Leaders’ Debates, Do They Matter?

No KO? No problem. Debates aren’t prizefights — they’re previews.

Commentators seem to agree that there was no Good Friday Massacre at the debates this week. It’s true that the two debates were quite boring — which was perhaps a feature, not a bug, in the present geopolitical context. But it raises the question again: do debates still matter? Have they ever?

When a hyped-up UFC fight doesn’t end with a KO, fans are usually disappointed. It’s a similar vibe in politics — but people forget that a debate is only one round in a longer fight. The real KOs happen at the ballot box. If candidates don’t land a fatal blow during the debate skirmishes, they might still plant a seed — one that changes the conversation or even derails their opponent’s campaign.

In 2021, I worked on the Liberal campaign. Beyond writing speeches for the leader, one of my tasks was to build a binder with answers and catchy lines on every topic under the sun. On September 2nd, during the TVA debate (yes, the one that didn’t happen this time around), Justin Trudeau caught Erin O’Toole being unclear about his plan on gun control. He had even memorized the precise page of the Conservative platform where it said they wanted to repeal a law banning assault-style firearms. After that, the Liberal team changed their plans for the following week to focus mostly on guns — they changed the conversation and stopped slipping in the polls.

In the United States last fall, everyone agreed that Donald Trump lost his debate against Kamala Harris. But in his unique style — making outrageous claims about people eating pets — he managed to put himself back at the centre of attention, where he loves to be. And in the end, it benefited him.

So yes, debates still matter — and they should stay. They’re part of the great oratory tradition of democracy. Just like democratic speeches. In an interview many years ago about the art of public speaking, the founder of the Bloc Québécois and former Québec Premier once said:

"They take their cues from the greats of Antiquity—Cicero, Demosthenes—who authored foundational texts on rhetoric. To them, oratory was more than spectacle; it was an act of civilization. They were master educators."

When he said it in French, “act of civilization” was originally faire œuvre de civilisation — a beautiful way of putting it.

But as technology evolves, so does faire œuvre de civilisation. Think of the 1960 presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. It marked a turning point in political communication: the dawn of television. It’s often said that those who listened on the radio thought Nixon had won, impressed by his arguments and experience. But for TV viewers, it was different — they saw a pale, visibly sweating Nixon next to a calm, confident, camera-ready Kennedy. Viewers overwhelmingly declared JFK the winner.

I’ve read a lot of people online over the past few months who would like to do away with debates and speeches altogether, because they see them as inauthentic. They’d rather replace it all with long-form conversations on podcasts.

I completely agree that it’s useful to listen to a three-hour, unscripted conversation to get a better sense of who a candidate is — without a host firing off questions like a firing squad. It can bring nuance and humanity into political discourse.

But some people seem to forget that these types of conversations can be just as inauthentic — and perhaps more perniciously so. What sounds natural and unrehearsed might simply be a candidate who has perfected the art, like an actor would — a kind of Trojan horse of authenticity.

What if what we need is a little bit of everything? Podcasts, debates, speeches, social media, humour, serious questions, platforms and numbers (released not too late) — a healthy mix for a healthy democracy. A little bit of everything, just with less toxicity and cynicism.