Why debate doesn't happen in the US

I was listening to a commentary on a recent congressional "debate" reducing school violence after the Uvalde tragedy, and as could have been predicted, one of the speakers made a comment along the lines of "the left does not want a genuine solution they only want to remove all of our guns". Sadly, too much of the discussion focused on reaction to violence rather than prevention, and to fortress approaches, but that is for another day. What struck me about the "debate" was that no successive speaker appeared to have listened to the earlier speaker had said.

A logical or debate response would have zoomed in on "remove" and "all of our guns". No reference was made to this comment by opposition speakers, no response was offered, no challenge was made. Speakers on the other side reportedly simply read prepared remarks or spoke to prepared talking points, what used to be known as "talking past one another". This was not a debate, it was not even a discussion as both require participants to have listened to the other(s) and to react to what the other person(s) has said.

From my time as a winning school debater, and later as a debating coach, the speaker who immediately follows should challenge what the earlier speaker said while subsequent speakers, who have had time to think and to plan their remarks, then provide details and detailed take-downs. I also as a debater and as a coach would focus on what was said and how it was said and on the other speakers' words, and since the English language is inherently imprecise, this is what made debating so engaging. 

I may live under a rock, but I have never heard a Democratic position that all guns should be removed from citizens. I am also confident that I have never heard anyone, other than perhaps Quakers etc, argue a no-gun-never position. As far as I know, surveys have consistently found that most or almost all Americans want to see some limits on gun ownership. The discussion should clearly be on what limits, and on where and how to draw the lines. 

The speaker's all or nothing dichotomy is wrong, false and untrue, and yet as this assertion was allowed to stand unaddressed and unchallenged, the other speakers at this hearing thereby supported or endorsed it by default. "Silence gives consent."

**Please leave your comments and questions below**