Well, the first presidential debate is over. We watched it on PBS ’cause I’ve always liked PBS and the arbiter (sp?) was from PBS anyway. It also didn’t have strange extras on the screen in the form of dials and meters. This being the first debate I’ve ever watched, I was interested to see what the format would be. I wondered if they’d just sit together and talk about issues, but I guess standing works too. The pundits are going crazy right now on CNN but I’ve really only got half an ear on it. (Being hard-of-hearing, that’s easy to do, actually.) I’ve just been thinking about debates as a form of public speaking in general actually, though I suppose most people out there are thinking about the speakers and the issues they raised.

Personally, I suck at debating. I also suck at arguing. The difference between a debate and an argument to me is whether or not people have researched the topic or have knowledge on it (debate) or if it is emotional and not necessarily based on a worthwhile topic (argument). People debate the issues of welfare, green energy, and foreign policy, but people argue over whose turn it is to take out the trash, whether or not Johnny Clubfoot should date Susie Up-the-block, and the best hot sauce in Mississippi. Regardless of whether the topic is researched or pointless, I suck pretty much either way when it comes to making a point.

I figure there are several key reasons for this. 1) I just don’t care strongly enough about many issues (there are a handful I feel very strongly about such as gay rights, freedom from religion, and green energy), and I therefore neither research the issues nor care to form a strong enough opnion to debate/argue for or against. On issues I don’t feel very strongly about, I’m perfectly fine just accepting that other people’s opinions vary from mine and don’t feel a need to change their mind or my own.

2) I just suck at forming a cogent and coherent defense/offense even for issues I care strongly about. It’s not that I can’t at all; it’s that I don’t do well forming replies, rejoinders, or retaliations on the fly. Yesterday, the husband and I were in LGT talking to his sister Leslie, and she and I agreed we both suffer from similar problems when it comes to handling arguments or debates. We focus so much on listening to the other person, paying attention to what they’re saying and how, and then processing it and considering it, that by the time it gets to our turn to rebut or refute or even to agree, we’re not ready with our own side yet. We take our time, carefully consider what the other person says over hours or even days, and then come up with appropriate and excellent responses to the other person or people. We do come up with the perfect thing to say, but it’s well after the conversation is over generally. So if you were to give me a question or a topic to come up with an argument for (or against), I can do it if you give me time to organize my points and examples. I don’t constantly research these issues or think about these issues all day, so specifics fade such as names, dates, or titles. I know they’re there in my head, but it takes a little time to bring them back to the forefront. I rock at essays and papers; I’m not so great when speaking (which is funny because most people will tell you I talk all the damn time). I guess it’s a matter of simply not memorizing soundbites and factoids to spew out every time someone begins a disagreement. (Honestly, those type of people kind of scare me, kind of like they have no lives or something.)

3) I think a major reason why I’m not so great at debates is because I lecture, not argue. Rather than try to persuade, I try to educate. I have what I refer to as “lecture mode,” and any of my students (and many of my friends) can attest to that side of my personality. I think I get it from Dad. Rather than just give us the answer to a math or science problem, rather than just tell us what his opinion on an issue is, and rather than just explain how something works, Dad gives us all the details and explains it in a way to where we not only understand the answer but also how to be able to reach and find future answers on our own. I learned more about how things work and how problems are solved through Dad’s “lecture mode” simply because he has always sought to educate us instead of just placate us with a quick response. What’s wrong with “lecture mode?” Well, some of us have the patience to learn the history of something or the intricate workings of a thing, but most people really don’t. When in a debate or even an argument, people generally want the quick response and direct route to the end instead of spending time on the route that takes you there. I have lots of patience and am happy to learn about a topic as much as teach about a topic. Unfortunately, the majority of people I’ve run into who like to argue don’t have the patience to hear the history of a thing or the details. They want a clear “pro” or “con,” not discussion but persuasion. I educate; I want people to have the information to be able to make their own decision on a topic (whether it’s with or against me) based on the information and not just because I’m persuasive. Advertisements for buying cars can be persuasive without using a single fact. I don’t like that kind of debate/argument. That’s probably one of the biggest reasons why I suck at debates: I’m not there to persuade someone to change their mind but to give them the tools to help them make their own choice. I guess it’s the Existentialist in me. I insist people make their own choices because no one else can make them. People simply make better choices when they have more information on the issues.

So yeah, I suck at debating. Whether it’s because I don’t feel strongly enough about particular issues, spend so much time listening to the other person that I take my time to form my own side, or spend more time teaching than persuading, all in all it spells a bad debater. My students in my speech classes thought I should start a debate club at the school. I can’t think of a worse person to form and moderate debates than yours truly writing this blog. I am a queen of research, an empress at writing, and maybe even a president of (random) knowledge, but dammit I suck at debates. I applaud the two candidates for being able to talk about these issues together on the stage in front of the nation, but you’ll never see me up there…unless I’m just helping to move the podiums. 🙂