America: From a Fallen Child Star to the Head of the University of the West

Chapter 90 Issues > Debate

At 11:45 p.m., Sean arrived at the campaign team's temporary residence, a two-story private house in the suburbs of Pasadena. The house wasn't large, but as Matthew had said, it was indeed discreet and inconspicuous, unlikely to attract attention.

Sean pushed open the door and went inside, finding the living room brightly lit.

Matthew, Vincent, and Kelly were sitting around a large table covered with documents, drafts, and sticky notes. Several whiteboards hung on the wall, covered with dense writing and arrows.

"Mr. Pan, you're back." Matthew was the first to notice Sean's arrival and quickly stood up.

"What are you doing?" Sean walked over and glanced at the things on the table.

"We're discussing the design of our campaign manifesto." Kelly put down her pen. "You've come at the perfect time; you can give us some feedback. Oh no, you were the one who was supposed to make the final decision anyway."

"Election manifesto?"

"You know, those slogans printed on posters, banners, brochures," Matthew said. "Like 'Make America Great Again'."

"I understand now." Sean nodded wearily, but still pulled up a chair and sat down. "Thank you for your hard work. Let me see what you've come up with."

Kelly pushed over a stack of papers filled with drafts of various slogans.

As is widely known, campaign slogans have a long tradition in American political history, dating back to the 19th century.

Since William Henry Harrison began his presidential campaign in 1840, almost every presidential candidate has racked their brains to come up with a good slogan. Some slogans are simple and direct, such as Eisenhower's "I love Ike" and Melancholic Kennedy's "Let's move forward again."

Some are more obscure and require certain background knowledge to understand, such as Wilson's "neoliberalism" (not neoliberalism), in contrast to Theodore Roosevelt's "new nationalism".

Some slogans are personal attacks. For example, in 1884, Republicans used the slogan "Mom, Mom, where's Dad? He's in the White House, ha ha ha!" when attacking Democratic candidate Grover Cleveland. This was a sarcastic remark about Cleveland having an illegitimate child.

Of course, Cleveland ultimately won the election, which shows that negative attacks are not always effective.

But that's all in the past; let's get back to the main point. Sean flipped through the draft in his hand, seeing various ideas: "Unity, not division."

"Break the old ways and build a new future."

"Our country, our choice."

"Is this all your idea?" Sean asked.

"Yes," Matthew said somewhat shyly, "but we feel neither is good enough. They're either too bland or too much like existing slogans, lacking originality."

"Campaign slogans," Kelly remarked, "seem simple, but they're actually very difficult. They need to convey the candidate's core message in just a few words, while also being catchy, easy to remember, and capable of evoking emotional resonance among voters."

"And it has to be suitable for all occasions. Whether it's printed on a hat, written on a banner, or shouted at a rally, it has to be appropriate."

"Let's not rush into that for now," Sean stated his thoughts directly. They weren't in a hurry to get that far ahead of themselves!

So he put down the paper in his hand. "Now that I'm back, let's discuss Charlie Kirk's matter first."

“Speaking of which,” Kelly picked up another document, “Charlie Kirk sent me a letter, several pages long. I had Matthew summarize it, mainly three debate topics.”

He handed the document to Sean.

"First debate topic: Can atheists possess objective moral standards?"

"The second debate topic: Is secular humanitarianism sufficient to support a healthy society?"

The third debate topic: What role should faith play in public life?

Sean finished reading and put the document down.

What are everyone's thoughts?

Matthew spoke first: "To be honest, Mr. Pan, I don't quite know how to answer these questions."

He scratched his head, somewhat embarrassed, and continued, "You know I grew up in a Chinese family. My parents aren't Christians, but they're not atheists either. They worship Guanyin, burn incense, and put up Spring Festival couplets, but if you ask them what they believe in, they can't really say."

"So I really can't help with this kind of religious debate."

"What about Vincent?" Sean asked, looking at Vincent.

"I—" Vincent carefully chose his words, "I would say I'm a person with some faith. I went to church with my family when I was a child, and although I don't go as often now, deep down I still believe in some higher existence."

"However, as a lawyer, I can analyze this issue from another perspective."

"What angle?"

"The angle of defense," Vincent said. "In court, we often need to defend positions that seem unreasonable. The key is to find the right entry point and the right logic of argument."

"For example, the first debate topic is whether atheists can possess objective moral standards. Charlie Kirk's argument might be:"

Without God, there is no objective source of morality; all morality is subjective and relative.

"Our rebuttal could be: the objectivity of moral standards does not depend on the existence of a god, but on the common reason of humankind and the social contract. Like law, it is man-made, but it still has binding force and objectivity."

"That's one idea," Sean nodded, "but I'm worried that this kind of purely theoretical debate will bore the audience."

Who's in the mood to watch a debate these days? We'd rather watch Musk and Zuckerberg go to war.

"You're right to worry," Kelly said with a smile. "Actually, the debate itself is more important than the debate. And what topic to debate is more important than how to debate it."

"What do you mean?" Matthew asked.

"Let me tell you a story," Kelly recalled. "Many years ago, I was an advisor to a mayoral candidate in Philadelphia. His opponent was a very experienced politician with exceptional debating skills."

"Our team did a lot of preparation, listing all possible debate topics and practicing our responses countless times. But the night before the actual debate, I called the candidate aside and told him: Forget about those prepared answers."

He asked me why. I said: Because your opponent is better at debating than you. If you play by his rules, you're bound to lose.

"So what should he do?" Sean asked.

“Change the rules,” Kelly said. “I told him: whatever question your opponent asks, you have to steer the conversation to what you do best. If they ask about economic policy, talk about the hope that job creation brings to ordinary families; if they ask about crime rates, talk about the kids you met while volunteering in your community.”

"Take abstract debates into concrete stories, and policy differences into dialogues of values. In this way, the audience will remember not whose arguments are more powerful, but who is more like a real, flesh-and-blood person."

"And then?" Matthew asked curiously.

"And he won," Kelly smiled. "Not because he beat his opponent in the debate, but because the audience liked him. They found him sincere, reliable, and trustworthy. That's more effective than any eloquence."

At that moment, Sean suddenly realized. What Kelly said was almost exactly what he had been thinking!

"You mean I shouldn't confront Charlie Kirk on these three topics?" he asked with a smile.

"It's not about avoiding confrontation, but about confronting him in your own way," Kelly said. "Charlie Kirk is a professional debater; he excels at overwhelming his opponents with logic and quotations. But you're a politician with an acting background; your strengths are performance and storytelling. So you use your strengths to attack his weaknesses."

"How exactly do we do it?" Vincent frowned, feeling discouraged.

"Let me share an idea," Matthew suddenly said. "Regarding the first topic of debate, can atheists possess objective moral standards?"

Tell me about it.

"I think instead of getting bogged down in the definition of the word 'objectivity,' we should just admit it directly: yes, there is no God, and morality certainly does not have an absolute, supernatural source."

"But this does not mean that morality is meaningless. Morality stems from human empathy, the need for social cooperation, and our instinctive pursuit of fairness and justice. These things do not need to be given by God; they are the essence of what makes us human."

“That’s a good angle,” Sean said. “But Charlie Kirk will definitely ask: if morality is merely a human invention, then what makes you think your moral standards are more correct than Hitler’s?”

"That's a classic rebuttal," Vincent nodded. "Without objective standards, morality becomes a matter of the survival of the fittest, where might makes right."

If you really have to say something, it's not wrong, is it?

“We can respond like this,” Kelly continued, “that someone’s moral standards are wrong not because they violate God’s will, but because they violate common human values. Almost all human civilizations, regardless of religion, agree on certain basic principles: do not kill the innocent, do not steal, do not lie.”

"These principles are not the exclusive property of any one religion, but rather the wisdom that humanity has accumulated through repeated trial and error throughout its long history. Hitler violated these principles, therefore he was wrong."

"If that's the argument," Matthew, a history student, continued, "then Charlie Kirk might say: 'What you call "common values" are precisely the result of the spread of Christian civilization. Without Christianity, there would be no modern concept of human rights.'"

"This is also a point that needs to be addressed," Sean acknowledged. "Christianity has indeed had a significant impact on the development of Western civilization. But that doesn't mean that morality must be subservient to religion."

"We can point out that many moral advancements, such as the abolition of slavery, precisely challenged the doctrines of the church at the time. If morality were entirely dependent on religion, such progress would not have been possible—"

The discussion continued for quite some time.