Why a Debate?

Many years ago, I worked at a small company.  One morning the boss arrived at work to hear that Mr. Brown (not his real name) has said some interesting and very offensive things about him. His response was simple: “Tell him to come back and say that to my face.”

I asked him to explain this.  He said “Anyone can say anything about another person.  Some of it is factual and can by tested by looking at evidence.  Other parts of it are opinions which can be logically analyzed for validity and rationality.  If he makes those accusations in my presence, I will be able to challenge the validity of them.  I would even be able to prove that some of them are just lies he made up.”

He went on to predict that Mr. Brown would not face him or answer the challenge.  This proved true and each day that went by with his accuser unable to face him reduced the standing of that accuser in the eyes of those who heard him and the credence given to those accusations until finally someone told him to just shut up.  Mr. Brown has never recovered.

When Mr. Golding threw out his debate challenge over the weekend, he sounded very much like my former boss.  It will however take time, rephrasing and repetition of this challenge for it to be as effective. 

Some people will claim that debating at this point is a waste of time and that the Prime Minister should spend his time governing.  In doing so they miss two key facts:

1. Fending off accusations in a drawn out back and forth eats up far more time than the two or three hours required to debate the issues raised in a public face off. 

2. Proper time arrangement should leave even a Prime Minister in the depths of a crisis with several free hours every week. Everyone needs time to relax.  For someone, born into electoral politics as Mr. Golding’s was, a debate is about as relaxing as watching cartoons or soaking in a pool are for most people.

I could get up tomorrow and issue a press release accusing any official of all manner of misconduct or dereliction of duty.  As long as I word it carefully to avoid lawsuits, I have nothing to worry about.  When a response comes showing that I made it up, I can just claim that: “Without my raising of the issue the public would not have learned the facts”, or totally ignore the response, then go on to make up a brand new set of allegations.

The question is: Will the media demand a defense and substantiation of those accusations already made before they advertise new ones?  Or will they just let the disinformation continue?