How to Debate in 2022

Try not to say anything of substance

We didn’t have the option of a debate team back in my high school days. I probably would have enjoyed it and maybe have been a reasonable debater.

But I’ve always been fascinated with the form, especially in the political arena. I’m one of those political junkies who watched nearly all of the Republican presidential primary debates in 2016 and Democratic debates in 2020. In both of those contests, there were so many people on stage that it was hard to find anything of substance. The goal was simply to not screw up (most failed).

I’ve only watched one full debate this election cycle, that of my local congressional race.¹ But my addiction to these matters has kept me focused on video clips that come across my Twitter feed.

Senator Mike Lee and Challenger Evan McMullin in Utah Debate

I don’t expect contemporary political debates to be a reprise of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. But I do expect something of substance that will tell us how the candidate would govern if elected. Sadly, today’s formats rarely make that possible. Instead, the debates often appear to be contemporaneous stump speeches given from dueling podiums. And our short attention spans and search for “gotcha” moments and gaffes drive us away from substance. That said, here are my tactics for contemporary debate based upon watching recent election cycles.

1. That was then, this is now. I suppose this is a legacy of the late Tim Russert. In his Meet the Press days, he would bring on a politician after studying all of said candidates’ prior statements. Today, moderators will begin with “Back in 2019, you said…” and ask the candidate to respond.Your preferred response as a candidate is 1) “I never said that” followed by 2) “I’ve developed my position since that point.” Under no circumstances should you say “I was wrong” or “I never meant that, it was just a talking point.” You have a limited time to answer and with luck you can word-salad your way up to the bell. If there’s a follow-up, point out the shifts in position by your opponent, making clear that their hypocrisy is even worse.

2. Focus on the big problem not the narrow policy. In a debate, you may be asked to deal with some specific issue like abortion legislation or gun violence or inflation. Do not address the question at hand — that will force you into specifics you will be required to defend (see previous point). Instead, you need to shift to issues of greater generality that have a longer timeline: “You know, Bob, we really need to deal with the culture of violence throughout society and not focus on gun ownership.” “Bob, inflation is important but we really need to address the deficit.²” “Bob, this is why we need to talk about universal health care as a right.” This tactic is effective because there’s no way that the issues you raised can be disputed but there’s also no way that they can happen even in the intermediate term.

3. Accuse your opponent of being partisan. This tactic shows that you, unlike your opponent, appeals to independent voters. “My opponent voted with Nancy Pelosi 93% of the time.” “My opponent is an extremist who won’t acknowledge that the 2020 election was fairly decided.” This is effective because the opponent is not going to denounce their party or its partisans (thereby lowering support). The opponent has to make a quick denial and then hope we all move on.

4. Make sure you talk in generalities. “I support parental choice in education.” “We need to look out for the needs of working class families.” “We should avoid unnecessarily foreign entanglements.” Given the compressed timeframe of these debates, you’re probably likely to get away with this without having to address what you mean by choice, how we’d help working class families, or what constitutes “unnecessary”.

5. Get overly specific. Alternatively, you can attack you opponent for their lack of support for a bill that did a good thing. True, the bill in question was loaded up with poison pills that made it bad legislation. Or the vote in question was really a procedural vote on an amendment and not legislation at all. Your audience won’t know that and your opponent will look weak if they try to explain.³

6. Be sure to have a surprise handy. This is likely the attack line that you and your staff have been honing for the past week. It might be a decision to hold up a badge some sheriff gave you once. It might be a self-deprecating joke that shows that, unlike your opponent, you aren’t thin-skinned. This is an exceptional strategy to use when there will not be a follow-up debate. You can win the retweets and never have to backtrack.

7. Attack the moderator. We can call this the Newt Gingrich strategy. Declare the question is unfair because it purportedly betrays the moderator’s bias. Spend your time allotment railing about the “gotcha” question and redirect to something you’d rather talk about.

If you follow all these rules, you should be able to make it through the evening’s discussion relatively unscathed. Of course, the voters will be relatively uninformed, albeit momentarily entertained by your witty banter.

There is another path, of course. One could decide to focus on specific and important items that show poor judgment by your opponent or demonstrate their character flaws. If you have your facts straight and can make the case clearly, you can have a serious impact on your race. I have only seen clips of these, but I highly recommend watching the Lee vs. McMullin debate in Utah or the Rubio vs. Demings debate in Florida.

Follow their model and you not only survive the night, but you might just change the trajectory of the entire race.

1. The newly-formed Colorado 8th.

2. Candidates who trot out this particular line never address what they would do to resolve the deficit since they are opposed to increasing revenue but don’t want to talk about budget cuts.

3. Ask President John Kerry.