“if vitamins were effective, they’d use them for beating children!”
You’re misunderstanding the use of debate.
If saws were effective they would use them to hammer in nails.
Wrong tool for the job is never going to be effective. Show me a politician who rarely (if ever) debates and gets elected from advertising alone.
I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not. I mean, Trump is just the marketing of a president. All sizzle, no steak. He has appeared in debates but it’s a huge stretch to say he’s shown up well in them.
In fact, a lot of politics are purely a popularity contest these days, aren’t they?
They used to, back when the League of Women voters ran the debates and asked real questions. That’s why they stopped allowing that.
Yeah, a few other things have changed since then as well…
All part of the plan.
Fun unsolicited social psych lesson: in terms of persuasion, spontaneous messaging is catchier but thoughtful messaging is more likely to have a stronger long term impact. Often best to use both.
It’s not always the same level as debate, but the idea is there. Why buy? It’s got safety standards. It builds strong bones. It’s good for the environment. Good? Ok now here’s emotional music and a celebrity you like.
Research shows spontaneous messaging without the cognitive side isn’t going to sway attitudes in a meaningful way, although the latter might be needed to get attention (and most won’t work if someone is already decided, then you really do need debate lol).
That said, I’m pretty sure the average ad is just trying to keep a brand in public consciousness, since that’s taught in marketing programs. Some research on associative learning might support that but I think it’s weak at best.
Because debates in the US are often set up to be a fight with a winner and loser. Real debates are about learning and instigating truth. Those debates are effective.
Debate isn’t effective, and its main purpose is theatrical. It is basically the modern day equivalent of gladiator fights, except with the side effect that it platforms and legitimises the opinions of the participants, no matter how extreme.
There is now mountains of scientific evidence showing the debates have limited to no effect at changing people’s minds. Instead, simply making friends and spending time with different perspective is effective.
This article won’t change your mind. Here’s why | Sarah Stein Lubrano | The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/18/change-mind-evidence-arguing-social-relationships
It isn’t more effective or cost effective. It may still be effective.
It’s very cost effective in terms of content creation. Just give 2 people a mike and you get 2h worth of content you can upload uncut
Charlie Kirk did plenty of debate content tbh, as do a lot of podcasters. But advertiser’s don’t have 2 hours at a time to convince you to give them your money. So perhaps it the timeframe that they are working with. For their purposes, more encounters may be more effective than longer single encounters. Debates still work to change minds, just not in the context of a 10 second advertising. window.