On Wednesday, the public witnessed the first GOP presidential debate of the 2024 cycle . Eight candidates qualified, though the front-runner, former President Donald Trump , refused to participate. The event begins a series of debates on the Republican side as the party’s voters consider whom they want to run for the nation’s highest office in 2024.

In assessing these debates, we should consider a historical precedent. This week also marked the 165th anniversary of possibly the most famous clash of candidates in American history: the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Abraham Lincoln squared off against sitting Illinois Sen. Stephen Douglas in a series of seven oratorical battles, beginning in the third week of August 1858 and continuing through the middle of October. Through their debates, they asked the people of Illinois to vote in a state legislature that would select them to fill the next term in the U.S. Senate (before the 17th Amendment, state legislatures directly selected senators).

Certain elements of debating then and now remain consistent. Lincoln and Douglas offered a vision for the country, especially on the most troublesome issue of the day: slavery. In making their case, they took hard shots at each other, including some pretty low, even salacious accusations. Both men sought humor to land a good point as well, with Lincoln’s superior wit often triumphing on that score. Each, finally, sought to placate voters regarding their own perceived weaknesses and magnify the problems with his opponent, with Douglas scoring well here with the day’s voters by accusing Lincoln of anti-slavery extremism.

These consistencies point to the perpetual purposes for debates. We have such contests between candidates because they provide a useful moment to size up the people who wish to represent us in government. It is one thing to make your case alone before a friendly audience in a stump speech or on a well-manicured website containing vetted talking points. In a debate, these cute presentations are challenged. Others subject that self-presentation to critique and offer alternatives. This allows the voters to assess how a person can act under fire, helping us to assess competency for the office they seek. It also gives a crisper comparison to those competing visions, whereby we can consider which politician’s policies might best help the country.

Yet the Lincoln-Douglas contests looked very different from our current debate format. In the 1850s, the debate lasted for three hours. In that time, the first candidate spoke for 60 minutes, followed by a 90-minute rebuttal by his opponent, and concluded with a 30-minute response by the first speaker. Now, candidates are given mere minutes to answer a variety of questions and are often subjected to frequent interruptions.

This difference has left us, as voters, worse off as we seek to make our choice of candidates. The Lincoln-Douglas time frames permitted, even demanded, that candidates develop and sustain an argument with real depth and breadth. This setup privileged those candidates with a command of the facts, the history of the country, and the particular policy proposals currently at issue.

Our current, extremely short back-and-forth seeks soundbites and vague notions. Platitudes and one-liners rather than serious knowledge and reasoning skills predominate. One need look no further than our current vice president to see how this format can mislead regarding the best candidate for office.

The solution certainly would not be to return strictly to the format that Lincoln and Douglas used to square off before voters. Our attention spans as an audience would not countenance such a move. However, we could move toward some time frame between the old and the current setups. We might require candidates to make 15-minute arguments on their feet rather than merely 60 seconds. The difference would start to privilege different qualities in those seeking office, thus likely changing whom voters would reward with their support. These different qualities hopefully would include a greater command of policies and underlying American principles. It would involve the ability to think well on one’s feet beyond the quick, sarcastic retort.

Fixing these debate problems is no silver bullet. But it would be a step in the right direction. As we weigh candidates in today’s debate environment, we might remember a better era of political discourse in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. They faced times even more contentious than our own. We should hope for leaders ready to meet the challenge as they did.

Adam Carrington is an assistant professor of politics at Hillsdale College.