Debate in the U.S. Senate has been revered and mythologized throughout much of our history. The historical impression of Senate debate is that it is robust, civil, and well informed. At the same time, the terms deliberation and debate, particularly in the case of the U.S. Senate, are often used interchangeably by scholars, pundits, and average citizens to discuss Congress’ upper chamber. This dissertation argues that while related, debate and deliberation are separate concepts that need to be studied independently. Likewise, it investigates some of the myths on which the Senate’s reputation is built. To investigate the nuances of legislative debate in the U.S. Senate I analyze floor debate of 111 landmark pieces of legislation from the 103rd through 114th Congresses (1993-2016). I investigate factors that influence which senators participate in debate, shifts in the overall tone of legislative debate, and the types of information senators rely on to support their positions during debate. In general, I find that participation in floor debate is not robust and that senior senators, chamber and party leaders, and Democrats are more likely to participate in debate. I also find that the tone of legislative debate has not, overall, become more negative as the institution has become more partisan. Finally, I find that senators prioritize inserting items that convey political information rather than policy expertise into the Congressional Record during the course of legislative debate.