Ms. Sartin, our teacher, laid down the rules. Opening statements. Specific position statements. Premise. Counter. 2 back and forths. Closing statement blah blah blah and Garby and I were to judge. I was infatuated by a girl named Sally at the time and she was on one of the teams. All my prepping went out the window when she did her thing and my judging went down to stage presence, appropriate dress, calmness of voice...good looks...Garby did the same.... we talked about it. Our conclusion was to announce the winner and declare our judging notebooks to be private. A Solomon's choice.The point is or was then and is now is of course we watch endless political or subject debates but they aren't. They are fashion shows, Vanna White auditions, news chuckies and chickies endlessly judging what they see...so many onlookers kibitzing the neurosurgeon and then when the patient dies it is "well at that critical juncture he used a rather outdated speculum and therefore"...when 1. they can't do it on a bet and 2. they haven't a 1/100th of the knowledge in a subject on which they are opining.
A more civil discourse is going to take a lot of learning on both sides of the issue and in particular, for those of us who are judges of what is being said. We can't be spoon fed interpretations because we can't trust the translator. We have to rely on our ability to say "that's not right - I did my research and I know better".
We can never ever ever rely on "well that speech seemed too long compared to others" or "This was a memorial - what was that cheering about". That isn't subject - that is setting and as dumb as two love struck 8th graders judging a debate.