The primary season is just wrapping up in the 2016 presidential election cycle, and we’ve already seen a lot of debates—22, to be exact. There’s just one problem: there doesn’t seem to be much debating going on. The Republican debates were, of course, infamous for their ridiculousness with almost all the candidates (but mostly Donald Trump) throwing schoolyard insults at each other and literally comparing d*ck sizes. On the other side, the Democrats were certainly praised for the civility of their debates but substantively speaking, weren’t much better off. Clinton and Sanders essentially just exchanged assertions about how they believed their policies would work with each vying for the next applause line.

This problem certainly seems to be reflected in each party’s base as well. As the primary season progressed, disagreements between the different camps increasingly involved fewer and fewer rational discussions and more and more violent confrontations. This violence, in turn, discourages people from having political discussions for fear of potential repercussions. All the while, Congress is more unproductive than it has ever been in the face of ever-increasing problems that will require political action.

So our political system seems to be falling apart, but what should we do about it?

Well, first, in order to find a solution, we ought to precisely define the problem. As a debater of four years, the problem that I see is that Americans today tend to talk too much while not arguing enough. Here are three aspects of debating that I think could be useful stepping stones for effective politics.

1. Debate requires you to prepare.

One of the first things that becomes apparent in competitive debate is that very little time is spent doing the actual back-and-forth that we colloquially associate with the idea of “debate.” In fact, the vast majority of your time as a debater is instead spent doing prep: researching your position, anticipating objections, and developing answers to opposing arguments. This practice is especially useful in less formalized political discussions, which tend to take an “accuse of being Hitler first, ask questions later” approach. Introducing even casual research, like a few quick Google searches (for reputable sources) could substantially elevate the level of discussion and move debates away from being simply a series of assertions and accusations.

Of course, the most important component of bringing more research and evidence into debates is creating a culture of respect for that research and evidence. Personally, my experience with research in debate taught me how to not only evaluate different kinds of research but also to value it in the first place, and I think that placing a social premium on effective research can advance the level at which we talk about politics.

Example:

At the Fox Business Republican debate in January, Donald Trump said about the Syrian refugee crisis: “That could be the great Trojan Horse. It could be people that are going to do great, great destruction. When I look at the migration, I looked at the line, I said it actually on your show recently, where are the women? It looked like very few women. Very few children. Strong, powerful men, young and people are looking at that and they’re saying what’s going on?”

The obvious problem with Trump’s statement is that it’s factually wrong: the actual gender breakdown of refugees coming from Syria is about 50/50 between men and women. The larger problem, however, is not just that he’s incorrect about the substance of his claim but that he thinks that because of that one time he looked at a line of refugees so apparently now he’s an expert on immigration issues. Even if he was wrong about the numbers, at least trying to research and use some statistics on the question instantly improves the debate. Instead of having to disprove Donald’s story about Syrian refugees, we can have discussions about which numbers are more or less accurate

2. Debate requires you to listen.

In a competitive debate, both sides have a strong incentive to win. The best way to do that is to pay attention to your opponent’s arguments and ensure that your rebuttals respond to every part of their position. However, in most casual arguments about politics, the interlocutors tend to spend most of their time and energy crafting the next well-timed joke about someone’s mom or general stereotype about [insert belief system here] as opposed to understanding the other side’s argument. Debates go well when both sides take the time to understand each other, but they go poorly when neither side even tries.

Example:

Let’s look at an exchange between Karen Tumulty and Bernie Sanders at the Univision/Washington Post Democratic debate:

TUMULTY: Senator Sanders, you have demanded that Secretary Clinton release the transcripts of her paid Wall Street speeches. Why is this important? Do you have reason to believe that she says one thing in private and another in public?

SANDERS: Well, what I have said is that when you get I believe it is $225,000 for giving a speech, and she gave several speeches to Goldman Sachs, one of the Wall Street financial institutions whose greed and illegal behavior helped destroy our economy a number of years ago, when you get paid $225,000, that means that that speech must have been an extraordinarily wonderful speech.

(APPLAUSE)

TUMULTY: So does this mean that you would not think she should have to disclose...

SANDERS: I would think that a speech so great that you got paid so much money for, you would like to share it with the American people. So I think she should release the transcript.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

(CROSSTALK)

SANDERS: As the secretary said, well, she will do it if other people do it. I will do it. I didn't give any speeches, there is no transcript.

(APPLAUSE)

TUMULTY: But my question was, do you think she saying one thing in the speeches and another in public?

SANDERS: That is exactly what releasing the transcripts will tell us. This I do know. This I do know. There is a reason why Wall Street has provided $15 million just in the last reporting period to the secretary's super PAC. Now, the secretary says it doesn't influence her. Well, that's what every politician says who gets money from special interests.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: The question that the American people have to determine - you know, can you say that Wall Street is greedy, they're fraudulent, but they're not dumb. Why are they making those kind of large contributions?

TUMULTY: Thank you, your time is up.

In this situation, Sanders probably should have just answered the question directly, but instead, the current debate system encourages a candidate to take time out of substantive discussions in order to get cheap applause lines. No one learned anything from Sanders telling the crowd he hates Wall Street corruption or that he didn’t give paid speeches to Goldman Sachs. He’s Bernie Sanders, we already knew that. This whole exchange could be shortened to something like this:

TUMULTY: Senator Sanders, you have demanded that Secretary Clinton release the transcripts of her paid Wall Street speeches. Why is this important? Do you have reason to believe that she says one thing in private and another in public?

SANDERS: Maybe, but that’s for the American people to decide.

I get the sense that the Democratic debates in particular would’ve been much more enriching if the candidates had more of an incentive to actually listen to the questions and answer them directly instead of just fitting stump speeches into the moderators’ topics.

3. Debate requires you to talk well.

Debate is, of course, a communication activity. Thus, the most important part is the actual communication.This goes beyond merely stringing together facts or opinions. Good communication requires a thorough understanding of both the language and your audience. This ability to communicate is important in the context of everyday political arguments for two reasons: one, it ensures that whoever you’re talking to knows what you mean, and second, it ensures that whoever you’re talking to knows what you don’t mean. The distinction between the two might seem meaningless, but especially within the complex political and social issues that we often argue about, it is vitally important that your arguments are not misunderstood to be an offensive sentiment. Additionally, it’s generally good practice to ensure that when you want to change someone’s mind, you communicate clearly and precisely what you want to say.

Example:

I’m going to pick on Donald Trump again here, but I’m not going to go through all of his specific quotes because we’ve all heard Trump talk about how he “knows lots of things” or has “the best words”. We’ve also all probably seen instances when something Trump said was taken offensively (Megyn Kelly, the country of Mexico, etc.), and while I won’t take a position on whether he actually meant to offend anyone, Trump certainly could’ve benefited from sitting for a moment and thinking a bit more about how to phrase his ideas.

The problems before us are large. We live in a world that seems to become more turbulent and unpredictable every day. However, our solution doesn’t lie in just becoming more angry and afraid. We live in a democracy, which means solutions come from the ground up, from us. If we can get together and begin having meaningful debates about what we want to get done and how it should happen, we can more effectively force society to change. The government is a reflection of our society; right now it reflects our complacency and our unwillingness to change. Perhaps if we could spend a little less time talking and a little more time arguing, we could get something done.

Interested in having good, substantive debates this election season? Get involved! Sign this change.org petition to urge the candidates to change the debate format, and make sure to share it with your friends!