Do you agree that debates are like boxing matches? Do you believe they add value to the public’s understanding of the candidates, or are they an outdated tradition?

In discussing the Lincoln-Douglas debate, Owen opines that the debates are like boxing matches (p. 147). Do you feel the comparison is apt?

Are today’s presidential and vice-presidential debates similarly combative, or do you feel they’re more reasoned? Do you believe they add value to the public’s understanding of the candidates, or are they an outdated tradition?

Unfortunately that comparison does have some validity for the times in which we currently live, but at the end of the day I would imagine most educated and civil people would prefer a debate be an exchange of ideas and different points of view without devolving into the proverbial "boxing match."

I actually, in my answer about speeches, also brought up the importance of debates. The last few debates certainly have been like boxing matches. You learn a lot when you hear and see how the candidates treat each other and how they speak to each other. I would like to cite some examples but will not!!

Debates can be like boxing matches, especially if the moderators lose control of the debate. I much prefer a formal debate to a canned political speech. In our contemporary society, I'm not sure the listeners are aware enough of the topics to understand the issues, and the debates become personality matches.

In the pas t the debates might have been more valuable because one learned more about the candidates and issues and the moderators were more often in control. Partially this is because of media including social media coverage and expectation for entertainment and lack of moderator control so it often seems like a boxing match or popularity contest to many. Even with this format one can learn about the candidates personal qualities under pressure which is essential for a president.

This description in the book as I read made me pause to think about describing it that way and is part of what I enjoyed when reading this book. I loved the analogy of a boxing ring and debate! I believe debates are not outdated as we can always learn about the candidates by listening and watching body language as well as their words as they engage in stating their beliefs and passions as well as positions. Words alone can be deceiving but seeing how people engage is always telling.

I agree that debates are helpful in learning about the candidates. They give us a better understanding of each person when under pressure from their peers and the public.

Debates allow us to get a better understanding of the candidates position on issues. The moderator needs to control the debate not to allow one speaker to dominate.

In many ways, debates are very much like boxing matches. There are always little barbs or jabs which candidates seem to slip in, often when it not expected, and these can become real heavy punches and even knock-outs if the moderator is not firmly in control. I do believe debates remain an important part of present-day election process. Just to see all the contenders aligned, side-by-side, in real time without special editing effects, provides a visual and auditory opportunity that special televised ads or speeches does not allow.

I think they used to be very important. Candidates weren't covered 24x7 and didn't have as many outlets for the message as they do today.

While I think the news media is vital to our country and that many sources do try to provide an unbiased account, there's now an emphasis on the entertainment value of the news. The news has to be exciting to get people to watch, and the number of people watching relates to revenue. Consequently, the debates have become more about scoring a point off the other guy than a discussion of the issues. So if anything, they're even more like boxing matches than they used to be.

(Remember the Bentsen/Quayle debate? "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy..." LOL. That was a pretty good one. Guess I'm dating myself!)

Funny thing...I used to work in professional sports and in later years got involved in politics. There are so many parallels. So yes debates very much can be like boxing matches. I think they have become "the wild west" again as they have been in previous decades. There may have been a time when debates were a little calmer, however verbal jabs are always a part of the game.

I do think they are now combative. Each is just trying to get attention. You can't believe what they say. Definitely outdated.