I have never watched the entirety of a single presidential debate. And I never will. The most that can be said is that I briefly watched a 10-minute recorded segment of the Joe Biden fiasco in his “debate” with Trump. I’m sure your question to me is, why? What is the problem with presidential debates?

Speaking more generally, I deeply dislike debates of any sort. I’ve engaged in a handful, quite reluctantly. Of the few in which I’ve participated, they were most often with friends and focused on some issue of the Bible and theology. But I found each of them to be misleading and dangerous. The truths of Scripture are not determined by who can articulate more clearly and persuasively the various issues at stake.

Debates serve only to tell us who is the better debater. They rarely tell us anything about the moral character or policy positions of the candidates. Truth is never based on who is more articulate or more relaxed or more physically appealing or more persuasive. Truth is truth regardless of how well or poorly someone defines and defends it or how they appear or sound in doing so.

It is quite terrifying to think that perhaps millions of Americans will vote for a particular candidate based largely, if not entirely, on how well that candidate performed in a public debate. Most of you are too young to remember, but we saw this when John F. Kennedy debated Richard Nixon on September 26, 1960. I was only nine years old at the time, but I can still recall the appearance of both men. Kennedy was handsome, dapper, and quite the charismatic personality. Nixon had a five-o-clock shadow, wore dull clothing, was sweating profusely, and came across as a dunderhead (although, as many will testify, Nixon, though crooked to the bone, turned out to be a highly intelligent man, in spite of his failure to burn the tapes!). To this day, many pundits attribute Kennedy’s victory to that debate. That may be an overstatement, but no one can deny the impact of nothing more than physical appearance on the ultimate outcome of the election.

In the Thursday, September 12, 2024, edition of USA Today, we are told that millions of Americans “tuned in” to the debate “in search of information, persuasion, or confirmation” about which candidate they might support. Please, no! As one might expect, the ultra-leftist and radically liberal USA Today insists that Harris won the debate, hands down. I will take their opinion at face value. But I couldn’t care less who won. If Trump had won, as he did against Biden earlier in the campaign, my interest would not budge an inch. Zac Anderson, who wrote one of the articles in the newspaper, says that Harris “delivered a “much more fluid and coherent message” and “looked more poised than Trump as she calmly prosecuted the case against him” (2a). So, let me understand this. Because of fluidity, coherence, poise, and calm I’m supposed to vote for Harris. Give me a break!

At least one of the individuals cited in the story admitted that we shouldn’t choose “personality over policy” (3a). Praise God for that! Of the eleven people USA Today interviewed after the debate, nine sided with Harris, one favored Trump, while one remained undecided. That should tell you something about the political bias of the Gannett Media Corp. But once again: who cares? One of the Harris supporters cited the endorsement of someone who goes by the absurdly ridiculous name of Rapper Megan Thee Stallion. That alone should induce many to support Trump. Of course, again, no one should ever vote for anyone based on the endorsement of someone else. Having said that, I have to resist the temptation of yielding to reverse impact, by which I mean my tendency not to vote for whatever candidate most celebrities or famous athletes support.

My own hometown newspaper, The Oklahoman (which, if you didn’t know, is owned by the same corporation that owns and publishes USA Today), conducted an online poll that “gave Vice President Kamala Harris a clear win over former President Donald Trump” (1A), as if that matters one whit. One lady from Bartlesville, OK, declared that the debate “confirmed Harris is the clear choice” (2A). For heaven’s sake, if you believe Harris is more qualified and has the capability to lead better than Trump, then vote for her, but not because she appeared to win a debate! One individual, who will remain unnamed to protect his reputation, actually said that Harris “showed very strong leadership skills” (2A). And you determined that from watching a two-hour debate? Seriously?

The one encouraging thing about the poll conducted by the Oklahoman is that “nearly 66% said their voting intentions had not changed” (2A). Well, praise God for a modicum of sanity!

When it comes to voting for a particular candidate, be it on a local, state, or national level, the only relevant question is: what does each candidate believe about creating the most productive economy, the posture the U.S. should take in relation to its enemies (China, Russian, North Korea, etc.), whether or not abortion should be abolished or promoted, how to deal with the influx of illegal aliens at both our southern and northern borders, their policy stance on health care, and whether a candidate will endorse or resist so-called “same-sex marriage” and so-called “gender transition” surgeries (especially for minors). If you are wondering why I refer to these two issues as “so-called” is because there is no such thing as “same-sex marriage” or transgenderism. Marriage is between one biological man and one biological woman. No one is able to “transition” to the other gender, or no gender at all. They can take certain drugs and undergo disfiguring surgeries, but one’s gender is biologically determined at birth and is unchangeable. Gender is based on your DNA and biological features, no matter how you may “feel” or what you may “believe” about your identity. But I digress.

Someone may object by pointing to what was revealed about President Joe Biden’s mental acuity to justify the existence of presidential debates. But we knew perfectly well about Biden’s cognitive decline long before the debate where it was put on display for all to see.

One’s facial gestures, tone of voice, grammatical precision, and other factors rarely if ever tell us anything about how a candidate will react in the event of a nuclear crisis or a pandemic or economic recession. The primary issue for me is the candidate’s stance on specific policies and how he/she will seek to implement them during their time in office.

I voted for Ronald Reagan in both of the presidential contests in which he was a candidate. But it wasn’t because of his timely and quite humorous response to Jimmy Carter, when he said (for those of you who can remember), “There you go again!” Everyone laughed and thought Reagan won a bevy of votes because of his quick wit. But if people did vote for him, it should have been on more substantive grounds.

I heard (but did not personally witness) that Kamala Harris’s facial gyrations in response to something Trump said won over many undecided voters. Are you kidding me? If anyone is so stupid as to base their vote on something so petty and inconsequential as that, perhaps we should turn them away when they show up in November to vote. Yes, that’s an exaggeration, but I do question the intelligence of someone who casts a vote based on anything other than a candidate’s past record, present performance, and policy stance.

Even worse is the individual who will vote for a particular candidate on the basis of an endorsement from a cultural celebrity. Why should anyone care about what Taylor Swift or Brittany Mahomes says? Who gives a flying flip about what Jon Voight or Barbra Streisand believes? They are certainly entitled to their position, but why should the opinion of a handful of largely uneducated, overpaid, often personally immoral and narcissistic Hollywood celebrities make any difference to anyone? O.K. some celebrities are educated and moral, but that’s as far as I’ll go.

During a past governor’s race here in Oklahoma, many insist that a particular candidate won because of the endorsement of former OU football coach, Barry Switzer. I love OU football, and regard Switzer as a great coach, but why would I allow myself to be influenced by what Switzer or anyone else might say? Coaching OU to win several national championships does not qualify him to tell others for whom they should cast their ballot.

What matters to me is a candidate’s strength of will in the face of hostile opposition, their moral tenacity and resolute determination to do what is right regardless of public opinion or the threats posed by a foreign dictator. What does the candidate believe when it comes to the strength of our military? How do they plan on addressing widespread poverty in our nation? Should the government extend its reach or exercise wise restraint? What sort of person will he/she nominate to the Supreme Court? And I could go on seemingly without end citing the criteria that I believe should dictate for whom our vote is cast. But I will never base my vote on who won a debate. An immoral and unqualified buffoon can win a debate, but can that same person lead our country and work with the Congress to implement justice and promote the welfare of all our citizens.

You may push back and tell me that a public debate will reveal each candidate’s position on a variety of policy issues. Perhaps. But I doubt it. What each candidate is determined to do in a debate is impress the viewing audience with his/her personality, style, demeanor, and the ability to deliver one-line zingers in response to something the other says. Furthermore, it only takes a few minutes to determine what each candidate believes and will do if elected to office prior to and without the distraction of a debate.

Don’t refuse to vote for Trump because of his silly-looking hair style and his derogatory nicknames for his opposition. Don’t refuse to vote for Harris because she comes from California and is famous for her incoherent word-salad comments. Vote for the most qualified candidate, regardless of performance in one or several public debates. And if you genuinely believe that how they perform in a public debate is indicative of how they will serve us if elected, well, I’ll pray for you!

So, you are probably wondering which candidate I support. No, I have no intention of answering that question. Besides, what difference does my opinion make? Why should my endorsement have any influence at all on what you decide to do when you walk into that booth come November? Vote your conscience, and let it be for the most qualified candidate. And may God help us all!