The Mock Debate that Made a Joke of its Real-Life Counterpart

Students at BC have been catching election fever with all of the BC VOTES initiative around campus, and the event then night of Wednesday, October 8 was yet another way for students to really get into the current politics of the country. The event was a mock debate, with Mike Reer arguing the side of the Republicans and Senator John McCain, and Josh Darr presenting the views of the Democrats and Senator Barak Obama, and the debate was moderated by Professor David Deese. In format, the debate was similar to the real presidential debates, although with a wider view - questions were asked from five issue areas, and "candidates" were given up to two minutes to speak on each question. After the pre-determined questions were asked, the "candidates" were also given time to ask their opponent a question a question relating to the issue area. At the very end of the debate, the "candidates" were posed questions that had been written by the audience during the debate.

The beginning of the debate was somewhat predictable - the "candidates" mainly stuck to talking about the issues as their true counterparts had debated them, so the discussion was not initially fresh or new. After a while, though, the debate seemed to loosen up, and the "candidates" started talking about the issues in ways that were not necessarily memorized from prior presidential debates, which got the audience more excited and interested about the points brought up. Professor Desse complimented Mike and Josh throughout the debate on how respectful they were of one another and how well they stayed within the time limits. Their good presentation was also visual, as both wore suits, and both wore presidential-looking red ties.

On the issues, Josh Darr pointed out that the US needed to regain its status on the international stage by having a charismatic leader who would work well with our "European Allies". Later, Mike Reer made and interesting argument about victory in  Iraq, explaining that in a way, there were two wars being fought - one versus Saddam Hussein, and one versus the insurgency. As the debate went on, the opponents began to drop the characters of their respective parties' presidential nominees and moved into speaking from their own views and experiences, which actually made the debate more intelligent and enjoyable. Both Mike and Josh were able to pull on knowledge of their own (that their candidates do not necessarily have or express) in order to make their points, giving legitimacy to their arguments. It was clear that the debaters could come to much more sensible solutions than the actual candidates, probably due to the fact that they do not have to pander to party constituents and platforms, a fact that was not overlooked by the audience, who were attentive throughout the night.

The debaters really made the even worth attending. Mike and Josh were willing to agrees on certain aspects of their opinions without gritting their teeth about it, which was a refreshing change to the terse similarities acknowledged by the actual presidential candidates. When prompted to ask one another questions, the two opponents asked thoughtful questions and received thoughtful, polite answers. And throughout the night, Mike and Josh were amusing and engaging, getting lots of applause from the audience. The mock debate was definitely the remedy to the prior night's debate's lack of new ideas, and seemed to inspire much more intelligent discussion in its aftermath.