Everyone loves to debate. Unfortunately, everyone also hates to listen. So, usually what happens during a debate is that two people who start off acting like adults, quickly get frustrated and begin shouting at each other like a couple of teenagers fighting over where to eat for lunch or who has the best taste in music. "Yeah, but like you don't understand Travis Scott Jessica; his music totally changed the world," teenager number one says. "Travis Scott? Oh my gosh, you must be joking," teenager number two states mockingly, "everyone knows that Justin Timberlake is a far superior dancer. I mean, just look at the way he dances like Usher. Only he could have had the knowledge to steal that." This is where people usually stop paying attention or just leave the room entirely, allowing the two chuckle heads to duke it out over who has the best music, the best hair, the best dance moves, the best whatever. Blah, blah, blah. People may like to participate in debates, they may like expressing their own opinions or asking difficult questions, but that is pretty much where the interest in debate stops for most people. Don't get me wrong, people will listen to you if you are engaging, if you are an eloquent speaker, if you understand the art of public speaking is much more about entertainment than about proving a point. But very few people understand this, even some people who make a living off of public speaking (politicians come to mind) do not understand this very crucial element of their trade. Appeals to emotion are often demonized in these debate settings, but humans are emotional creatures. If you refrain completely from appeals to emotion, the average human being becomes terribly bored and then stops listening completely. While you busy yourself explaining why, according to the science, this is why I will make the best president, the average person is wondering why you are prattling on about science when you are supposed to be addressing the problems they have in real life. How does citing a study on the effectiveness of the local police department solve the crimes that they have struggled with solving, the ones that people see everyday on the news? It doesn't and that is part of the problem of debates. You may be correct statistically, but statistics cannot right wrongs; they only provide us with the facts as they are at that moment and even that is questionable at times. You can certainly claim that you are the best candidate and you can even give various reasons why you are superior to other candidates. But what can you really say to the people to convince them that you are correct? Well, you can make a bunch of promises. You can say things like "if I am your next president, I will be tough on crime" (a favorite of modern politicians). But does being tough on crime get rid of crime? Or does it just force criminals to be creative? The recent surge in theft, for example, has been funded by the invention of online shopping. It is easy to create dummy accounts on Amazon or EBay. So, the old days of stealing and selling at flea markets are pretty much gone; now all you have to do is boost a bunch of goods from the mostly deserted mall and sell to the people who are scared of going out to shop. Another slogan politicians love to use during debates is "I will protect your right to choose." But choice means different things to different people. To one person choice is the right to decide what goes into their body, while to another person choice is the right to choose what comes out of their body. Yet by being generic, you can appeal to all people who use the word choice as a political slogan. And so, when it comes to debates, no one really has to make a concrete argument and, in fact, they are often avoiding making any kind of argument. They are really just trying to get you to like them so that they can go viral on the internet and save a bit of money on their campaign expenditures. Yet the master debating continues.