How to Watch a Debate

I used to love presidential election years when I taught English. While social studies teachers of all stripes could tie in, practically, all sorts of topics from their field, an election season is also the prime time to talk about the bread and butter of the nonfiction parts of the course: argument and debate.

I won’t focus on this most recent debate, which prompted my thinking, but I want to share the idea of how to watch a debate. It is a situation with national stakes; we aren’t intended to be passive listeners.

While usually I would lay this out for my students in a graphic organizer, I’ll just go through the questions you should ask yourself (and trust you’ll make the organizer for yourself if you want it).

Question #1: What was Asked?

Debates involve the candidates being asked questions by the moderator or moderators. If you’re going to be an informed viewer, who is capable of thinking through a debate, you have to start with the simplest question: what was actually asked?

If there is a distinct chance to respond to the other candidate, you might leave this box blank or just write “response.”

Question #2: What did the Candidate Answer?

This is usually a large part of the graphic organizer. For this part, I had my students make bullet points for each distinct statement/argument/subject the candidate said in their answer. Though candidates are usually limited on their time, they can often fit quite a bit into the answer!

It is important that you don’t move on to the other questions while the debate is ongoing. If questions are being asked and answers are being given, you should just focus in on what is being said without any further analysis or assessment.

But, at the commercial break or after the debate, you should ask:

Question #3: Did the Candidate Answer the Question?

This is not as simple as it might seem. I taught my students that there are three answers, but there’s really four (now):

1. Yes.
2. Pivot (They answered the question, but chose to focus on a different topic with their time— likely one they feel stronger on.)
3. Dodge (They may have acknowledged the question, but they changed subjects so quickly that they didn’t give a full response.)
4. No. (This one used to be something I wouldn’t have included. It’s sometimes hard to tell with a particular candidate how they got to a subject.)

Question #4: What Were They Doing?

By this I am asking, as the candidate is making an argument, what kind of argument are they trying to make? What is their strategy? Specifically, I’m looking at if the argument is Ethos, Pathos, or Logos. For each distinct subject/argument/statement, I had my students write an E, P, or L.

All candidates are still trying to influence you at a debate, you’re a better, more thoughtful viewer if you watch with this in mind.

Question #5: How Hard was this Question for the Candidate?

This question is not so much about whether or not the candidate has a hard time answering the question, but whether or not this question was favorable or seemed to be trying to hold them to account for a policy or action. This is a hard question to answer if you don’t follow politics. I had my students circle one of the following choices:

1. Easy (A “softball” question, like asking Trump about immigration.)
2. Neutral (A question that seems to be neither.)
3. Hard (A question that focuses on a weak point or perceived weak point, such as asking Harris about Afghanistan.)

This can also be where you note if you feel like they succeeded. A candidate succeeds on an easy question? Duh! A candidate flops an hard one, of course. But when they do the opposite, it can say a lot. A candidate who isn’t able to answer an easy question ought to lose a lot of “points” in your estimation; a candidate who is able to answer the hard questions in a real way is usually able to swing some voters.

Question #6: What does the Fact-check Say?

Sometimes a candidate will be fact-checked by their competitor or by a moderator, but it’s sometimes best to go and check facts from one of the most notable fact checkers; my favorite is FactCheck.org for being distinctly nonpartisan. They always have a rundown of debates for what statements were true and what statements were less than true (or downright false). This might not be done until the following day.

Finally: Write an Analysis

Even if I had my students share their thoughts, something I admit I got away from as politics became more charged, I still had them write out their thoughts based on the information. Which candidate answered the most questions? Which candidate seemed to make better (logos) arguments? Which candidate was trying to manipulate with emotional (pathos) arguments? Was the debate fair, based on the questions? (You might also ask if it was fair based on if the moderators were capable of stopping a candidate from interrupting.) Did the candidates stick to the facts, even if they have differing viewpoints?

Ideally, both candidates would answer questions fully, use logic more than emotional pulls, follow the rules of the debate, and stick to the facts. I would say that the more a candidate breaks with this overall ideal, the less fit for your vote they are.

But why write your own analysis if you’re NOT doing this for an assignment? Often we don’t know what we really think or feel until we write or talk it out. Talking it out can be combative or might sway your opinion before you know where you’re leaning; I view writing as the safer option.

Thank you for reading!

If you enjoyed this post or you learned something, consider donating to keep the lights on. Best wishes!