Debating has been a constant in the development of human cultures in the planet. As far back as can be ascertained by legend, hieroglyphics and other proofs, debates among those conducting the affairs of the communities were part of the social system. As far back as 2000 BC, or thereabouts, continuous debates were held by the Sumerians, the Semitics and the Amorites leading eventually to the formation of Babylonia. Later, in Greece heated debates took place among the Ptolomey faction and Epiphanes and the Axhaeans. Debate was an accepted form of solving problems, arriving at solutions and served as the foundation of the many and varied initiatives undertaken by the governing bodies of those ancient cultures. But debates were never intended to promote exotic brands of aspirin, cures for insomniacs and embarrassing parading of key politicos being questioned by glib word and image practitioners.

So it is with some skepticism that I view the development of this visual industry that somehow ignores the enlightening guidelines of a presidential election. The more the merrier is the closest we get to a cattle auction. Then, to kidnap several months of television time to showcase the aspiring candidates in their monotonous chants, is a crime against the mental health of the electorate. At this rate, by January of the year 2013, at around 3 pm in the afternoon, after the swearing in ceremony of the new president, the presidential candidates for the 2016 elections will likely meet at the Lincoln Memorial to be subjected again to the empty questions advanced in one form or another by self declared inquisitors, Utubes, Notubes, Seeyas, Heyyous and hundreds of other Internet vulgarities.

The current debates remind me of my childhood. The Third Grade Elementary School for Retarded Children that I attended often conducted something similar We would sit quietly and wait for the teacher to point at one of us who would then ask a question; then the teacher would point to another student who would then answer the question posed by the first student.

To do something similar in our day reveals two things: one, the intellectual level of those participating in the debate has not improved a great deal since my days in that school. Two, there is nothing new or remotely enlightening that can be learned from such displays of futility.

You might ask about the subjects or themes debated in my Third Grade Elementary School for Retarded Children. Well, my notes give some idea. For instance, some of the questions and answers were:

“How did the Roman Senate cope with opposing political philosophies in view of the urgency of serious problems facing the Republic from some of its territories?”

Ernie or Polly would then answer:

“The debates held at the Senate invariably arrived at appropriate solutions. The Republic was characterized by social tensions between conservatives termed the Optimates, and the Populares consisting of merchants, artisans and new rich. The conservatives opposed most social measure and insisted on lower taxation and recognition of their privileged status while the Populares insisted on personal rights, state protection against abuses, better legislation for slaves and more frequent games at their Circus Maximum”

Another question: along scientific lines was: “What is the amino acid role in metabolism?’ Ernie would answer: “Amino acids play central roles as building blocks of proteins and as intermediates in metabolism. The 20 amino acids that are found within proteins convey a vast array of inorganic and organic chemical versatility.”

Knowing of my fondness for Ancient History and Philosophy, the teacher would ask me something like this

“Did Aristotle agree with Plato in the rationalization of knowledge and the problem of empirical evidence?”

My answer: “Aristotle disagreed with Plato on just about everything. He could not think of the world in abstract terms the way Plato did; Aristotle believed that the world could be understood at a fundamental level through the detailed observation and cataloging of phenomenon. That is, knowledge is fundamentally empirical. It could be said that Aristotle planted the seed of inductive reasoning, which is the basis of Western Civilization’s Scientific method.”

Judging the current debates by their capacity to enlighten, inform and help discover new visions and attitudes, I must sadly conclude that my Third Grade at the Elementary School for Retarded Children is still a few light years ahead.

Chemical engineer by training, international executive by merit and writer by addiction. Former syndicated columnist of Technology columns, has written for television and movies. His humorous articles contain fine satire and have been published in 4 languages.

Quote: "Love and smiles teach tolerance; days without either are days wasted"