These days I think about debate and communication all the time. As stated earlier, I'm developing software to assist debate. At my local coffee shop this morning I sat reading the 2008 presidential debate in Mississippi between Obama and McCain (available on the kindle for a few dollars).
This debate is amazing for a few reasons, but right now I want to point out something that is both prevalent in this debate as well as most other debates between candidates with a voting track record (and they always have a track record): there is often disagreement about voting history and position. Let me give some examples from the debate mentioned above:
McCain: Now, Senator Obama didn't mention that, along with his tax cuts, he is also proposing some $800 billion in new spending on new programs ...
Obama: I -- I don't know where John is getting his figures.
And again...
McCain: And so, again, look at the record, particularly the energy bill. But, again, Senator Obama has shifted on a number of occasions. He has voted in the United States Senate to increase taxes on people who make as low as $42,000 a year.
Obama: Thats not true, John. That's not true.
McCain: And that's just a fact. Again, you can look it up.
Obama: Look, its just not true.
And again:
McCain: ...Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq.
Obama: That's not true.
And again:
McCain: Admiral Mullen suggests that Senator Obama's plan is dangerous for America.
Obama: That's not the case.
And again:
McCain: No one from Arizona is against solar. And Senator Obama says he's for nuclear, but he's against reprocessing and he's against storing. So...
Obama: That's just not true, John. John, I'm sorry but that's not true.
It's not my intention for this to seem so lop-sided. There is in fact not a single instance of McCain saying "that's not true" in the debate. This blog entry has nothing to do with my political views. I'm trying to point out one of the problems with our current form of debate. And below, I'm going to propose a solution.
The U.S. Open has come and gone, with an amazing upset, Del Potro beat Federer! I was fortunate enough to attend one day, and saw first hand a practice in tennis that did not exist in my youth. Players are now able to challenge a line call up to three times per set. A computer would show on the big screen, down to the centimeter where the ball landed, and determine the proper line call.
As I was watching this, (and you can guess where I'm going), I thought, "man, this is what we need in debate!"
So here is how it would work:
When a debater makes a remark pertaining to their opponent's voting history or view, the opponent is allowed to "Challenge." This requires the accuser to state their source. So for the second example above (regarding taxing people who make below $42,000 / year), McCain would be required to name the bill to which he is referring, since in this case Obama would clearly "challenge". Furthermore, each candidate's voting history would be on hand, and accessible to a team of experts who would assist. Just like the computer in tennis, they would be able to quickly determine the truth about such accusations. To keep opponents from challenging every single accusation, there could be a limit. Say three challenges per Lead Question.
As the debate proceeds, there would be a running tally of Challenges to which the accuser was wrong -- something which would look very bad, and thus something opponents would want to avoid.
This would add much needed accountability to these most important of events.
