The questions we had going into Monday night’s Student Government Executive Candidate Debate were concerned with the candidates' knowledge and quality.
But we only had one question coming out of it: has SG still not looked up the definition of the word “debate?"
We said it last year, and we'll say it again: whatever happened on stage Monday night wasn’t anything resembling a debate.
Candidates had one podium from which to speak and one after another answered mostly scripted questions posed by moderators. Each candidate barely had more than a minute each to outline their general platform and talk about specific programs they want to implement.
The format left no room for simple public crosstalk, let alone proper debate, on substantive issues. The few undeveloped ideas presented Monday night could have been just as easily — and much more quickly — looked up on each candidate’s campaign webpage.
And because candidates were unable to question each other’s programs and general ideas, we have no idea whether the ideas they presented are feasible or fantasy.
As a result, it was a night heavy on rushed, empty speeches, the weight and frequency of which would have bowled over any audience that wasn’t composed primarily of other SG members.
It wasn’t even a Q&A in any real sense. The questions presented to the candidates during the first part of the “debate” were pre-written and handed to moderators shortly before the event.
The wild card round wasn't exactly wild either; the treasurer candidate's question was prewritten, and the questions selected from Twitter for presidential and vice presidential candidates were both posed by SG members. In fact, one of those questions came from current Student Body Treasurer Ryan Harman.
The lack of available audience questions from the rest of the student body might have had something to do with the rest of the student body’s conspicuous absence.
The event was poorly advertised (despite the impressive array of available pastries) and the entire event suffered for it.
If extra-curricular activities are meant to prepare us for life outside of college, SG is the program designed to help students navigate the political world. One would think managing a more-or-less proper debate for those attempting to occupy the highest offices of the student body might be important.
In order to give SG members a complete political experience and provide the student body with a real look at the people they’re voting for, we believe that putting together a proper debate is well worth the necessary time and effort.
Or, of course, we can continue to pretend that a series of pre-written questions and vague answers constitutes the necessary political vetting process that students deserve.