The Absurdity of Drive-by Debate Formats
[editor's note, by Allan Louden] This article is from Brian McGee , Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Communication at the College of Charleston. His research interests include rhetoric and race, and political communication. He edited Contemporary Argumentation and Debate Journal
Here's a short summary of the format: This debate gave each candidate a one-minute opening statement and a one-minute closing statement. After the opening statements, two journalists took turns asking questions, with the candidates receiving 90 seconds to respond to each question, followed by optional 30-second rebuttals for the candidates. The questions frequently were multi-part, and the candidates were not always asked the same questions. The entire enterprise was completed in 55 minutes.
Of course, any experienced politician can manage the standard set of talking points in 90 seconds. However, this format essentially guaranteed superficiality. There was no plan for follow-up questions by the journalists, and the 30-second rebuttals provided only enough time to discern that the candidates disagreed on, for example, the likelihood of a successful military outcome in Afghanistan. The format allowed for displays of passion, sarcastic one-liners, and signs of experience in public speaking, but reasons were rarely stated for the positions the candidates summarized.
