# Why not a "Lincoln-Douglas"-style debate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 17, 2004, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-a-lincoln-douglas-style-debate/264780 "2004-09-17T02:21:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-a-lincoln-douglas-style-debate/264780/21 "2004-09-20T17:04:52Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > So what? I’m not suggesting allowing as much **time** for the debates as Lincoln and Douglas got. I’m talking about the **format** – having the candidates face off and go at it head-to-head, give-and-take, instead of taking turns addressing questions posed by a moderator. They would have to compress their answers to sound-bite length, of course – but it would be a truly exciting spectacle! At least, by the standards of political debates. True enough. I’m being a bit hypertechnical- but if you read the L-D debates, there really wasn’t that much direct questioning between the two. What they did was more like interwoven speeches with some interruption and direct questioning, what you propose (and I agree) is just ask each other questions. It would be great fun. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-a-lincoln-douglas-style-debate/264780/22 "2004-09-20T17:13:47Z")
Does anyone really think that the general public \*\*wants \*\*these types of debates? I do, as a political junkie. But I can’t see the general public, even those who whine about too much mudslinging and too little discussion of the issues, really wanted to sit through 90 minutes of serious issue-oriented debate. Imagine the ratings for Jack Kemp vs Al Gore in such a format. ---
**Author:** ![Mal\_Adroit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df788c/32.png) [@Mal\_Adroit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mal_Adroit)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-a-lincoln-douglas-style-debate/264780/23 "2004-09-20T17:17:49Z")
> [@Patty O'Furniture](#): > > Now, while this explains why Gore was (or should have been) advantaged, it doesn’t explain why he ended up losing 2/3rds of the debates. . . Gore came off as a blowhard and Bush as a likeable ol’ uncle George. This blew my mind. The logical assumption was that cooly articulate Gore would have Bush looking like a Tourette’s patient. That didn’t even come close to happening. And Gore _did_ come across as a blowhard, but the main reason he couldn’t really make mincemeat out of George had more to do with the weasly limitations of today’s debates. A town-hall arrangement would be startlingly illuminating with such an incompetent man as Bush in the crosshairs. It’s no coincidence he’s held less press conferences than any president in recent history. ---
**Author:** ![Voodoochile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/898d66/32.png) [@Voodoochile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voodoochile)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-a-lincoln-douglas-style-debate/264780/24 "2004-09-20T17:23:03Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > To be honest, I don’t think today’s Americans have the attention span to watch a debate in the true Lincoln Douglas tradition. > … > When I read the texts of these debates- it occurred to me that not only were the candidates much more long-winded than today, but the audience was expected to have known about these issues and also was expected to follow some very long and tedious speaking. These were the days before sound bites. I honestly don’t believe that either of the candidates would be up to the challenge of this format, nor do I think the audience is equipped to follow it. Three minutes of this and it would be flipping to MTV for a lot of people. Well, I doubt anyone back then had the attention span to watch them either. But then watching them wasnt important, reading them was. How about a debate that isnt televised, only printed? Televised debates can be won/lost by things that have nothing to do with the words spoken (Gores childish eye rolling as one of many examples). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-a-lincoln-douglas-style-debate/264780.md?page=1)