Debate bingo: what do politicians say to convince you?

Playing with words

Breij and Linders studied the debates not to see to what extent the participants were at each other's throats, but to see how politicians convey their message and what debating techniques and rhetorical tricks they use to do so.

‘There is constant framing and reformulation during debates,’ explains Breij. ‘Sometimes explicitly, such as when JA21 renamed the extra freedom contribution proposed by the CDA the Bontenbal tax.’ But sometimes speakers try to do this very discreetly, Linders adds. “For example, by slightly changing what the other person says and changing something like ‘50 per cent of suspects’ to ‘50 per cent of perpetrators’. Politicians play a lot with terms, and especially when they change just one word, you may not notice that they are choosing a different frame or twisting things.”

Another trend in framing is creating consensus yourself, Breij and Linders observe, for example by referring to something as a crisis so often that many people assume it really is a crisis. “Then you hear politicians say things like: ‘Yes, but in times of crisis’, after which they explain what other rules apply and what exceptional policy is appropriate,” says Linders.

Ad hominem attacks, false dilemmas, and straw man arguments: politicians do not shy away from using fallacies during debates. Personal attacks were not too bad in the first debates, although Frans Timmermans did accuse Rob Jetten of lying during the second RTL debate. False dilemmas, on the other hand, recur in every election campaign. “Politicians present two options as if you have to choose between them, when in practice it doesn't have to be one or the other.”

Another fallacy that Breij and Linders observed is the slippery slope argument used by the SP to counter the FVD's position on resuming gas extraction in Groningen. ‘First it's Groningen, then Zeeland and then Limburg,’ argued the SP, suggesting that one choice inevitably leads to another, when that is not necessarily the case.

Debating fairly is not the same as debating successfully

Politicians may not always debate fairly, but that makes little difference to their success, Breij and Linders conclude. “Of course, it's about who you're saying something to, and if you can reach your supporters without adhering to the rules of good debate, you will still succeed in your aim.”

One of the things that debating politicians are really cautious about is expressing negative opinions about an entire group of voters. “The only one I've seen do that so far is JA21 number two Annabel Nanninga, who said that Gaza protesters are ‘useful idiots’ who are ‘doing the work of Hamas’,” says Linders. “Of course, you don't want to scare away a group of potential voters, so politicians only do this when they are fairly certain that the group they are dismissing is not going to vote for their party anyway.”

Are you going to watch any of the election debates in the coming days? Then you know what tricks to look out for. But to make the debates a little more fun, Breij and Linders have also compiled a list of common statements made during debates. “You can bet your bottom dollar that someone will call the Netherlands the best boy in the class or accuse an opponent of pointing the moral finger. And an election debate isn't complete without someone talking about the ordinary man, hard-working families or stifling regulatory pressure.”

Play Radboud Recharge Debate Bingo

Debt mountain, household budget, muddle-headed policy... bingo. To make election debates even more interesting, there is now Radboud Recharge Debate Bingo. Enjoy watching and scratching!

Download the (Dutch) bingo cards