects on the theoretical benefits of debates—promoting free speech and informed decision-making— but concludes that the actual practice falls short of these ideals. The expectation for debates to perform a significant role in campaigns is questioned, emphasizing their role as mere spectacles rather than genuine dialogues.
Debates, as we hold them, are overrated at best and counterproductive at worst. They don’t change minds nor typically determine election outcomes.
In theory, debates pit opposing world views against one another and demand candidates explain their plans in detail, fostering an environment for learning.
Collection
[
|
...
]