The US Presidential Debates As Officially Creating A New Battlefront

The media has looked at the debate between the leading two US presidential candidates as strictly between those two people, whereas it is entirely crucial to know that in the debate stage like at no other point, the two debaters represent their respective Democratic and Republican parties. It is the parties that debate through these candidates; the parties' battle against one another being deeper established than the battle between the two specific candidates they have sent forward to the debate platform, and the debate platform being only one front in the multi-fronted battle between the two parties.

The presidential debates do not represent the meeting point between two parties where their issues with one another may finally be resolved, rather, the debates' moderators or creators enable the two candidates to battle it out for the very first time: they won't come to peace in the debates, but rather come to an understanding that key talking points has been given the opportunity to thrive, so that a “rich and civilized battle” can be undertaken between them, given their shared interest in these talking points but opposing stances. There is the recognition by both parties that the media has brought together the people with the most points of interest in common to debate, opening a new battlefront in a longer and deeper battle. 

It seems that the media likes organizing debates more than dialogues, given that so many debates take place in the media and on camera, and given that most heads-of-state undertake dialogue behind-closed-doors and the media doesn't complain. Most debates aren't decisive, but rather point out or introduce two people to one another who are most suited to argue at length, and disagree, so that the debate is a front which always produces a stalemate but which enables the two parties' members to recognize, sometimes even for the first time, a “debating mate" within an opposing party with whom the battle can be prolonged.

Curiously, if there are certain debates or battles which have too many parties involved, and it is not possible to fit all the representatives of all the parties in a single screen-shot, then it is likely that that debate will never take place. Such a large-scale debate was tried by the media in the debate between presidential hopefuls of the Republican party, but it seems not to have been attempted elsewhere where too many parties are involved. But since debates are more likely to originate new fronts of battle rather than bring a peaceful completion to a conflict, the deprivation of the opportunity to find a “debating mate” may not be a bad thing.