Political debate has become a hotly-contested subject amid heightened polarization. Many Americans complain that it is often unproductive and leaves them feeling frustrated. In fact, though, the vast majority of Americans engage in meaningful debates in their everyday lives—with close friends, family members, and coworkers. Yet, the heightened salience of debates in the media and the amplification of negative content online have warped our perceptions about how frequently and in what format people debate with each other.
Nevertheless, it is important to understand how debates are structured and why people misperceive them. The goal of this research is to identify ways that political debate can be more productive and a positive experience for ordinary Americans.
We surveyed a nationally representative sample of individuals who had participated in political debates with their close friends, family members, or coworkers. They were asked to name the topic of the debate, who participated, and where they observed it take place. We then used a controlled experimental design to manipulate the core elements of debate and measured participants’ reactions. We found that providing evidence-based counterarguments, signaling a willingness to compromise, and using a respectful tone each increased the quality of a participant’s response—but only when the treatment was directed toward the specific issue at hand.
The CPD’s debate formats are designed to allow candidates to discuss three critical themes in their nine minutes on the stage—who they are, why they’re running, and what they would do if elected president. To create breakout moments that go down in history, these answers cannot seem canned or scripted; they need to be honest and genuine.