In a debate, shouldn't the moderator ask a question, two minutes each to state position, than 4 minutes of actual "debate" between them?

[shockedcanadian]

First, I want to state, neither candidate was impressive. Trump did better on calling out the scandals, and many watching probably googled them since their indoctrination media of choice never brings it up. However, he failed to focus on the key areas of strength: jobs, the economy and China. Those are his key to victory and he didn't raise them near enough.

Second, Wallace is a tool. If this is supposed to be the "conservative" choice for debates, I'll take my chances that CNN is more fair and open to letting them battle it out. Whatever media are doing the 2nd and 3rd have a great opportunity to cut into Fox ratings, by simply being more neutral and letting them debate. They may pick up some Wallace viewers.

Why wouldn't you consider your three top rated shows in the country to have a moderator? Why capitulate for "fairness"? You think CNN would send out a right leaning moderator? Laura Ingraham would have been a perfect choice, why weak, flimsy, China First Wallace? Oh, maybe I answered my own question...

Why was Wallace bailing out Biden in particular? Let them duke it out ffs, you have 90+ minutes. By my math, 20 seconds to ask a question, 2 min each to respond, 4 minutes of debate. You eat up 8 min 20 sec per question.

You can ask 10 questions with time left for more slugging. Let them debate ffs, the interjecting made it far worse. If a man can't stand on the stage and defend himself and his policies, he shouldn't be running for president. This isn't the time for pablum.

Without question, Wallace made it worse. You shouldn't be "reffing". You should say, "ok, time's up". Trump and Biden can demand answers from the other. Trump certainly did.

 

[gallantwarrior]

How it should be does not support the actual goal of such a spectacle.

 

[Coyote]

I think debates - formal debates - have rules, not a duke it out, all interruption, who can yell loudest type of set up. Also I think the rules are largely decided between the two campaigns, who agree to follow them.

 

[Harry Dresden]

i would rather see one were the people in the audience ask the questions and they have to come up with something on the fly....they either know what they are talking about or they dont....

 

[WTH_Progs?]

I like the idea, however with Trump you won't get in a word those four minutes, he'd beat you senseless.

I think I'd propose the following......

Topic:
1. Two minutes each to make a case off moderator's question. Turn the microphone off the other.
2. The opponent has two minutes to counter after each turn, and can say whatever the fuck they want to.
3. The questions are provided by both Demonicrats and Republicans.

Eight minutes per topic.

General:
Three minutes each to make any case they like. In other terms, shut the fuck up Wallace. Turn the microphone off the other. Like above, the opponent has two minutes to counter after each turn and can say whatever the fuck they want to. They should spend as much time on this as they do pre-planned questions designed to favor Demonicrats.

It shouldn't be a moderator's job to correct or defend any candidate, period. They prove bias and are themselves wrong too. Let the candidates figure it out, and let the public do the same.

PROG-run debates would never allow it, because it doesn't favor their candidates of late and especially Biden. All POTUS debates are run by PROGS.

 

[basquebromance]

Wallace interrupted Biden 15 times, Trump 75 times

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Wallace interrupted Biden 15 times, Trump 75 times

I'm hoping someone edits the video with the hundred+ times Trump was interrupted.

 

[basquebromance]

America needs to be single for the next 4 years...NO PRESIDENT!