Editor’s note: This story is a satire piece and does not reflect the opinions of The DePaulia staff. Our publication does not condone violence of any kind, including political violence related to the 2024 presidential election. If you have any concerns regarding this satirical piece, please send them to [email protected].
I awoke in a cold sweat, visions of the future clouding my mind.
“Elections … presidents … fighting … elections should be a combat sport!”
I immediately dialed my editor.
“What?” She answered the phone in a groggy haze. “Luis, are you alright? That’s possibly the stupidest thing I’ve ev— ….”
She might never understand. But I’m sure you, dear reader, can.
In my mind’s eye, I see the Capitol’s dumb dome replaced with a grand Thunderdome, entrapping our electoral candidates in glorious combat — a process much fairer and more efficient than our current political process.
I’m sure the last presidential debate is old news to you now. Of the four DePaul students I interviewed, all had at least seen the clips that took over social media, yet none had seen the whole thing. So if young voters don’t watch the debates in full due to their unserious nature, how effective are our debates?
Solutions like punishing excessive topic derailment (sometimes straight-up lies from the candidates) with fees and less air time or an upper age limit (or even a test to differentiate between Volodymyr Zelenski and Vladimir Putin) could ensure candidates could engage in real conversations. Their lack of effectiveness cues disappointment from younger viewers.
Deeksha Chitturi, a DePaul graduate student in marketing analysis, conceded that she’s not “the best” at keeping up on debates and has mostly seen clips on Instagram and other social media, like the majority of our generation.
“I don’t know if I should say this, but (I’ve seen) lots of memes,” Chitturi said. “You know the one where Trump says they’ve been eating our cats and dogs?”
Alejandro Leal, a DePaul junior majoring in business, said he watches debates for “comedic purposes.”
“I think they were talking about their golf scores? They’re just not on topic at all,” Leal said.
That golf comment was directed at the first debate this year between our favorite old men — former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden — but the point still stands. Our candidates are immensely off topic.
Debates should be a source of information to potential voters, they should turn the undecided and solidify supporters. They should not be a source of public ridicule.
A big step towards fostering more productive debates has been the muting of candidates’ microphones when it’s not their turn to speak, but muting mics doesn’t touch on issues such as making sure our candidates are’t two steps from a nursing home. Which is where title matches come in.
Think about it: one of the biggest pay-per-view events in history was Mayweather vs. Pacquiao, a boxing match streamed to millions. Doing that with our presidential candidates would probably lead to a debate at least as informative as Harris versus Trump, with half as many comedic distractions.
The student consensus on such a match is clear.
“I’d definitely tune in more,” Leal said. “This would be like watching my grandparents fight.”
“If they were involved in, like, a fight, I would really want to witness that because that’s a real record for the history books,” Bri Batila, a freshman at DePaul’s film school, said.
Even those who might disagree morally give way to its potential effectiveness.
“The only time I deem the showing of violence in the American broadcasting system to be appropriate is in professional hockey — the NHL— particularly when the Blackhawks are playing against the Red Wings,” DePaul sophomore Robert Regan said. “I would say a duel between the candidates for the 2024 presidential election would be shocking. … It may garner more attention.”
Presidential combat would even solve the other issues I mentioned.
Candidates too old to think? That means they would be too old to pack a punch and would soon be packed up by quicker-witted competition.
Batila did add that this method might promote fights in the rest of the country, which would be “not a good thing” and “a sign of bad leadership.”
Regan also said, “I do not deem bloodsports ethical and thereby worth my attention or the attention of any person.”
So, I’ll concede a step. A fight, and then a debate.
There’s too much tension between the candidates anyway. So how about we “get them closure,” as Chitturi said, and move on to the real topics we need to address.
Debates need to move on from pointless bickering. Candidates can either catch the people’s ears by being a clash of policy and ideals or catch their eyes in grand bloodsport.
As for the Thunderdome? I’d say take it out of the defense budget. I doubt they’d notice another trillion gone missing anyway.
Stay informed with The DePaulia’s top stories,
delivered to your inbox every Monday.
Related Stories:
