Debate What?

"Blow ups and Bombers"
blog entry from Counterpunch

by Alexander Cockburn

In Counterpunch, a left leaning blog edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffery St.Clair, Mr. Cockburn wrote a blog entitled Blow Ups and Bombers. In it, he criticizes the third candidates’ debate, in summation stating that both candidates failed to address the worldwide economic crisis, instead retreating “to mechanical reiteration of their tax plans, their health plans, their plans for Energy Independence…”. Mr. Cockburn then changes from a very balanced criticism to a direct attack on Sen. McCain; first smearing his education, then quoting an e-mail sent to his blog by a “medical researcher” that assesses his current health in terms that paint a very negative picture. Following a few plugs for his newsletter, Mr. Cockburn concludes that the current financial disaster gives the left the best opportunity since the depression to gain control of the government.

Mr. Cockburn’s first point, that of debate criticism, while image laden, does a good job at illustrating the importance of the current financial catastrophe, and how disappointing it is that the candidates failed to adequately address the issue. Mr. Cockburn uses several verifiable facts to back up his argument, and combined with the emotional appeal he calls for with his imagery, creates a compelling argument for a high level of attention that should be applied to the financial crisis. From there he looses balance, and his left leanings show through. Because this is a blog for the more liberal minded, the criticisms against McCain are suited to the audience, but the tactics that he uses are somewhat underhanded.

First, he mentions McCain’s education, implying that because he graduated low in his class, he must somehow be deficient mentally, without taking into consideration how difficult or prestigious the school was that McCain graduated from. Second, he attacks McCain’s appearance, and uses a quote from a source that sounds authoritative to substantiate that McCain is ill, and therefore not fit for the White House.

Both of these arguments contain two obvious logical fallacies. The first is an abusive ad hominem, which is when the arguer uses attacks on the person’s character or physical appearance to discredit his/her position, which Mr. Cockburn utilizes in both the school statement and the health statement. He also uses an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam. These types of appeals are not always fallacious, as when a doctor whose focus is respiratory states, “Smoking is bad for the lungs.” This authority figure has the proper experience to argue against smoking. The “medical researcher” that Mr. Cockburn uses as his authority is somewhat suspect, and leads one to question the researcher’s credibility.

Mr. Cockburn’s conclusion that the left has an opportunity to gain control of the White House has some merit, although his argument for this case is weak. Historically speaking, during times of great upheaval in economic or societal issues, the US goes through a realignment of power, where one party gives way to the other. Certain key issues, such as the financial crisis, the several wars the US are engaged in, and the continual development of civil rights point towards such a time of change. Mr. Cockburn could have presented a more solid argument, without the use of fallacious methods, and still have made the same points.

Slippery Bites

"Debates should be more than sound bites"
by Peter Berkowitz and Emily Messner

Peter Berkowitz and Emily Messner published a commentary in Politico, a media organization based out of Washington, DC that purports to be neutral in matters of politics. Their commentary “Debates should be more than sound bites”, criticizes the current debate format and offers an alternate method of holding debates. While their conclusion that the present debate format is lacking in giving the public solid information about the candidates is valid, their argument against the format is not solid, and the alternate method offered has many flaws.

They open the commentary by stating that the Presidential debates are the “most watched broadcasts on TV”, indicating that because of this they are important to the American people. While it is true that the debates have high Nielsen ratings, further research shows that these ratings are only high for cable viewers, not broadcast, indicating that a large section of the American populous is not watching these debates.

The authors continue on, briefly describing the current debate format, interspersing their description with language that clearly indicates their displeasure with the format. While their description may adequately express their opinion about the current system of debating, as well as give an accurate portrayal of the debating platform, it provides no empirical evidence that the system is in fact dysfunctional and no longer serving its purpose. Perhaps they should have included that according to the Museum TV web site the ratings have been steadily falling, a clear indication that Presidential debates are not holding the attention of the American people.

The writers then bridge from criticism to their alternate debating method. They start with a section showing how the American people would like the debates to allow each side more time to express their ideas, deriving this information from a quote from “The Debate Book” by Ron Faucheux, the current media favorite for quotes. This argument is one of the few solid points in the piece. Unfortunately, they follow with an attempt to prove that moderators are not necessary, using the statement that “Many experts believe that media panels are ineffective” without indicating who these experts are.

While pretty on paper, common sense says that this method would fall apart after the first opening argument. In an effort to out sell his or her opponent, each side would be liable to speak longer than allowed, drift off topic, or throw accusations at the other side. This idea fails to take into account human nature, and human’s desire to win, sometimes at costs that go against conventional norms of behavior.

Overall, this commentary, while correct in its summation that Presidential debates have lost effectiveness, fails to provide solid evidence. The alternate plan offered is based off a slippery slope of logic, thus ensuring an inaccurate conclusion. Because of this lack of facts the strength of the argument is lost, an unfortunate end, for something that is truly an important issue.