Wolfsie: It’s Debatable Who Will Win in Our House

As the nation gears up for another round of presidential debates, the negotiations surrounding the guidelines and rules are in full swing. Each candidate has their own set of preferences, aiming to create an environment that plays to their strengths while minimizing their weaknesses. These debates are more than just political theater; they are meticulously crafted events where every detail, from the height of the podiums to the type of questions asked, is scrutinized and negotiated. The candidates’ teams work tirelessly to ensure that the playing field is as level as possible, though the definition of ‘level’ can vary greatly depending on who you ask. This process is a fascinating glimpse into the strategic minds behind the campaigns, revealing just how much thought goes into every aspect of a candidate’s public appearance.

Interestingly, the concept of debate guidelines is not confined to the political arena. In my household, my wife Mary Ellen and I have established our own set of rules for disagreements, honed over years of marriage. These guidelines serve as a framework for our discussions, ensuring that even when we disagree, we do so in a manner that is respectful and productive. It’s a system that has evolved over time, influenced by various factors, including my interest in political debates. Just as candidates prepare for their televised showdowns, Mary Ellen and I have our own preparations and strategies, albeit on a much smaller scale.

Our marriage began in the same year as the famous Reagan-Carter debate, a fact that often amuses us. Over the decades, we’ve watched numerous debates together, analyzing the candidates’ performances and discussing the implications of their policies. This shared interest has undoubtedly influenced our approach to resolving conflicts. We’ve borrowed some of the tactics and strategies we’ve observed, adapting them to fit our personal dynamic. It’s a unique blend of politics and personal life, creating a set of guidelines that are uniquely ours.

The first rule in our household debates is simple: no risers or platforms. This might seem trivial, but it addresses a fundamental issue—height. Mary Ellen is taller than I am, and while this has never been a point of contention, it does influence the dynamics of our discussions. By eliminating any physical advantages, we ensure that our debates are focused on the substance of the argument rather than superficial factors. This rule echoes the political debates, where candidates often negotiate the height of their podiums to avoid any perceived disadvantages.

Height isn’t the only factor at play. The second rule in our household debates is that no questions are allowed except rhetorical ones. This might sound restrictive, but it serves a crucial purpose. By limiting the types of questions we can ask, we avoid putting each other on the spot or creating situations where one of us feels cornered. This rule encourages us to think carefully about our arguments and present them in a way that is considerate of the other’s perspective. It’s a tactic that fosters mutual respect and understanding, much like the carefully crafted questions in a presidential debate.

The third rule is a bit more unconventional: no props or charts. In political debates, candidates often use visual aids to support their arguments, but in our household, we’ve decided to keep things simple. This rule forces us to rely solely on our words and reasoning, making our arguments more genuine and heartfelt. It’s a challenge, but one that ultimately strengthens our communication skills. By removing any external aids, we focus on the core of the issue, ensuring that our debates are meaningful and productive.

Despite these rules, I often feel that Mary Ellen has the upper hand in our debates. She’s a natural communicator, able to articulate her thoughts clearly and persuasively. This brings us to the fourth rule: an objective moderator. In presidential debates, the role of the moderator is crucial, guiding the discussion and ensuring that both candidates have an equal opportunity to speak. In our household, we don’t have a formal moderator, but we do strive to maintain a sense of fairness. This often means taking turns speaking and actively listening to each other, creating a balanced and respectful dialogue.

Another area where Mary Ellen seems to have an advantage is in the realm of makeup. The fifth rule in our household debates is equal makeup arrangements. This might sound odd, but it’s a nod to the importance of presentation in any debate. In the political arena, candidates spend considerable time and effort on their appearance, understanding that how they look can influence public perception. While our household debates are far less public, we still recognize the value of feeling confident and presentable. Mary Ellen’s extensive makeup collection gives her an edge in this regard, but it’s a lighthearted rule that adds a touch of humor to our discussions.

The sixth rule is one that many might find particularly relevant: no behind-the-back confrontation. This rule was inspired by the behavior of certain political figures who have been known to engage in underhanded tactics. In our household, we prioritize transparency and honesty, ensuring that any issues are addressed directly and openly. This rule helps us maintain trust and respect, preventing any feelings of betrayal or resentment. It’s a principle that has served us well over the years, fostering a healthy and supportive relationship.

The seventh rule is about the role of the audience. In political debates, the audience is often instructed not to applaud or react, allowing the candidates to speak without interruption. In our household, we don’t have a live audience, but we do recognize the importance of feedback. This rule reminds us to be mindful of our reactions, avoiding any gestures or comments that might escalate the situation. By maintaining a calm and composed demeanor, we create an environment that is conducive to constructive dialogue.

Finally, the last rule in our household debates is perhaps the most important: the debate ends with a hug, not a handshake. This rule emphasizes the importance of maintaining our connection and affection, even when we disagree. In the heat of an argument, it’s easy to lose sight of what truly matters, but this rule serves as a reminder that our relationship is built on love and respect. By ending each debate with a hug, we reaffirm our commitment to each other, ensuring that our disagreements never overshadow the bond we share.

In conclusion, the guidelines we’ve established for our household debates are a reflection of our unique dynamic, influenced by years of observing political debates and adapting their strategies to fit our personal lives. These rules have helped us navigate the inevitable conflicts that arise in any relationship, fostering a sense of mutual respect and understanding. As the nation prepares for another round of presidential debates, I can’t help but reflect on the lessons we’ve learned and the ways in which they’ve strengthened our marriage. While the stakes in our household debates may not be as high as those on the national stage, the principles remain the same: fairness, respect, and a commitment to finding common ground. And in the end, isn’t that what any debate, political or personal, should strive to achieve?