Debating Debates

When debates are first mentioned, we tend to imagine a more modern version of one. You know, an academic/scholarly/professional setting, a mediator to keep track of time, and some people discussing  a variety of issues in about five minute intervals. But before these modern versions of debates there was a different type of debate, the Lincoln-Douglas style. Unlike modern debates which normally last for approximately 30 minutes, these debates would be hours and hours on end, with each side usually getting at least two hours to speak their part. During these times, it wasn't uncommon for them to pause the debate, dismiss the crowd to eat dinner, and return later for the second half. Despite all of the differences mentioned above, there is a more subtle yet intriguing difference between these debate styles.

During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, both speakers were able to fully and comprehensively explain their point. They had hours to make their case and were able to build the foundation of their argument with facts, background, and more in-depth explanation. In terms of being a participant in the debate, this opportunity to completely get the point across explained to the audience the reason behind why the speaker said what they said, and the audience, in turn, was able to analyze, dwell on, and respond (in their head) to that information. The audience member could, if they wanted to, have a full discussion and cite information given in that debate only, since so much of it was given.

Now a days, during a debate, participants get only a few minutes to state their argument, position, and  some backup information. While the time cut of a debate was inevitable and necessary for today's day and age, it also means that the speakers are robbed of the opportunity to completely state their argument. Since there are gaps in what they get the chance to say, a lot of blanks are individually filled in by the each member of the audience themselves. This leaves a lot of gray area to discuss, a lot of potential points to address, and even information that could be misinterpreted and mistakingly taken the wrong way. Unfortunately, in these modern debate styles, people are unable to address everything, like they could with the previous debate format. Since these compact versions of debates spark controversy and discussion but are not given the full amount of time needed to wholly delve into the topic, members of the audience draw their own conclusions and make their own points, basing them only off of what was said in two minutes.

As the audience members depart and talk about the debate they've just seen, or when the debate is shared on social media, many people don't do the necessary background research needed to take a stand on the debate topic. With so many people taking so many different, and even contradicting, things away from a debate, this leaves opportunity for individual debates amongst people about the original debate itself. Which side was right? Which speaker left out which important fact? Who answered the questions more directly? These are just beginning points of where the discussion would start, but as for where it goes, the possibilities are endless.

Before, debates were just that- debates. Each side came, said what they needed to say, the audience heard what they needed to hear, points were made, and a conclusion was drawn. Today, these shorter debates seem to double as both a mini version of what was happening before as well as a spark igniting the flame of discussion and debate among more and more people, and potentially reaching far beyond the audience in attendance. I can't help but wonder, what would Postman think of this? What do you think of this?  Do the shorter debate times make them more "amusing"?