Televised presidential debates are events in which we as voters get to finally see the candidates have a battle of words to see who has a better plan for our country.

This would be nice if it was what happened in a debate; unfortunately, what we get is more closely related to a pageant of who looked best and screwed up the least.

Before 1960, debates were aired on the radio instead of televised. This meant voters had to listen to each candidates’ views on domestic and foreign issues.

However, in 1960 the debate was televised so people could watch the candidates as they gave their speech and rebuttals to each question.

A recent article on gallup.com states only two presidential elections have been affected by televised debates: The 1960 race between Kennedy and Nixon and the 2000 race between Bush and Gore.

As reported in the article, before the first debate in 1960, Nixon was up in the polls by one point but after the final debate Kennedy was up by four points. In the 2000 election year, Gore was up by eight points before the first debate and was down four after the final debate.

The astounding point of this poll is out of 13 presidential elections since televised debates, only two seemed to matter. If the number isn’t enough to make a point, two out of 13 comes to only 15 percent.

So the question really is: Do televised debates really matter? The simple and truthful answer is no, they don’t matter.

Again, before 1960, the debates were the first time voters got to hear each candidate’s plan of action for the country. Now, people usually know each candidates views and policies from primaries, interviews and campaign tours.

So all they do in a debate is talk about the stuff they’ve been talking about for months.

Debates boil down to who looks the best and doesn’t seem like a weirdo.

In 1960, Nixon was ahead in the polls because he seemed like the smarter and more talented politician than Kennedy. However, in the debate, people got to see how clean-cut, calm and strong[-]statured Kennedy was answering the questions with ease. Nixon on the other hand was sweaty, twitchy and flustered[,]leading to staggered answers which made him look unprepared.

Even if Nixon’s plan was better, the fact is he looked terrible in the debate.

It shouldn’t matter if a candidate looks great in a scripted setting. It should be on how good his or her policies are and his or her handling of foreign affairs and domestic issues. It should also be how he or she acts in a moment of crisis or high stress.

Debates are not high-stress moments since many of them are rehearsed by the candidates. The way a candidate acts during a debate does not mean it’s how he will act once in the White House.

The same can be said about the debate between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney Wednesday night.

Obama looked flustered during the debate and didn’t acknowledge Romney at all, like a scared dog. Romney was the complete opposite, as he looking strong and dignified in his answers.

This was the first of three debates so it’s still early to see if this election will be affected by debates. But if history is any indication, it more than likely will not.

May the best dressed and the least sweaty win.