During the first week of December 2015, after having achieved the goal of organizing the first presidential debates in Argentina, the members of the Executive Committee met to celebrate this historic event and take stock of the process.
At the meeting, they reminisced about the most critical moments and how the challenges that arose during the initiative's two years of existence were resolved and addressed; how the working methodology was consolidated; and how, through internal meetings and debates, a successful advocacy strategy was built from within civil society, leading to a historic achievement. Analyzing the past positioned the members of the Executive Committee to look toward the future and raised the question of how to make this public good permanent and, consequently, how to create an incentive structure that fosters debate, as well as what the role of Argentina Debate should be in the coming years.
This dilemma generated conflicting opinions. While all members of the Executive Committee agreed on the importance of Argentina Debate continuing to exist, a dilemma arose regarding the scope of its activities and its role as an actor in the public sphere.

On one hand, some members of the Committee, represented by Francisco, believed that Argentina Debate should continue to be the guarantor of high-profile presidential debates, thus upholding the brand's image. This group argued that, while the first two debates achieved a historic milestone, for them to become a tradition and be institutionalized as part of the country's political culture, it is essential that debates actually take place in the next elections.
In this regard, Francisco stated, “To achieve a stable institutionalization of debates, Argentina Debate must carry out activities between elections that foster a culture of debate. This should aim at two more immediate objectives. On the one hand, to promote a higher quality of public debate in various settings (both electoral and non-electoral). On the other hand, we must maintain the Argentina Debate brand and public awareness. It is the duty of this initiative to play a central role, not only because of its legitimacy, recognition, and connections through the international network of presidential debates, but fundamentally because of its experience in organizing the first Argentine presidential debates.” He added, furthermore, that: “Argentina Debate has a proven track record and enjoys public prestige that it must leverage to generate better institutional balance in each election year through higher-quality debates.”
In contrast to this sector, other members of the Committee, represented by Esteban, considered that the initiative should continue to operate within its specific sphere of influence, that is, during presidential election years.
“Given the objectives and mission we set when we launched this initiative, holding activities during non-election years would extend the scope we initially proposed, thus distorting the missions and functions of Argentina Debate. Personally, I believe that Argentina Debate has the authority and expertise to contribute to the organization of presidential debates, as an actor that will always exert social pressure for their occurrence, even when other actors, such as the media or the State, are in charge of the organization.”