The American debate has disappeared. We have gradually witnessed the devolution of what used to be a respectful tradition of political discourse into a melee of personal attacks that veer far from actual policy. Debate functions as a platform for candidates to make crystal clear where they stand on issues and how they will make Americans’ lives easier – that has been obscured in recent years. The 2024 Trump-Biden presidential debate is a striking example of what debate has become: a catfight akin to an episode of “The Jersey Shore” and a slew of meme bits.
Political conflict is not inherently bad. Through forcing both sides of an issue to articulate their arguments and refine their reasoning, conflict is healthy for democracy. In the same vein, competition is not inherently bad. We’ve reached the heights of economic and societal prosperity because our systems channel self-interest into the promotion of the common good. Conflict, competition and disagreement are cornerstones of any operational democracy. They lead to innovative policies and crucial problem-solving by pushing us to confront the realities of our beliefs. And it is on the debate stage where these democratic pillars manifest themselves most poignantly.
Though what is beautiful about true debate is that it resolves this conflict not inherently by promoting each side’s desire to win. Rather, the common goal that dominates here is an understanding of a way forward. Presidential debates make this principle most clear. When the welfare of the public is at stake, when millions of average Americans are directly affected by either policy direction, the candidates win only by playing into this emphasis.
But most of us will never see the blinding lights of a presidential debate stage, much less involve ourselves in a political career. Yet, the ability to coherently present an informed argument in a competitive, pressurized environment is a skill we will all find ourselves needing to hone at one point or another. Whether during negotiations between parties in a major merger deal or on the congressional floor at the U.S. Capitol, we will inevitably encounter the infamous debate stage.
So how do we become better debaters? I’d like to suggest a revival of the debate. We didn’t come to Notre Dame to shy away from real issues by playing it safe. Sure, it may be easy to simply engage in dialogue and leave it there out of fear that a step further would invite hatred. But we came to Notre Dame to do hard things, to take that extra step and do what presidential candidates seemingly aren’t able to. We came to learn how to wrestle with difficult topics so that when it matters in the real world, we’re able to change the status quo. We came to reorient the conversation and the debate in this case toward the common good. Dialogue is a fantastic starting point, but it is by wrestling with the nuances of the ideologies we stand beside, by facing the counterarguments posed by our adversaries head-on, that we truly become better citizens.
The beauty of true debate is blurred by the notion of winning. As we increasingly hyperfixate on collecting points and knocking our opponents off their feet, we lose sight of its purpose as rooted in finding a way toward the common good. We spend too much time talking about what we are, when what’s far more important is who we are. Just like you can agree and still be a bad person, you can disagree and still be a good person. The people behind the policies get lost in the contemporary debate because we fail to lead with our values. When we learn to acknowledge the humanity of our opponents, it becomes exponentially more difficult to lob personal attacks and spew hate-based rhetoric.
When we successfully debate when it really matters, we hold the power to solve political conflict in the way our founders intended. We safeguard democracy by proving that it’s possible to present informed arguments in order to create a more informed public. When we are unable to do so, what option is left but coercion? If we fail to have the hard conversations, where does that leave us but a nation that normalizes the easy way out?
The revival of the debate is no easy feat. We have all the reasons to fear a stage that has, in recent years, been the subject of great controversy. But shying away from facing conflict achieves nothing. The only way we can return to a standard of respect is by developing that skill and exercising our muscles to compete cordially. In reviving the debate as a proper channel of respectful competition, we would do well to jump in headfirst. We all dread spinach, but it really is healthy for us.
Join BridgeND on Oct. 8 at 6:30 p.m. in Dahnke Ballroom for our capstone event: ConvergeND. In the spirit of revival, we will be hosting a debate between the very best of College Republicans and College Democrats.
Sophia Combs is a junior from Dallas, Texas living in Lewis Hall. She is a strategic management and political science major and vice president of BridgeND. You may contact Sophia at scombs3@nd.edu.
