| Abstract: | This study investigates the relationship between attacks and defenses in political debates. Being the target of an attack provides a candidate with opportunity and motivation to defend; hence, the frequency of attacks directed toward a candidate should be directly related to the number of defenses produced by that candidate. This study employs four data sets to test this expectation: 23 U.S. general presidential debates, 59 U.S. presidential primary debates, 12 U.S. Senate debates, and 10 non-U.S. debates (France, Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine). Statistical analysis confirms that there is a significant positive relationship between number of attacks aimed at a candidate and the number of defenses employed by that candidate in all four samples of political campaign debates. Arguably, this form of direct clash between candidates could be particularly beneficial to voters as it provides a deeper understanding of the pros and cons of governmental policy and related issues. |
