I've recently found Democracy Now's The War and Peace Report on a local public radio station (KPFK). On their August 7, 2009 show they featured a roughly 30 minute debate on the situation in Honduras.
As a professor of speech communication and a debate coach for over a decade I was very interested in how Democracy Now would hold and format their "Debate." I have often mulled hosting a radio debate show and wanted to see how it went.
In my opinion, it turned out very, very poorly because a few fundamental rules for debating/arguing were not respected. In light of the disruptive town hall meetings I thought I would share some of my thoughts on what can make a productive debate/town hall.
:: A Debate ::
As an overview, I think it's first important to agree what the purpose of a debate is - so that we can accurately measure whether or not the debate was successful. A debate, in my definition, is structured disagreement on a topic for both the discovery of truth and the education of an audience.
A debate is uniquely suited to the discovery of truths because it purposely sets opposing views against each other to discover the merits of each position. If one debater makes the argument that the political institutions in Honduras are corrupt, a rebuttal is offered, and the truth is more likely to bubble to the top a la Mill's marketplace of ideas theory. On the other hand, an interview or persuasive speech often purposefully leaves out a counter point in order to make the speaker's point of view seem stronger. So a debate, in order to find truth, purposefully sets arguments side-by-side to determine the best argument. Much like a running race - without two individual next to each other determining who is faster is just opinion. The race (and the debate) allow for us to make a more informed decision as to the truth.
Which brings me to the second part of my definition of a debate - the education of the audience. The two debaters are presumed to know what they are talking about or else they would not have been selected. The audience, on the other hand, is presumed to either 1) not know the facts or 2) be undecided on the question for the debate knowing the facts. Thus, debaters often will present facts to their audience in arguing their points to educate the audience (now, of course, people can disagree about facts which brings us back the first part of the definition about finding truth). Furthermore, the very act of the debate brings the subject to the attention of the audience as an important issue that we should be concerned about. We often do not debate, especially on a national radio show, trivial topics. So the fact that a debate was held at all is a message to the audience that this is an important topic.
There may be many more aspects to a definition of a debate but those two overarching principles are at the core of debate for me. Using those two metrics (truth and education), the debate on Democracy Now did not live up to it's potential for the following X reasons.
:: The Topic ::
The first mistake was not having a solid explicit topic for the debate. Amy Goodman, the host, introduced the debate as:
we host a debate on the situation in Honduras
That is an ambiguous topic which gives no direction as to the focus or purpose of the discussion. As such, the two debaters are able to go in any direction related to the "situation in Honduras." This is bad for the debate because it does not allow us to focus in on finding truth. Any time the discussion moves away from the interest of one of the debaters he/she can simply slide to another position related to the situation in Honduras and be topical in the debate.
Instead, a more focused debate would keep the debaters on track and the discussion focused on what needs to be debated. As an alternative, having heard the entire discussion, the topic could have been any one of the following:
- There was a Coup d'état in Honduras
- Zelaya should immediately be returned to full power
- The actions of the Honduras military were justified
- The United States should restrict trade with Honduras
With any of those topics, the debate would have been more focused and allowed for greater truth and education. Now, the moderator could have structured the debate where 5 minutes would be spent on each topic to allow for a broader discussion but then the debate would have been more segmented into 4 different debates where the participants and audience know what the topic is for each section.
Furthermore, there clearly would have been two opposing sides where Mr. Davis and Mr. Grandin would have presented the arguments for an against each position allowing the audience to better understand the issue.
:: The Participants ::
The two participants in the debate were:
Lanny Davis, attorney and lobbyist for the Honduran chapter of the Business Council of Latin America.
Greg Grandin, professor of Latin American history at NYU and author of Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism.
The selection of the Lanny Davis to represent one side of the debate was a poor choice. As disclosed repeatedly on the show Lanny Davis was appearing representing:
a group of business community people called CEAL, who would be the equivalent of the Chamber of Commerce. It’s the Latin American Business Council of Honduras.
One of the principles of the legal field is that the attorney should be a dispassionate surrogate for the participants. This is to ensure that emotions and self-interest is minimized in the trial. There is a famous adage that a lawyer representing himself has a fool for a client.
For this debate, Mr. Davis was not a disinterested participant. He has something to gain if his side wins. Thus, while I impinge no bad motives on Mr. Davis, his inclusion in the debate could have been better. If Professor Grandin makes an especially compelling point it is in Mr. Davis' interest to dodge the discussion and move on to another point more favorable to their side.
To his credit, Mr. Davis did concede that the method in which President Zelaya was ousted was inappropriate. However, many times in the debate he pivoted the discussion to different points such as his initial ad hom attack on the moderator, his numerous calls to pay attention to the supreme court decision, etc... Mr. Davis has an interest in skewing the debate to represent his clients well, not for the education of the audience.
If we were truly going to have a debate and seeking truth, then any interested person with knowledge on the topic could have been selected excluding individuals, like Mr. Davis, who has a clear interest in one side of the story winning. In most situations, even lawyers that lose their clients case are still paid for their work.
:: A strong Moderator ::
In academic debating that I participate in there is very structured time limits, speech orders, and rules for when debaters can make new arguments. A good debate needs a strong moderator who will ensure that the audience's interest in finding truth and learning about the subject are paramount - not the individual speaker's interest in representing their side.
I'm not sure as to the motives of Mr. Davis for immediately laying out an attack on the credibility of Ms. Goodman:
I do want to say that I appeared on Democracy Now! with the assurance, Amy, that you would be a neutral moderator, yet your opening is an ideological rant that distorts the facts. For example, you said that Mr. Zelaya accepted the Arias accords. In fact, Mr. Zelaya rejected President Arias’s proposal, and the government of Mr. Micheletti has announced, and has, in fact, said it would continue to discuss. So, let’s get the facts straight before we go any further.
One possible reason, however, was to assert power in the discussion and discredit Ms. Goodman as a moderator. When Mr. Davis would veer off topic or misrepresent the other side, the audience may have a doubt that Ms. Goodman is being a fair moderator and instead is slanting the debate against Mr. Davis winning him brownie points with the audience.
This is also where having the more structured topics would have helped. Rather then having such an open ended discussion where Mr. Davis could bring up any points he wanted the debate would have been more focused and Ms. Goodman would have more authority to cut off irrelevant points.
Additionally, throughout the interview, the two participants constantly interrupted each other, which is the sign of a bad debate and a weak moderator. Ms. Goodman should have been more strict to ensure that each debater could finish their point and allow the audience to fully understand the argument. Instead, both Mr. Grandin and Mr. Davis were given almost free reign to cut each other off when the person's argument was becoming too compelling to one side. Indeed, the debaters began keeping score of how many times each other interrupted each other giving almost tacit approval for the practice as long as it was even.
Instead, Ms. Goodman should have insisted, perhaps with muting of people's microphones (a la Around the Horn) to ensure that each debater would be respected when presenting their point.
:: Distinguishing Fact versus Opinion ::
Most debates loosely mix facts versus opinions to the determinant of the listening audience. When I teach argumentation we always go over the importance of critical thinking and listening to ensure that the audience members are not taken advantage of in the debate when participants present opinion as fact.
This debate is such a good example of this I plan on using it this semester for my students to dissect.
For example, in this debate there became a factual discrepancy on whether or not the accords proposed by Costa Rican President Arias proposal.
Mr. Davis says, from the beginning:
... the facts. For example, you said that Mr. Zelaya accepted the Arias accords. In fact, Mr. Zelaya rejected President Arias’s proposal, and the government of Mr. Micheletti has announced, and has, in fact, said it would continue to discuss. So, let’s get the facts straight before we go any further.
Which Mr. Grandin responds with:
Two weeks ago, right when the talks broke down, when Arias presented his seven-point plan, Zelaya almost immediately accepted them. And Oscar Arias came out and gave a press conference in which he regretted the fact that Micheletti, the leader of the new regime, the coup government in Honduras, rejected the accords, while Zelaya accepted them fully.
So here we have a difference of fact - who rejected them and who accepted them? Here, we have an example of a strong moderator in response:
AMY GOODMAN: Lanny Davis, are saying that the coup president right now, Roberto Micheletti, has accepted the Arias accords?
LANNY DAVIS: No, he has taken each element of the Arias accords, which would not, by the way, permit another inaccuracy in your ideological introduction. The Arias accords would not permit Mr. Zelaya to return as president as he was president. He would be restricted from doing anything contrary to the Constitution, such as he is not allowed to support the constitutional so-called referendum, which was found to be, by the Supreme Court, to be unconstitutional. Mr. Arias said that is not permitted. He has to have a coalition government composed of all parties, not just his own. So he would not be allowed to return as president, and that’s really why he rejected accepting all of the elements of the Arias proposal.
And later Mr. Grandin:
I was in Honduras when Micheletti rejected the accords and then backpedaled and said that he would accept some of them or that he would reject
So which is it? Mr. Davis then jumps on Mr. Grandin as changing his story. But here, we have a question of fact, which is then treated as opinion - something to debate.
As you can see from the excerpt I provided this presents a lot of confusion to the audience and cuts down the credibility of the participants. If we can not agree to the facts of the case how can we then settle on our opinion for the topic? Again, I think this is where a strong moderator is required to have command of the facts and keep the two sides honest. Who accepted and reject the accords is not an issue to debate, per se. It is a fact and something to which both sides and the moderator, having reviewed the evidence, should be able to agree. If Ms. Goodman, as a strong moderator, knows that Mr. Davis is presenting inaccurate facts she should immediately call him on it, correct the record, and move on with the debate. It does no one service to allow inaccurate facts to continue to take up time and energy of the participants.
:: Town halls ::
The preceding discussion leads to numerous recommendations for the town hall meetings that members of Congress are holding:
- Topic
Most of the material I've read on the town halls report that the topic for discussion is similar to the topic announced for the Democracy Now! debate: a debate on health care reform.
This is simply too broad to allow for a meaningful focused discussion or debate. Instead, the discussion can include any number of topics including the birther movement since President Obama is a part health care reform are technically relevant.
My recommendation would be for events to announce a more directed focus such as "Understanding the public option" or "How the health care reform bill changes existing policies" etc.. The event could also use a sequence of topics to ensure that questions are relevant to the particular subject of discussion at the moment.
- Moderator
Interruptions to the discussion should not be tolerated in any instance. If the participants in the town hall do not respect each other enough to listen to the discussion they should be removed from the meeting immediately. The freedom of speech guarantees all voices will be heard which commands everyone to listen to everyone else as well.
If participants are randomly shouting or booing when a congress person or another audience member is trying to speak they should be shown the door immediately without recourse. Their interruption has demonstrated their interest is not in learning or arguing but instead in disrupting.
Quiet grumblings here and can be meet with stern looks or warning but indiscriminate yelling should have a zero tolerance.
I would also recommend that the event feature a 3rd party moderator rather than the member of congress. That way the moderator can act as a filter between the audience members and the member of congress to screen out irrelevant or disruptive questions. He or she can also act as the "bad guy" to the audience so that the anger is not directed at the member of congress.
- Fact v Opinion
As I've read what has been going on in most town halls the distinction between fact and opinions is the number one cause of the disruptions. Often times, audience members will ask the congress member a question of fact, ie, "Does the health care reform bill kill off seniors?"
When the congress member answers NO, as a fact, they are met with boos and "liar" from the audience member. If the audience member is going to call the congress member a liar after answering a factual question then arguably the audience member already knew the answer to the question and thus is calling out the congress member for misrepresenting the fact.
A much BETTER question to ask would be one of opinion: "Would you support a health care reform bill that kills off seniors?" Then the congress member could answer Yes or No and present his or her opinion. Ostensibly, the participants can look up their own answers to factual questions by reading the bill themselves.
If, instead, an audience member is seeking education at the town hall, then calling the congress member a "liar" when inquiring about facts is inauthentic and should be shown the door. Their presence at town hall is not beneficial and the event organizers have a duty to the rest of the audience members to remove disruptive members.
:: The Bottom Line ::
While audience members may have been entertained I doubt many people walked away from hearing that debate changing their mind or feeling like they know more about the topic. The drama of the event overshadowed the need for truth and education. It's a classic bait and switch. It's also why these events make such good news and attract more people want to distract. If instead of people going crazy the event was a good debate that helped people understand what actually was going on then the news would not have much to cover.
But the participants would walk away with helpful information that could allow them to make more informed decisions.
Rather than an open town hall discussion I would recommend that members of congress hold debates - these would prove more beneficial to the audience and our country. The fact they would make for uninteresting TV does not concern me one bit.