Government 101

[MUSIC PLAYING] - Hello, everyone. Welcome to the first full-length episode of the Government 101 podcast, a podcast run by Minnesota State Mankato students and faculty that aims to help you understand and navigate modern US politics and government.

Today, in anticipation for the upcoming vice presidential debate, we'll be talking about debates, both how candidates prepare to debate each other and how you can prepare to watch them. I'm your host, Taylor Tambornino, a political science student here at MSU. And joining me today are Kat Brunner, director of speech and debate and assistant professor in the Department of Communication and Media, and Manny Reyes, assistant debate coach at MSU with a master's in communication and a bachelor's degree in political science. Thank you both for being here.

- Thanks for having us.

- Yeah, thank you.

- Now, I would consider you both to be much more versed in debates than the average person. You've participated, I'm sure, in your fair share. How do you generally prepare for a debate of this type?

- So I think a big preparation for a vice presidential debate and most debates are just a lot of preparation beforehand, collaboration with maybe your teammates or people on your staff, just to make sure that you have all your notes in order, essentially, to go forward with the debate. I think a couple other things that are important to keep in mind are just understanding your opponent or your potential opponents in the debate just to make sure what kind of arguments are going to be stated and what kind of responses that you should prepare, stuff like that.

- Yeah, absolutely. I know that oftentimes, the vice presidential candidates will have debate rehearsals with specific people that they have chosen. They will have someone come in to play the role of their opponent. Is that something either of you have any experience with?

- Honestly, it's funny because I think we talk a lot with our students about what we do is so much different than what they're going to see on TV. And yet how we prepare is so similar, because as students work with Manny, who's our head debate coach, they're running mock debates prior to tournaments for weeks on end. So they're getting used to recognizing no matter where I stand on any one issue, seeing where the other person is-- or seeing what arguments they're going to make, understanding how you can refute those arguments. And I think that that's very similar to what's going on behind the scenes, whether or not the actual debate ends up looking that way.

- That is absolutely something that is fascinating to hear about, exactly how similar they are and also how the end product can look so different between the two.

So with you talking about the end product looking very different, when watching a vice presidential debate or any sort of national-stage debates, what sort of things do the two of you look for in terms of those debates? Any particular strategies?

- I think a big thing I look out for is their opening statements and how they set the tone for the debate. I think it's a big tell of what they plan and how they plan to perform throughout the debate. If a certain candidate comes out very stern, very strong, and be more focused on policy issues, then I see that as more of a-- let's get down to the information at hand, and let's talk about it, as opposed to someone who might maybe take a dig or two at their opponent. And then you can see what kind of tone is going to be set for the rest of the debate. And I think that's a pretty big tell of what to look out for.

- Yeah, absolutely.

- Well, yeah. And honestly, as we are-- our students even-- they'll watch the debates, and they'll run chats and be analyzing as they're going. And it's so interesting to see then maybe where some of the gaps lie, because the things that we'll teach our students about understanding how to undermine an argument without coming at someone, without being rude or taking away from the actual content of the debate itself-- and so I think we see that maybe more in the presidential than hopefully what we'll see in this upcoming debate.

But some of those nonverbal cues or vocal tones that can get a lot more aggressive than what it is that we at least coach our students to go for, the argumentation, and to look at what that speaker is saying, and to be able to attack the argument, not the person.

- You were talking about your students have large watch parties or have chats going where they can interact with this. If someone were planning to watch a debate, what would you recommend they do in order to get the most out of it?

- So I say, first of all, of course, research if you want to know more about the candidates and what they stand for. But I think another big part is that discourse amongst your peers. I think a great way to talk about the debate is simply talking about it with other people. That's what the debates are meant for. They're meant to spur discourse. They're meant to spur ideas and thoughts flowing about certain candidates or certain positions. So I would say there's obviously pre-preparation, like researching it, figuring out what policy standpoints that you're looking for but also maybe finding like-minded or different-minded people to have those kind of discussions that maybe the vice presidents didn't exactly get a chance to get down to, essentially.

- Yeah. And I think that's really important in the moment, if it can happen in the live session, because I think a lot of times, we're getting snippets on social media, potentially memes that were made of ridiculous moments or things like that. And then what they're missing is where that potential discourse would have been able to come into play and how they could have interacted with their peers or helped someone understand an issue a little bit better based on information that they knew or vice versa, gained a new perspective.

And that's something that they have to work on all the time. And you never know, if we go to a competition, it's a flip of the coin. You may be arguing on the side of a resolution that is not where you personally stand. And understanding the perspectives and the arguments that would make that still valid and still things that you can argue for is a really important part of that discourse.

- And then presidential debates don't really have a scoreboard. It's tough to tell who is ahead, who is behind, and who is coming out as the victor. So what are some good metrics to see who at least did better than the other?

- I'm so yielding to you first every time.

[LAUGHTER]

There's so much expertise.

- Fair enough. No, I was going to say, I think there is some credence in gauging the audience reaction, of course, not only like-- I know the presidential debate didn't exactly have a live audience. But social media audiences, it does matter to see how they interpreted the debates.

But I think another good metric to see is looking at yourself and trying to examine within, just seeing what was persuasive, what was not. Did they tailor it to your audience? Because they're tailoring it to all of America. And that includes a wider range of demographics.

And certain policy and certain arguments are going to work better for certain demographics than others, like different age groups, stuff like that. So I think either taking a look at yourself. But if you want to look more analytical, I would say, look at the polls after the debate and see how they're polling in certain areas. You can always go on social media. Of course, be wary about it. But gauging what social media was saying about it is also a pretty good indicator of who did well and amongst certain types of people and stuff.

- Yeah. I mean, winning in our current political situation is just such an interestingly relative term.

[LAUGHTER]

Because who would say someone won the debate by their fiery, horrendously engaging retorts. When it came down to the way that I might judge winning myself is who was able to get the public more information about what they could do for whatever policy it was that they were talking about, rather than resorting to some of the not-- some of the things that we like to avoid when it comes-- or what we should be avoiding when it comes to debates.

So I'm much more focused on the content. Even as a voter, as I'm looking at someone, what can you tell me about how you would potentially change something or what your plan is rather than what that other person cannot do? So the reputation is important. But it's, how much time did you spend kicking their butt, if you think, rather than telling us what you have to bring?

- Yeah. Moving on to things a little bit more focused on this specific debate, after the most recent debate, there was concerns raised, largely coming from the right, about the moderators being biased. I know that CBS's moderators over the last weekend have said that they will not fact-check live. But they will have their own fact-checking service. How can bias moderation affect a debate of this type? Or can a candidate prepare for this?

- I think this is a really interesting question and really interesting thing to grapple with, with so many different considerations to put into play, like the age of big disinformation on the internet and having to look at that stuff, but more focused on the debate itself. So I think bias moderation can affect a debate. We even see this with our own students, whenever they do debates.

You have judges who have preconceived notions of certain topics that they have to try to either tackle or try to work around. And I think moderators can make arguments for certain sides. They can give less speaking time to either side. So it can affect them. But I do think candidates can adequately prepare for this, a lot like our students.

So they can prepare by maybe making unique arguments that are different. They can ask the moderator for more time or ask the moderator to refrain from making arguments. I think in a vice presidential or a presidential debate, that kind of argumentation, it doesn't come off as a side "complaining," quote unquote, that they're getting unfair treatment so they might as well not even debate. It takes it off of them and puts it on the moderators to do the job of a nonbiased moderation.

So I think a more civilized approach would be calling it out in the in the instance, like, can I have more time? You gave them more time. Or can you refrain from making argumentations until my opponent responds? That kind of rhetorical difference, I think, can change the perception of the candidates and overall the debate itself.

- Yeah. I would argue similarly. The question itself comes down to, what is that bias? How is that coming out? If fact-checking or something like that is what is getting under people's skin, then I think that indicates a much bigger problem--

[LAUGHTER]

--which also stems from, as you were talking about, the disinformation of just the fact-checking itself being questioned, which is wild. And so to try to take out any kind of bias-- every single one of us has biased from every experience we've ever had in our lives. So even as judges or moderators, to remove that entirely is impossible. It's impossible.

Your role in the debate is to try to temper it. And when it comes down to what's being thrown out in the content, I think that's like, well, if fact-checking and then maybe cutting someone off from doubling down on something that is absolutely untrue, now you're like, what is the moderators role? Should we avoid putting out disinformation? That's a question to put out there. But I think ultimately, they have to try, just like our judges, to alleviate the bias if they can.

- And then this specific match-up has been hotly anticipated, ever since Walz made a name for himself on the national stage by calling out Vance. Do you have any predictions for how this debate may go or what topics may be brought up?

- So I think it's going to be uniquely different from the presidential debate because these two candidates have made a name for themselves in different ways. I think they both have rural values, of course. But then I think Tim Walz has the-- on his side that he's an educator, a family man, very down to Earth, while JD Vance is more this professionalism congress person.

They have more long-term professional, quote unquote, "credibility." They've been around longer in the politics game than Tim Walz. So I think it's going to be very interesting to see the approach they both take. And I think how they respond to one another is going to be a big tell and basically what the rest of the campaign for both parties are going to look like for the rest of the election season, I suppose.

- I would ditto that pretty hard. [LAUGHS] I think if it does-- if they lean into the roles, the roles that people assume they're going to, I wonder if that's going to be a benefit or a detriment. If it comes at this JD Vance is able to take that more aggressive role against because Walsh has that, it's actually a benefit to him to lean into what everyone has been talking about that we love so much about him. Then I wonder how that has the impact on the debate itself. If people are going to assume that Vance won just because he was the loudest voice in the room, that's where-- I'll be curious to see what happens there.

- Yeah. All right. And then closing off, is there anything else you guys would like to add about this debate or debates in general?

- You should join speech and debate. No, I mean, honestly, I think this is the point where in my classes and sometimes when we have new students who join us, we talk a lot about what students are used to seeing in presidential or vice presidential or what have you debates is not necessarily representative of what we do as an activity, in that it often comes with this kind of-- the time limits and everything like that, they're adhered to in different ways.

And we're discussing the arguments in-- I would like to argue [LAUGHS] that that has that underlying respect. I hate the word "civility." This underlying value of the other person and their perspective. And so the ability to get to that place of discourse and understanding other perspectives is really increased in what we're able to do. That's one of the plugs that I was saying about coming and hanging with us.

- Yeah. And I guess I would echo that. I think speech and debate is a great activity for that. But even understanding how to argue respectfully and with multiple levels of logic is a great skill, not only for watching vice presidential debates. But it's going to help you so much more in the future because you can defend yourself, construct, put your thoughts together in ways that maybe before people weren't quite understanding, and just letting your voice be heard. I think that's one of the most important things we teach, is how to put your thoughts together in ways that your voice is heard and that your voice matters.

- And it's really easy right now, I think, validly for students to say they're disillusioned with politics. If I had a nickel for every time somebody said, I'm not political. I don't-- we don't-- none of my friends, none of my family, we don't talk about politics. But we're enveloped in it. You can't avoid politics. That's not reflective of reality.

And so being able to play our roles in a way where we can think critically about it and engage with the people that we care about so we're not silencing or cutting off or whatever happens come November, I think that's really, really the true testament of what we're hoping that students will gain.

- That may as well be the thesis statement for the entire podcast as well. So fully understand where you're coming from with that. All right. Then if any of you listening are looking to watch the debate, it'll be happening on October 1 on CBS. It can also be found on Paramount+, YouTube, basically any social media. And it'll start at 8:00 PM and last for 90 minutes.

And with that, that's all we have for this episode. Thank you again to Kat Brunner and Manny Reyes for joining us today.

- Thanks for having us.

- Thank you.

- The Government 101 podcast is a production of the MSU Political Science Department and the Politics and Policies Student Organization. Any views expressed in this podcast are solely those of the host and the guests and do not necessarily represent the views of the Minnesota State Mankato or any affiliated parties.

A huge thank you to the MSU Mankato College of Humanities and Social Sciences for the use of our space and equipment. And another large thank you to Caden Rademacher for composing our theme song. I've been your host, Taylor Tambornino. And thank you all for joining us on the Government 101 podcast.