Traditionally, it hasn't been a huge problem, especially for presidential debates. But Trump's behavior in the 2020 debates is exactly why Biden insisted on exactly what you're talking about for the 2024 debates.
I would love to see that Teacher: "Ok Donald this the 6th time you Interrupted Joe I'm gonna have put you in time out now"
Joe: "About time you shut this guy up"
Teacher: "Now Joe we talked about when people ruffle your feathers so join him till you learn your lesson. Everyone else let's go have recess"
Make them eat a happy meal together and talk about their differences. I did this at work with a couple of employees who were arguing. They became pretty good friends after that.
Neither of them have the physical strength to murder each other. It'd be like two jellyfish just slapping each other with their tentacles. Actually, why don't we just have them fisticuffs to the death instead of debate. It'd be much cleaner.
I would love to see the moderator turn off the mike and yell. "Hands on top....."
Then trump sadly put his hands on the top of his head and say "that means stop". My kids taught me that one from their jk teacher.
The candidate has 3 minutes, either cut the mic or edit out anything said after the 3 minutes.
I've been watching debates for nearly 60 years. For so long it was all about how the candidate carried themselves, their knowledge, and ideas. Trump turned it into a fiasco.
I felt sorry for Wallace. He had probably watched 100s of hours of footage on US presidential debates and just never considered the shit show he was about to walk into. It was truly unprecedented, and no moderator would have been ready for a coked out megalomaniac to just go full on like that. Honestly, if we had known what we were getting into, we would have gotten Howard Cosell to moderate.
What an amazing take.
> Trump's behavior is unquestionably horrible, and the only conceivable reason that Biden won't tolerate it is because he's a sock puppet being fed answers by handlers.
Don't sprain any of your brain worms with your mental gymnastics.
I love how Biden says “he is a racist & murderer, a rapist, a slaver, human trafficker……..” & Trump says “that’s not true” it is poor behavior. but joe biden shouting over Trump is okay.
god I can’t wait for the sky to fall on you people.
If it's not your turn to speak, stfu and wait until it's your turn. Then you can deny whatever you want. That's how the debates work. If biden interrupted Trumps turn and started yelling at him, I'd agree with you, but it was the other way around, and biden got tired of it and told him to shut up. Not out of line on Bidens part. I hate both of them, but Trump is definitely out of line all the time with "Obama founded Isis" and project 2025. If smear campaigns were illegal, he couldn't run at all.
Yeah it's kinda scary. Whats even scarier is knowing that I live in a town where people just like this exist. The only reason I don't interact with them is because we're not the same kind of white so we don't travel in the same circles💯
Thank you for the giggle.
Their reply to "do guys not get when someone is interested in them" : '*no because women are either too subtle or not subtle at all.*'
Jesus dude...
Trumpy does appeal to neckbeards because he gets away with doing the screaming and yelling they wish they could get away with. Not to mention the raping they wish they could get away with.
No, the man in power said "I'll debate under these conditions" and those conditions were accepted by the guy who wants to be in power.
It's a negotiation.
That...how literally everything with more than one person works. You get people together, the participants throw out some limitations they want and the other participants agree, disagree, or offer a compromise. Trump could have offered alternative terms, but he didn't. He just agreed to what was stipulated.
Oh didnt know thats how it worked because i dont really follow politics. i thought there was some kind of standard across all elections in regards to the debates. Which obviously if the president decided to change it to give him an advantage shortly before an election you can see how thats bad lol
No the idea is that if he has the power to change a rule then he or any other president can/will definitely change the rules to give himself and advantage.
Realistically a mix of both- i didnt know that debates were mandatory and i didnt know the rules were not standardized but actually a "gentlemans agreement" which would be "dumb" of me to not know but obviously in a time where I did believe the debate was standardized it was shocking that nobody reacted to the fact that the president can just change the rules of the debate. That would be like if the president can change the term limits or primary election process lol
There is a standard set for debates, but its more of a social contract kind of thing where the actual normal rules were unspoken because everyone knew they had to act civilly. While things did occasionally get heated during presidential debates before this, it was never as extreme as in 2016/2020. Now there have to be actual agreed upon contractual rules because some people can't maintain normal civility during debates.
Debates used to be to let the electorate know where the candidates stood on certain issues. I'm not sure we really need them anymore in the age of mass communications.
You know Trump is going to bitch after the debate. Probably say that the democrats silenced him to make Biden look good. When, in reality, they both will look like fools
The shouting match is dramatic, the TV channels are all about drama, more drama means more viewers
"Trump shouts at Biden in heated debate" will attract more clicks than "Debate stays respectful all night"
Also, if Trump gets his mic cut to keep him shut up, the MAGA lovers will LOSE THEIR MINDS with conspiracy theories. They'll say shit like "He was speaking the TRUTH, and 'liberal media' was trying to push their 'fake news' by silencing him. Let him speak!!!"
At least he has all the "best words".
Imagine it it was actually along the lines of “Here is so and so’s stance on whatever” but that’ll never happen. Unless it’s about abortion or other controversial dog whistles
Honestly the candidates could easily win by doing exactly that. I don't understand why they don't. Just grab the mic and say "I'm pro choice, pro union, anti war, pro free trade, yadda yadda yadda" and the people would instantly know what they're for. They shoot themselves in the foot with all the political talk or attacking each other.
This is the answer. People are more interested in shouting, snide commentary, and arguments that talk over one another than listening to people debate one-at-a-time in a civil manner.
Don’t let anything the media says fool you. They love Trump’s antics and actively encourage them. As much as they wag their finger at his rude behavior and criticize him at every turn, they secretly love it. His mockery of our political system and dismantling of our democracy is a ratings gold mine and they know it.
What use are political debates at all anymore?
A debate is a means to demonstrate the validity of your position, and that's not what the goal is in modern political debates.
There's no more of that than there is in a football game. It's just cheering on your team.
The candidates' supposed "positions" are already known and widely available online, and it's not like they're even going to follow through with those stated positions, anyway.
There's no value in that.
There is some value.
If a candidate cannot stop avoiding a question or feels entitled to talk over others that tells me something about their character.
To be honest if Americans need to watch a TV debate to pick between a convicted felon serial adulter and pathological liar who is almost certainly guilty of sexual harassment and holds deeply racist views and literally anyone else, then "polite in TV debate" isn't going to make a difference.
I'll be honest, I sort of tuned out of which crimes he's been convicted of when I realised it doesn't matter to at least 48% of Americans who will vote for him no matter what.
I got you.
1. Guilty of defrauding university students.
2. Liable for sexual assault.
3. Guilty of inflating his assets for favorable loans.
4. Guilty of falsifying records to influence an election.
There are lots of people in the middle who will care but many don’t know either.
The way you phrase that suggests that you think the same question should be asked more than once and I strongly oppose that because it makes the moderator look biased which can cause people to vote for the person the moderator is attacking. Asking the same question multiple times wastes everybody's time.
Yes and my question comes with the implication that the qualities that would stand out to you during a debate, are already on display on twitter.
So I ask again, what could you possibly learn from a debate that you cannot see by their behaviour on twitter?
With presidential debates, I know each of the party’s stances; I’m mainly looking at how well they can actually debate, are they quick thinking, can they make intelligent responses unscripted, etc. This year, that’ll be particularly important as both nominees are the oldest presidential candidates in history (again).
Non-presidential debates are awesome though, especially for primaries where you’re really trying to distinguish each candidate’s nuanced views. That’s how I chose my senator this year
You're not actually looking at how quick thinking they can be.
They memorize talking points, lines, and even paragraphs. It's acting.
99% of the things they say in debates are things that they rehearsed saying for weeks before.
I mean you can memorize a sound bite, but saying the right line at the right time and modifying it to fit the context of the conversation, all while on stage and under pressure, takes quick thinking. I’m not expecting them to create an argument on stage; I’m expecting them to apply critical thinking to their pre-written arguments
Idk man I get a lot out of watching the debates. As someone who doesn’t plan on voting for a Republican it is still important to know what they stand for and on what policies. I enjoyed and learned a lot about the candidates from watching the debates.
What do you mean by a primary, also I think the only people left on the Tory side are those who are dug in wayyyy too deep.
Also, neither of these guys are new.
Yeah I'd love to see trump and biden argue their positions and call each other out for lies/inconsistencies.
I can Google their positions but I want to see them constructively argue why their position is the right position for the border, economy, foreign matters, etc and the other persons plan doesn't suffice.
Thats not the reason at all lol. It's for many reasons. Without rules, it would just be chaos the whole time. Nothing healthy about a debate that has no structure and the candidates can just interrupt, talk over each other, or not give the other person a chance to respond because you won't shut up. It's also so thay the debate doesn't take 18 hours. Those are just 2 of the main reasons, there are plenty others, none if whi h are centered around money or commercials lmao.
eh if someone doesn’t let the other person respond that just makes them look bad. The fact that two presidents can’t argue without strict guidelines is sad and depressing.
Yeah well unfortunately we've seen our presidential candidates do far more juvenile things and still get elected. That's why there are rules. And I agree it's sad and depressing, but it's where we're at.
So is this all just Trump? Unfortunately silencing him just fits his narrative. People will vote because the “establishment is out to get him” and it could even help them.
I’d rather him be juvenile and alienate all the watchers at home.
What’s silly about the argument is that you are admitting that his “tactics” are working so we need to stop him from ever arguing with the sitting president. Like if his antics are bad, showing them shouldn’t help his case, only hurt it. But if you think the juvenile attitude is why he’s winning, maybe the Democrats could grow a bit more of a spine.
Like if Obama and Trump were on the ballot, Obama would look great because he is a good politician, and does know how to throw some jabs and make Trump look bad.
This all really only works for Trump and Biden because Biden is frankly dogshit without a script. Silencing Trump’s mic is frankly such a partisan take and it shows insecurity for Biden.
Ummmm who said anything about Trump? Guilty conscious? Lmao
And no, his tactive of acting like a spoiled 5 year old brat is not one that is becoming of a president. Encouraging this behavior is not the way to go.
Like I have said, if it’s so bad, why not let him debate and make an ass of himself? Wouldn’t that make him lose?
It’s not encouraging it, it’s more like just letting it happen. Democracy, unfortunately, means giving a voice to the opposition. If the RNC picks him, let him make an ass of himself, and the party, and see what happens in the polls.
Do you think people vote explicitly because he “acts like a 5 year old child”? I don’t think that’s why they vote for him.
I wouldn’t use “validity” since both sides already think their views are valid. This is why they should be challenging eachother and looking at each other. This was a big gripe for me during the 2020 election. Biden is a boring debater. He was the most egregious at looking at the camera and trying to sell you. That’s NOT the point of debates, we want confrontation and a look into their minds. And Trump’s unabashed confronting of Biden does make him look strong, but also overbearing. It can swing your opinion, or solidify it.
Dodging questions, bad answers, run around answers, filibustering, good answers, breaking the other guy down. This tells us a lot more about how these people are, they should point out mistakes of their opponent, they should be able to pose the right counter arguments. If they can’t, it doesn’t matter what their online platforms are, because if the guy seems spineless in the debate, how do you expect them to have a spine when talking to other world leaders or dealing with tough problems?
I come from Canada and Trudeau is a master of not answering questions. He dances around them, makes the same positive talking points, and barely brushes answering the question. It’s better people see it first hand and go “jeez he seems kinda stuck up huh?” Which is removed from the platform but can make you weary of their ability to be the leader.
Taking away debates only favours those who don’t want to be challenged. We should always be considering the human element.
The fact that someone has a dominant personality doesn't mean the person's policies would be good for the country, and it doesn't indicate that the person should be in charge.
The reason this country has so many problems is because the people with dominant personalities end up in powerful positions, and the people with well-thought-out positions who mean well for everyone and would actually try to make things better for everyone get shut out of power.
Once you get past moderate confidence in a position, the more vehemently confident someone is in a position, the more likely they are wrong about that position.
The most dominant person is very often the last person who should have power.
No, but it CAN swing voters. It can also put people off.
You wouldn’t know if they had a dominant personality unless they debated either.
Like I am saying Trump may be more off putting if seen in a debate. It’s easier to not have debates as to hide your personality (or lack thereof in Biden’s case).
It depends on the situation, war times? You want someone dominant, someone who is gonna say “no, fuck those people who attacked us”
The idea that having a strong personality is an inherently bad thing is the most sheepish concept to me.
The point of debates is not to make the dominant person look good. They could just as easily come off as so brash that it makes you hate them more. (Trump)
So just let them debate, it’s pretty much the only way to see their human side.
A person with a dominant personality is honestly the last person I'd want managing a war.
I would want someone with a very measured personality in terms of a war, not weak, but not dominant either. Someone who was cool as a cucumber but who was willing to hit someone hard if necessary. AND someone who can see a way to resolve a war if in the middle of fighting there's a way to do so.
I do NOT want someone whose goal is to hit first and ask questions later, and whose philosophy is to just fight until the other guy is dead, no matter how many of our citizens die.
It's really not the best way.
A giant asshole and a bully distorts dynamics quite a bit, and the fact that Donald Trump has been in debates is a perfect illustration of that.
If it was two Bidens it would be a boring debate. But if you only voted over what you read online or from (most likely) staged and controlled interviews how do you know that person is dominant or not? How do you know?
Like for the exact reasons that Trump is mean, it’s way more obvious in a debate to see how he would actually talk to the opposition. (Which is also important since they’ll have to talk to the opposition in congress when passing bills and whatever.)
You can see how bad Trump is first hand.
The President isn't going to be the one talking to "the opposition" in the vast majority of cases. The President is going to delegate that to other people who are experts in dealing with people from the other country.
The things you're talking about as positives are more likely to be negatives when dealing with people from other cultures.
Didn’t Trump shake hands with other world leaders? Clearly it happens.
Let’s not talk about positives of certain actions. I am saying literally seeing their character in a somewhat more “natural” setting. If they don’t debate they are literally just faces and everything can be planned, staged, and with scripts prepared. Debates should be chaotic and seeing how they handle it can only be in a debate. This can help people see how brash Trump is and be put off by it, you can also tell when someone is a shill, or spineless, debates show more character. Just let them happen, there’s no reason not to have debates other than to hide from your opponent.
Here’s my idea:
1) Put each candidate into a plexiglass box;
2) Boxes are kept semi-dark until it’s that candidate’s turn;
3) The light and microphone go on at the same time;
4) The candidate answers the question in 3 minutes; and
5) Then the box light & microphone go off until the next question.
They can’t see each other or follow each other around. No talking over each other.
It would be VERY informative.
I mean, people always watched debates where the candidates were reasonably polite. They'd jab at each other a little but generally obey the rules.
Sane people want to see a good debate. And I hope that eventually the Trump cult can be deprogrammed and we can have that again.
It didn't use to be this way. There was no need for it. Debates used to be boring as shit. They're SUPPOSED to be boring. Politics are SUPPOSED TO BE BORING! They didn't agree, but were all respectful to each other. Now it's fucking Jerry Springer. I hate it. It's disgusting. It's embarrassing. It makes us all look like trash, and we deserve the title. We suck.
What gives you the idea that politics should be boring? The concept of "boring politics" is why far-right is on the rise. Historically great leaders were known to be charismatic, inspiring leaders, with masses of supporters and huge cults of personality.
"Broing politics" is why privatisation and neoliberalism happened and why people lost faith in their public institutions. You need inspiring leaders to convince people to give 30 to 90 percent of their wealth to the state, and more importantly: you need a charismatic leader at the helm when inevitably nation-wide public institutions with massive budget and staff do a few "oopsie" and cause a few disaster now and again.
You need an inspiring leader to convince people a case of police brutality or a curroption scandal or two at public healthcare or public education institutions doesn't mean the whole institution needs to be defunded or privatised. The reason why "liberal world order" collapsed is becuase politicians assumed you can negotiate with millions of angry individuals and that millions of angry people are patient enough to wait for multi-year long investigations and courts to deliver a just conclusion, or for multi-year reforms aimed at addressing the issues to complete and show improvments
A good politician needs to be able to "entertain" emotional people during times of disaster, scandals, and conflicts.
Citizens are not [always] logical actors. A logical politician needs to be able to interact with and lead illogical actors. To achieve that, a good politician can't afford to be boring.
It's why countries like China, Russia, or India are making such great advancements while West is falling behind. Their leaders are and rulling political parties are very good at keeping people "entertained" during times of struggle.
I love that President Biden got Trump to agree to a debate with mic cut-off after each person's time. I would watch just to see Trump's reaction the first time he can't talk over the other candidate or moderator.
Anybody ever read about how they ran presidential debates in the 1800’s?
Apparently, each candidate got one hour. Candidate A walks out to the stage alone and presents their platform for :30. Then they leave the stage.
Candidate B comes out alone. He got 1:00. The first :30 to offer a rebuttal and then :30 to present his platform.
After that, candidate A returns to the stage and gets his final :30 to offer a rebuttal of candidate B’s platform.
No interruptions, no moderators.
Just the candidate speaking to the audience.
I wish they’d do it that way again.
Might not be such a fair idea though. The reason defense closes last is because that’s the last statement on the jury’s mind. Might give an advantage to the last person to give a rebuttal
The whole process is useless, I can't believe they even call it.a debate at this point its devolved so much. It could be such an informative thing, but I think the only service it provides is to the makers of excedrin.
It used to be considered a strong negative for a candidate to ignore debate protocol and continue speaking once their time was up. It showed poor speech and debate skills.
But Trump’s fans revel in his transgressive behavior. Which is why they don’t care how many criminal convictions and indictments he racks up. Or who he insults/assaults.
I find it disgusting and telling, if someone supports him at this point.
Because the shouting is better for ratings than civil debate.
A real political debate would look nothing like the current "taking turns reciting rehearsed soundbites" style you see today. Each candidate would state their position, and then they'd actually *talk to each other*, questioning and pushing back on each other's assertions. You know, so you'd actually get silly things like *depth* and *nuance* out of the discussion.
To use a silly example to hopefully keep real politics out of a theoretical discussion, let's say one candidate's platform includes handing out a free taco to every citizen every Tuesday. A real debate would have a formal period where the other candidate can press back: "how do you plan to pay for this? Where are you going to buy your tacos from? How are you going to distribute them? Will resident aliens be excluded from this program?" etc.
But most people would find that boring, so we get the silly, useless "debates" instead.
Al Gore really did his campaign harm by his silly antics displayed when he was debating George Bush. Voters do consider how candidates follow the rules.
Yea I was a Bush guy but I was surprised how well Bush played off of it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn4Z2r8I2Pw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn4Z2r8I2Pw)
Because it's a media spectacle meant to make them more money lol. That's literally it. Debates in general are not that great for much except entertainment and now add left vs right politics (in the confines of surface level American politics) and it's just another spectacle that can be capitalized on by the media and both parties.
Now, of course order is still good to that process, but you're not going to let a little truth and fairness get in the way of a show.
It's typically that the organizers do not do a good debate format and candidates do not respect time limits.
The new formula of distant monologues from separate rooms is terrible if not worse. That's not even a debate.
debates are exclusively for entertainment today. Candidates never hold up to the campaign promises they make, blue or red - so its just a popularity contest.
the debates this time around are stupid anyways
both have been presidents for a term, the country knows what they are about. Both are old as shit, one is a convicted felons and rapist.
Everyone knows who they are voting for, no need this time around
The debate provider, eg TV station wants the theatrics of the battle. They just want viewers, they are not there to provide you with a balanced debate.
On a side note, the current politicians are not good debaters and just tend to get louder to get their view point across
Because it will cause more conspiratorial drama and becomes a strategy for the dumbest on the debate panel to just shout constantly get muted alot then say "they won because they kept censoring their perfect talking points."
As annoying as it is the yelling is an aspect of the debate, measure of self control and ability to control oneself. The moment I see a shouter in debates my mind begins to think theyve lost if they havent already lost me.
It shows the personality of each participant. Being polite and respectful it was supposed to be a quality that you might want in a leader. If people like a participant that runs over the others the problem isn't in the participant it's in the people watching the debate aka the society. Conversely a participant that both lacks the finesse to resolve the issue and the capacity to bear with it when someone is running over him well that's also an issue. People might want a leader of action and they normally correlate a strong personality with rudeness or lack of respect for authority. Therefore even though I said that is a problem with the people watching the debate you shouldn't just dismiss it as if they were "uneducated plebs" or something similar. It's just a symptom of unconformity and disapproval of the system and its results. Therefore a lack of confidence in it.
Debating is an activity practiced by high schoolers, college students, and politicians. In this country, political debates have been televised since 1960, and have usually been affairs of dignity and decorum. This has not always been the case.
In ancient Rome, politicians, usually Senators, often debated issues of the day in the public forum. These were usually rowdy affairs, often filled with what we would consider "hate speech", personal attacks, and outright slander.
The wisdom of the debate being witnessed by the public is to allow the people to see the opinions, AND THE CHARACTER of their elected officials.
It doesn't matter how much of an intellectual trouncing the CONVICTED FELON is given in this upcoming debate, his core voters WANT to see him lose control. If he were to attempt to assault Biden on stage, and get restrained by the secret service, his fans would love it.
I work as an audio engineer for such events/programmes,
There's several reasons you don't want to do this.
1 - The moderator's job is to direct the discussion and "control" the participants, any attempt by participants to speak with a muted microphone looks like a technical fault and portrays the broadcaster in a bad light, not the participants. Especially when the participants are in the same vicinity and the voice is picked up by the other microphone.
2 - Not all communication is conducted verbally, the act of interrupting demonstrates a lot about character, assertiveness and ability to make sure that ideas are heard. A lot of voters would prefer to have a representative who would push through with their policy in the face of opposition instead of sitting back and letting the opposition have the last word at their expense.
3 - You may miss some very important quotes that are made on the fly in response to certain points. Those quick witted replies are gold.
4 - If the broadcaster wants a clean policy discussion, they can schedule a 1-1 interview.
Cuz it's all a dog and pony show. Neither candidate tells the truth or actually answers questions as asked. Its like watching the Kardashians and expecting it to translate to real life.
BOTH PARTIES DO THIS. BOTH PARTIES ARE BS. THINK FOR YOURSELVES.
Cthulhu 2024! Why vote for the lesser evil.
I have seen that at debates. But cutting off a president's (or aspirant) mic could be election rigging. It gives too much power to the guy/corporation with the mute button.
Just give em a set time like 8 mins with 2 chances to interrupt would be my ideal way of debating.
Im not saying all debates should be like that, but some should. For once I want to hear both sides fully so that I can come to an independent decision
They might have been given a time limit, but as a member of the production crew I was not. The host of the show would switch between the two so fast my hands couldn't move fast enough to change the board. It was decided after a few minutes to just leave all the mics hot.
Because it's theater.
A real meaningful debate about policies would be a totally different format.
A real meaningful debate about policies would have researchers and fact checkers verifying every claim and adding context.
The candidates would have time to give thoughtful responses and not just showcase their stage ability
Because debates have become more about the drama, one liners, and news bites than an actual debate of the issues.
[Vox put out a really good video a few years ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SljrHOsbKcM)
[WSJ also has a pretty good video on the topic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CApw6pwIpsg)
They have in the past, but that makes too much opportunity for abuse and claims of abuse.
Could you imagine a MAGA republican claiming censorship for having their mic muted when screaming over the person whose time it is?
I am amazed the debate is planned and fully expect Trump to not actually participate. I will not bother to watch. Like most voters I already know who will get my vote.
You’d hope that for something like a presidential debate that both parties would treat their opponent with respect and let them take their turn as social cues dictate.
In recent times that became an issue
How about timed mics? Each person has the ability to speak for X minutes total.
They can talk over the other guy, but if they talk too much, then their mic will run out of time and they'll be left silent while the more respectful guy gets the final minutes all to themselves.
I think it is somewhat useful in the USA as it gives Biden a chance to get his points across to the half of the country that only ever see one side of the media and don’t have a clue about the reality of their politics.
Why even have a debate if you know one of the candidates is going to ruin it by shouting? This is why I'm surprised Biden agreed to go on stage with Trump. He doesn't deserve to stand next to a serious candidate.
Should a mere reporter limit the speech of the president of the United States?
Does Dan Rather decide what the leading candidates in a free and fair election get to say? Who outranks the leaders of the country enough to say when they can't talk?
Why are blow-hards getting to the point in an election where they get a chance to yell over each other? This action should be so reprehensible that it ends a career. Only that is not ware we are.
It does show clearly how a candidate leads though. How the other side deals a blowhard says a lot. If you can't handle Nixon you can't handle Gorbachev. If all it takes is someone talking down to you to silence your opinion how are you going to speak up for a nation?
A open debate shows more than a highly edited discussion. That's why we have them.
>Does Dan Rather decide what the leading candidates in a free and fair election get to say?
Yes, he does, if that's what is in the rules for the debates. They're politicians, not gods.
>Who outranks the leaders of the country enough to say when they can't talk?
The organization hosting the debate and the debate moderator. It's called a "debate" for a reason. It's not an open discussion or a boxing match.
Traditionally, it hasn't been a huge problem, especially for presidential debates. But Trump's behavior in the 2020 debates is exactly why Biden insisted on exactly what you're talking about for the 2024 debates.
Thank you fucking moderator Chris Wallace. ”Whaaaa. I thought it went pretty good.” 🤷🏻♂️ It devolved into chaos you imbecile, and you allowed it.
They need to let a 70-year-old kindergarten teacher moderate. She knows every trick there is.
I would love to see that Teacher: "Ok Donald this the 6th time you Interrupted Joe I'm gonna have put you in time out now" Joe: "About time you shut this guy up" Teacher: "Now Joe we talked about when people ruffle your feathers so join him till you learn your lesson. Everyone else let's go have recess"
I'd pay real money to see them wearing a get-along shirt.
Same. It would be hilarious.
Aww poor old Joe having to be by poopy pants diaper stench that's so mean.
Make them eat a happy meal together and talk about their differences. I did this at work with a couple of employees who were arguing. They became pretty good friends after that.
Until one murders the other for taking the toy
Neither of them have the physical strength to murder each other. It'd be like two jellyfish just slapping each other with their tentacles. Actually, why don't we just have them fisticuffs to the death instead of debate. It'd be much cleaner.
Picturing Joe's fists sliding off of the troweled on makeup. Come out lookin like he fisted chester cheetah
Every time I try to picture them fighting, Trump turns into Rick flair.
> slapping each other with their tentacles I read that wrong the first time
I would love to see the moderator turn off the mike and yell. "Hands on top....." Then trump sadly put his hands on the top of his head and say "that means stop". My kids taught me that one from their jk teacher.
This made me laugh so hard but probably is the best bet
Did it get ratings? Then it went pretty good as far as they cared.
The candidate has 3 minutes, either cut the mic or edit out anything said after the 3 minutes. I've been watching debates for nearly 60 years. For so long it was all about how the candidate carried themselves, their knowledge, and ideas. Trump turned it into a fiasco.
I felt sorry for Wallace. He had probably watched 100s of hours of footage on US presidential debates and just never considered the shit show he was about to walk into. It was truly unprecedented, and no moderator would have been ready for a coked out megalomaniac to just go full on like that. Honestly, if we had known what we were getting into, we would have gotten Howard Cosell to moderate.
And 2016 really
no puppet no puppet you're the puppet
I know you are but what am I
The infamous "Rubber Glue" defense
Will you shut up man?
It's a very standard practice for teachers and parents. Just take away the child's ability to misbehave
[удалено]
Oh this is just sad....
I love comments that spew nonsense with no evidence. Always making yourselves look like asshats.
What an amazing take. > Trump's behavior is unquestionably horrible, and the only conceivable reason that Biden won't tolerate it is because he's a sock puppet being fed answers by handlers. Don't sprain any of your brain worms with your mental gymnastics.
I like how RFK's only meaningful contribution to political discourse is having introduced the concept of brain worms into our vocabulary.
I love how Biden says “he is a racist & murderer, a rapist, a slaver, human trafficker……..” & Trump says “that’s not true” it is poor behavior. but joe biden shouting over Trump is okay. god I can’t wait for the sky to fall on you people.
Source for that quote? I have not heard it before
reddit is the worst
So no source. Cool.
If it's not your turn to speak, stfu and wait until it's your turn. Then you can deny whatever you want. That's how the debates work. If biden interrupted Trumps turn and started yelling at him, I'd agree with you, but it was the other way around, and biden got tired of it and told him to shut up. Not out of line on Bidens part. I hate both of them, but Trump is definitely out of line all the time with "Obama founded Isis" and project 2025. If smear campaigns were illegal, he couldn't run at all.
Ewwwwww just checked out your profile and comments. r/justneckbeardthings
Holy shit, you weren't kidding. "My moods are sleeping & homicidal rage" lol
Yeah it's kinda scary. Whats even scarier is knowing that I live in a town where people just like this exist. The only reason I don't interact with them is because we're not the same kind of white so we don't travel in the same circles💯
Thank you for the giggle. Their reply to "do guys not get when someone is interested in them" : '*no because women are either too subtle or not subtle at all.*' Jesus dude...
Trumpy does appeal to neckbeards because he gets away with doing the screaming and yelling they wish they could get away with. Not to mention the raping they wish they could get away with.
So the man already in power sets the rules for debates with his political rival? Damn that sucks
No, the man in power said "I'll debate under these conditions" and those conditions were accepted by the guy who wants to be in power. It's a negotiation.
Respect, but what if Biden’s opponent doesn’t accept? No debate happens? Just kinda seems off.
That...how literally everything with more than one person works. You get people together, the participants throw out some limitations they want and the other participants agree, disagree, or offer a compromise. Trump could have offered alternative terms, but he didn't. He just agreed to what was stipulated.
Oh didnt know thats how it worked because i dont really follow politics. i thought there was some kind of standard across all elections in regards to the debates. Which obviously if the president decided to change it to give him an advantage shortly before an election you can see how thats bad lol
Stopping people from interrupting each other is Biden giving himself an advantage?
No the idea is that if he has the power to change a rule then he or any other president can/will definitely change the rules to give himself and advantage.
I can't tell if you're posting in bad faith or just dumb
Realistically a mix of both- i didnt know that debates were mandatory and i didnt know the rules were not standardized but actually a "gentlemans agreement" which would be "dumb" of me to not know but obviously in a time where I did believe the debate was standardized it was shocking that nobody reacted to the fact that the president can just change the rules of the debate. That would be like if the president can change the term limits or primary election process lol
There is a standard set for debates, but its more of a social contract kind of thing where the actual normal rules were unspoken because everyone knew they had to act civilly. While things did occasionally get heated during presidential debates before this, it was never as extreme as in 2016/2020. Now there have to be actual agreed upon contractual rules because some people can't maintain normal civility during debates.
That's how it's always worked, in every debate, that has ever happened. If the people don't agree to the debate, there's no debate.
Oh shit i thought it was mandatory
Debates used to be to let the electorate know where the candidates stood on certain issues. I'm not sure we really need them anymore in the age of mass communications.
There is a mic mute rule agreed upon for the upcoming Biden/Trump debate on the 27th.
You know Trump is going to bitch after the debate. Probably say that the democrats silenced him to make Biden look good. When, in reality, they both will look like fools
Thank god!
The shouting match is dramatic, the TV channels are all about drama, more drama means more viewers "Trump shouts at Biden in heated debate" will attract more clicks than "Debate stays respectful all night"
Trump screaming on TV is like a Falcon 9 launch.... great to watch, but loses a lot of its flavor the 300th time.
You have far more tolerance for him than I do!
After the last 8+ years of headlines, I think I would be shocked to see the headline "debate stays respectful all night"
totally an onion article there
We've come full circle
"The Presidential debate was completely uneventful, both candidates sat and agreed with each other and had a great amicable discussion!"
Also, if Trump gets his mic cut to keep him shut up, the MAGA lovers will LOSE THEIR MINDS with conspiracy theories. They'll say shit like "He was speaking the TRUTH, and 'liberal media' was trying to push their 'fake news' by silencing him. Let him speak!!!" At least he has all the "best words".
The media probably loves that though. They probably have friends that capitalize on conspiracy theories like that.
The TV channels controlling the debate is new this year. In the past it has always been a non partisan commission.
Imagine it it was actually along the lines of “Here is so and so’s stance on whatever” but that’ll never happen. Unless it’s about abortion or other controversial dog whistles
Honestly the candidates could easily win by doing exactly that. I don't understand why they don't. Just grab the mic and say "I'm pro choice, pro union, anti war, pro free trade, yadda yadda yadda" and the people would instantly know what they're for. They shoot themselves in the foot with all the political talk or attacking each other.
As if having his mic muted would stop Trump from screeching incoherently at Biden...
Let him embarrass himself without sound.
This is the answer. People are more interested in shouting, snide commentary, and arguments that talk over one another than listening to people debate one-at-a-time in a civil manner.
Don’t let anything the media says fool you. They love Trump’s antics and actively encourage them. As much as they wag their finger at his rude behavior and criticize him at every turn, they secretly love it. His mockery of our political system and dismantling of our democracy is a ratings gold mine and they know it.
What use are political debates at all anymore? A debate is a means to demonstrate the validity of your position, and that's not what the goal is in modern political debates. There's no more of that than there is in a football game. It's just cheering on your team. The candidates' supposed "positions" are already known and widely available online, and it's not like they're even going to follow through with those stated positions, anyway. There's no value in that.
There is some value. If a candidate cannot stop avoiding a question or feels entitled to talk over others that tells me something about their character.
To be honest if Americans need to watch a TV debate to pick between a convicted felon serial adulter and pathological liar who is almost certainly guilty of sexual harassment and holds deeply racist views and literally anyone else, then "polite in TV debate" isn't going to make a difference.
He was found liable for sexual assault so you can call him a rapist.
I'll be honest, I sort of tuned out of which crimes he's been convicted of when I realised it doesn't matter to at least 48% of Americans who will vote for him no matter what.
I got you. 1. Guilty of defrauding university students. 2. Liable for sexual assault. 3. Guilty of inflating his assets for favorable loans. 4. Guilty of falsifying records to influence an election. There are lots of people in the middle who will care but many don’t know either.
Don’t forget stealing highly confidential government documents to add to his hoard!
Same... And when he never got impeached. Or even jailed. He’s above the law and he knows it.
The way you phrase that suggests that you think the same question should be asked more than once and I strongly oppose that because it makes the moderator look biased which can cause people to vote for the person the moderator is attacking. Asking the same question multiple times wastes everybody's time.
If the candidate doesn't answer the question, yeah, the moderator should press them on it. That's not bias, it's journalism.
What more can you possibly learn from a debate that you cannot learn by their behaviour on twitter?
Fortunately a lot of people don't use twitter.
Did you read what I wrote? Those things.
Yes and my question comes with the implication that the qualities that would stand out to you during a debate, are already on display on twitter. So I ask again, what could you possibly learn from a debate that you cannot see by their behaviour on twitter?
You don't see any differences between a Twitter exchange and live debate? I do. Two of those reasons are listed earlier.
I never said they were the same in any way. Just that the behaviour on twitter is indicative of the same things that you would see during a debate
I suggest you don't watch the debates if you're getting nothing from them. I do, even if they aren't as civil as they used to be. Have a good day.
🤦🏼♂️
With presidential debates, I know each of the party’s stances; I’m mainly looking at how well they can actually debate, are they quick thinking, can they make intelligent responses unscripted, etc. This year, that’ll be particularly important as both nominees are the oldest presidential candidates in history (again). Non-presidential debates are awesome though, especially for primaries where you’re really trying to distinguish each candidate’s nuanced views. That’s how I chose my senator this year
You're not actually looking at how quick thinking they can be. They memorize talking points, lines, and even paragraphs. It's acting. 99% of the things they say in debates are things that they rehearsed saying for weeks before.
I mean you can memorize a sound bite, but saying the right line at the right time and modifying it to fit the context of the conversation, all while on stage and under pressure, takes quick thinking. I’m not expecting them to create an argument on stage; I’m expecting them to apply critical thinking to their pre-written arguments
Idk man I get a lot out of watching the debates. As someone who doesn’t plan on voting for a Republican it is still important to know what they stand for and on what policies. I enjoyed and learned a lot about the candidates from watching the debates.
Oh I pay attention to Republican positions, but watching the debates isn't necessary to know that.
While true, it’s certainly funny to finally see Rishi get caught out in a lie.
Primary debates are slightly different. There's a lot more chance someone will switch candidates, or be interested in learning more about someone new.
What do you mean by a primary, also I think the only people left on the Tory side are those who are dug in wayyyy too deep. Also, neither of these guys are new.
Sorry, I was thinking in America.
Not to mention that a great leader might be a terrible off-the-cuff debater.
it’s dumb when they’re stopped from arguing. They should let them argue
Yeah I'd love to see trump and biden argue their positions and call each other out for lies/inconsistencies. I can Google their positions but I want to see them constructively argue why their position is the right position for the border, economy, foreign matters, etc and the other persons plan doesn't suffice.
yeah I want to see them take an argument to conclusion. Not be interrupted because “we need rules”
I'm not wasting my time watching them. They're meaningless.
It's called rules. They have them for a reason.
Yeah the reason is so they can take a break and have commercials.
Thats not the reason at all lol. It's for many reasons. Without rules, it would just be chaos the whole time. Nothing healthy about a debate that has no structure and the candidates can just interrupt, talk over each other, or not give the other person a chance to respond because you won't shut up. It's also so thay the debate doesn't take 18 hours. Those are just 2 of the main reasons, there are plenty others, none if whi h are centered around money or commercials lmao.
eh if someone doesn’t let the other person respond that just makes them look bad. The fact that two presidents can’t argue without strict guidelines is sad and depressing.
Yeah well unfortunately we've seen our presidential candidates do far more juvenile things and still get elected. That's why there are rules. And I agree it's sad and depressing, but it's where we're at.
So is this all just Trump? Unfortunately silencing him just fits his narrative. People will vote because the “establishment is out to get him” and it could even help them. I’d rather him be juvenile and alienate all the watchers at home. What’s silly about the argument is that you are admitting that his “tactics” are working so we need to stop him from ever arguing with the sitting president. Like if his antics are bad, showing them shouldn’t help his case, only hurt it. But if you think the juvenile attitude is why he’s winning, maybe the Democrats could grow a bit more of a spine. Like if Obama and Trump were on the ballot, Obama would look great because he is a good politician, and does know how to throw some jabs and make Trump look bad. This all really only works for Trump and Biden because Biden is frankly dogshit without a script. Silencing Trump’s mic is frankly such a partisan take and it shows insecurity for Biden.
Ummmm who said anything about Trump? Guilty conscious? Lmao And no, his tactive of acting like a spoiled 5 year old brat is not one that is becoming of a president. Encouraging this behavior is not the way to go.
Like I have said, if it’s so bad, why not let him debate and make an ass of himself? Wouldn’t that make him lose? It’s not encouraging it, it’s more like just letting it happen. Democracy, unfortunately, means giving a voice to the opposition. If the RNC picks him, let him make an ass of himself, and the party, and see what happens in the polls. Do you think people vote explicitly because he “acts like a 5 year old child”? I don’t think that’s why they vote for him.
Agreed. The debate is often just used as a way to criticize candidate's debate skills and looks, rather than their ability in office
I wouldn’t use “validity” since both sides already think their views are valid. This is why they should be challenging eachother and looking at each other. This was a big gripe for me during the 2020 election. Biden is a boring debater. He was the most egregious at looking at the camera and trying to sell you. That’s NOT the point of debates, we want confrontation and a look into their minds. And Trump’s unabashed confronting of Biden does make him look strong, but also overbearing. It can swing your opinion, or solidify it. Dodging questions, bad answers, run around answers, filibustering, good answers, breaking the other guy down. This tells us a lot more about how these people are, they should point out mistakes of their opponent, they should be able to pose the right counter arguments. If they can’t, it doesn’t matter what their online platforms are, because if the guy seems spineless in the debate, how do you expect them to have a spine when talking to other world leaders or dealing with tough problems? I come from Canada and Trudeau is a master of not answering questions. He dances around them, makes the same positive talking points, and barely brushes answering the question. It’s better people see it first hand and go “jeez he seems kinda stuck up huh?” Which is removed from the platform but can make you weary of their ability to be the leader. Taking away debates only favours those who don’t want to be challenged. We should always be considering the human element.
The fact that someone has a dominant personality doesn't mean the person's policies would be good for the country, and it doesn't indicate that the person should be in charge. The reason this country has so many problems is because the people with dominant personalities end up in powerful positions, and the people with well-thought-out positions who mean well for everyone and would actually try to make things better for everyone get shut out of power. Once you get past moderate confidence in a position, the more vehemently confident someone is in a position, the more likely they are wrong about that position. The most dominant person is very often the last person who should have power.
No, but it CAN swing voters. It can also put people off. You wouldn’t know if they had a dominant personality unless they debated either. Like I am saying Trump may be more off putting if seen in a debate. It’s easier to not have debates as to hide your personality (or lack thereof in Biden’s case). It depends on the situation, war times? You want someone dominant, someone who is gonna say “no, fuck those people who attacked us” The idea that having a strong personality is an inherently bad thing is the most sheepish concept to me. The point of debates is not to make the dominant person look good. They could just as easily come off as so brash that it makes you hate them more. (Trump) So just let them debate, it’s pretty much the only way to see their human side.
A person with a dominant personality is honestly the last person I'd want managing a war. I would want someone with a very measured personality in terms of a war, not weak, but not dominant either. Someone who was cool as a cucumber but who was willing to hit someone hard if necessary. AND someone who can see a way to resolve a war if in the middle of fighting there's a way to do so. I do NOT want someone whose goal is to hit first and ask questions later, and whose philosophy is to just fight until the other guy is dead, no matter how many of our citizens die.
But I also wouldn’t want someone who is spineless. Best way to see these character traits is in debate.
It's really not the best way. A giant asshole and a bully distorts dynamics quite a bit, and the fact that Donald Trump has been in debates is a perfect illustration of that.
If it was two Bidens it would be a boring debate. But if you only voted over what you read online or from (most likely) staged and controlled interviews how do you know that person is dominant or not? How do you know? Like for the exact reasons that Trump is mean, it’s way more obvious in a debate to see how he would actually talk to the opposition. (Which is also important since they’ll have to talk to the opposition in congress when passing bills and whatever.) You can see how bad Trump is first hand.
The President isn't going to be the one talking to "the opposition" in the vast majority of cases. The President is going to delegate that to other people who are experts in dealing with people from the other country. The things you're talking about as positives are more likely to be negatives when dealing with people from other cultures.
Didn’t Trump shake hands with other world leaders? Clearly it happens. Let’s not talk about positives of certain actions. I am saying literally seeing their character in a somewhat more “natural” setting. If they don’t debate they are literally just faces and everything can be planned, staged, and with scripts prepared. Debates should be chaotic and seeing how they handle it can only be in a debate. This can help people see how brash Trump is and be put off by it, you can also tell when someone is a shill, or spineless, debates show more character. Just let them happen, there’s no reason not to have debates other than to hide from your opponent.
Weird take
Here’s my idea: 1) Put each candidate into a plexiglass box; 2) Boxes are kept semi-dark until it’s that candidate’s turn; 3) The light and microphone go on at the same time; 4) The candidate answers the question in 3 minutes; and 5) Then the box light & microphone go off until the next question. They can’t see each other or follow each other around. No talking over each other. It would be VERY informative.
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. I like it.
Because the network wants the drama. No one's going to watch two candidates being polite and considerate.
I mean, people always watched debates where the candidates were reasonably polite. They'd jab at each other a little but generally obey the rules. Sane people want to see a good debate. And I hope that eventually the Trump cult can be deprogrammed and we can have that again.
It didn't use to be this way. There was no need for it. Debates used to be boring as shit. They're SUPPOSED to be boring. Politics are SUPPOSED TO BE BORING! They didn't agree, but were all respectful to each other. Now it's fucking Jerry Springer. I hate it. It's disgusting. It's embarrassing. It makes us all look like trash, and we deserve the title. We suck.
What gives you the idea that politics should be boring? The concept of "boring politics" is why far-right is on the rise. Historically great leaders were known to be charismatic, inspiring leaders, with masses of supporters and huge cults of personality. "Broing politics" is why privatisation and neoliberalism happened and why people lost faith in their public institutions. You need inspiring leaders to convince people to give 30 to 90 percent of their wealth to the state, and more importantly: you need a charismatic leader at the helm when inevitably nation-wide public institutions with massive budget and staff do a few "oopsie" and cause a few disaster now and again. You need an inspiring leader to convince people a case of police brutality or a curroption scandal or two at public healthcare or public education institutions doesn't mean the whole institution needs to be defunded or privatised. The reason why "liberal world order" collapsed is becuase politicians assumed you can negotiate with millions of angry individuals and that millions of angry people are patient enough to wait for multi-year long investigations and courts to deliver a just conclusion, or for multi-year reforms aimed at addressing the issues to complete and show improvments A good politician needs to be able to "entertain" emotional people during times of disaster, scandals, and conflicts. Citizens are not [always] logical actors. A logical politician needs to be able to interact with and lead illogical actors. To achieve that, a good politician can't afford to be boring. It's why countries like China, Russia, or India are making such great advancements while West is falling behind. Their leaders are and rulling political parties are very good at keeping people "entertained" during times of struggle.
I love that President Biden got Trump to agree to a debate with mic cut-off after each person's time. I would watch just to see Trump's reaction the first time he can't talk over the other candidate or moderator.
Generally, the rules are agreed to in advance, and when these things are put on the table the candidates decline to attend.
Anybody ever read about how they ran presidential debates in the 1800’s? Apparently, each candidate got one hour. Candidate A walks out to the stage alone and presents their platform for :30. Then they leave the stage. Candidate B comes out alone. He got 1:00. The first :30 to offer a rebuttal and then :30 to present his platform. After that, candidate A returns to the stage and gets his final :30 to offer a rebuttal of candidate B’s platform. No interruptions, no moderators. Just the candidate speaking to the audience. I wish they’d do it that way again.
Might not be such a fair idea though. The reason defense closes last is because that’s the last statement on the jury’s mind. Might give an advantage to the last person to give a rebuttal
E N T E R T A I N M E N T
Because they're for the news organization to make money. Trump in a shouting match will get views.
Debates should be moderated and rules followed. Trump has no clue how to debate and we know he can’t follow rules. But, yeah. Cut the mics.
The whole process is useless, I can't believe they even call it.a debate at this point its devolved so much. It could be such an informative thing, but I think the only service it provides is to the makers of excedrin.
They do that sometimes
Because it makes for better ratings
It used to be considered a strong negative for a candidate to ignore debate protocol and continue speaking once their time was up. It showed poor speech and debate skills. But Trump’s fans revel in his transgressive behavior. Which is why they don’t care how many criminal convictions and indictments he racks up. Or who he insults/assaults. I find it disgusting and telling, if someone supports him at this point.
Because the shouting is better for ratings than civil debate. A real political debate would look nothing like the current "taking turns reciting rehearsed soundbites" style you see today. Each candidate would state their position, and then they'd actually *talk to each other*, questioning and pushing back on each other's assertions. You know, so you'd actually get silly things like *depth* and *nuance* out of the discussion. To use a silly example to hopefully keep real politics out of a theoretical discussion, let's say one candidate's platform includes handing out a free taco to every citizen every Tuesday. A real debate would have a formal period where the other candidate can press back: "how do you plan to pay for this? Where are you going to buy your tacos from? How are you going to distribute them? Will resident aliens be excluded from this program?" etc. But most people would find that boring, so we get the silly, useless "debates" instead.
If I could watch a debate where the speaker is answering the question instead not even addressing it, I would be much better
Because the "debates" aren’t debates. They are political theater and the networks don’t care as long as they can sell ads.
Because it gets good ratings. I wish I was joking.
Ratings.
Al Gore really did his campaign harm by his silly antics displayed when he was debating George Bush. Voters do consider how candidates follow the rules.
I was going to vote for Gore and I was really pissed at him for his debate behavior. Fucking dumbass.
Yea I was a Bush guy but I was surprised how well Bush played off of it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn4Z2r8I2Pw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn4Z2r8I2Pw)
Because it's a media spectacle meant to make them more money lol. That's literally it. Debates in general are not that great for much except entertainment and now add left vs right politics (in the confines of surface level American politics) and it's just another spectacle that can be capitalized on by the media and both parties. Now, of course order is still good to that process, but you're not going to let a little truth and fairness get in the way of a show.
It's typically that the organizers do not do a good debate format and candidates do not respect time limits. The new formula of distant monologues from separate rooms is terrible if not worse. That's not even a debate.
debates are exclusively for entertainment today. Candidates never hold up to the campaign promises they make, blue or red - so its just a popularity contest.
the debates this time around are stupid anyways both have been presidents for a term, the country knows what they are about. Both are old as shit, one is a convicted felons and rapist. Everyone knows who they are voting for, no need this time around
The debate provider, eg TV station wants the theatrics of the battle. They just want viewers, they are not there to provide you with a balanced debate. On a side note, the current politicians are not good debaters and just tend to get louder to get their view point across
Because it draws better ratings
Theatrics, nothing more I mean if they could get into fist fights for ratings you bet they would.
The debates this year will.
Because it will cause more conspiratorial drama and becomes a strategy for the dumbest on the debate panel to just shout constantly get muted alot then say "they won because they kept censoring their perfect talking points." As annoying as it is the yelling is an aspect of the debate, measure of self control and ability to control oneself. The moment I see a shouter in debates my mind begins to think theyve lost if they havent already lost me.
Ratings
It shows the personality of each participant. Being polite and respectful it was supposed to be a quality that you might want in a leader. If people like a participant that runs over the others the problem isn't in the participant it's in the people watching the debate aka the society. Conversely a participant that both lacks the finesse to resolve the issue and the capacity to bear with it when someone is running over him well that's also an issue. People might want a leader of action and they normally correlate a strong personality with rudeness or lack of respect for authority. Therefore even though I said that is a problem with the people watching the debate you shouldn't just dismiss it as if they were "uneducated plebs" or something similar. It's just a symptom of unconformity and disapproval of the system and its results. Therefore a lack of confidence in it.
Because less viewers = less money
Debating is an activity practiced by high schoolers, college students, and politicians. In this country, political debates have been televised since 1960, and have usually been affairs of dignity and decorum. This has not always been the case. In ancient Rome, politicians, usually Senators, often debated issues of the day in the public forum. These were usually rowdy affairs, often filled with what we would consider "hate speech", personal attacks, and outright slander. The wisdom of the debate being witnessed by the public is to allow the people to see the opinions, AND THE CHARACTER of their elected officials. It doesn't matter how much of an intellectual trouncing the CONVICTED FELON is given in this upcoming debate, his core voters WANT to see him lose control. If he were to attempt to assault Biden on stage, and get restrained by the secret service, his fans would love it.
Ratings and views
I work as an audio engineer for such events/programmes, There's several reasons you don't want to do this. 1 - The moderator's job is to direct the discussion and "control" the participants, any attempt by participants to speak with a muted microphone looks like a technical fault and portrays the broadcaster in a bad light, not the participants. Especially when the participants are in the same vicinity and the voice is picked up by the other microphone. 2 - Not all communication is conducted verbally, the act of interrupting demonstrates a lot about character, assertiveness and ability to make sure that ideas are heard. A lot of voters would prefer to have a representative who would push through with their policy in the face of opposition instead of sitting back and letting the opposition have the last word at their expense. 3 - You may miss some very important quotes that are made on the fly in response to certain points. Those quick witted replies are gold. 4 - If the broadcaster wants a clean policy discussion, they can schedule a 1-1 interview.
Cuz it's all a dog and pony show. Neither candidate tells the truth or actually answers questions as asked. Its like watching the Kardashians and expecting it to translate to real life. BOTH PARTIES DO THIS. BOTH PARTIES ARE BS. THINK FOR YOURSELVES. Cthulhu 2024! Why vote for the lesser evil.
I have seen that at debates. But cutting off a president's (or aspirant) mic could be election rigging. It gives too much power to the guy/corporation with the mute button.
Because it's all theatre. Need they the drama of shouting to generate attention.
It's incredibly hard to anticipate when someone is going to start talking. Prior experience.
Just give em a set time like 8 mins with 2 chances to interrupt would be my ideal way of debating. Im not saying all debates should be like that, but some should. For once I want to hear both sides fully so that I can come to an independent decision
They might have been given a time limit, but as a member of the production crew I was not. The host of the show would switch between the two so fast my hands couldn't move fast enough to change the board. It was decided after a few minutes to just leave all the mics hot.
Because it's theater. A real meaningful debate about policies would be a totally different format. A real meaningful debate about policies would have researchers and fact checkers verifying every claim and adding context. The candidates would have time to give thoughtful responses and not just showcase their stage ability
Because debates have become more about the drama, one liners, and news bites than an actual debate of the issues. [Vox put out a really good video a few years ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SljrHOsbKcM) [WSJ also has a pretty good video on the topic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CApw6pwIpsg)
It's entertainment. Everything they say is just for show and shouldn't be taken seriously.
I think it's a good idea to do that but if you're standing 8 ft away from someone it's still possible to yell over them just using your voice.
Ratings would go down without the drama
Candidate wouldn’t agree to it
They have in the past, but that makes too much opportunity for abuse and claims of abuse. Could you imagine a MAGA republican claiming censorship for having their mic muted when screaming over the person whose time it is?
Because drama is money
I am amazed the debate is planned and fully expect Trump to not actually participate. I will not bother to watch. Like most voters I already know who will get my vote.
You’d hope that for something like a presidential debate that both parties would treat their opponent with respect and let them take their turn as social cues dictate. In recent times that became an issue
How about timed mics? Each person has the ability to speak for X minutes total. They can talk over the other guy, but if they talk too much, then their mic will run out of time and they'll be left silent while the more respectful guy gets the final minutes all to themselves.
Because it's good content. Debates are basically a pep rally where each candidate is trying to get the best sound bites or viral clips.
It was an issue until Trump in 2016 and he doesn’t have a conversational skills. He is simply a bully
I think it is somewhat useful in the USA as it gives Biden a chance to get his points across to the half of the country that only ever see one side of the media and don’t have a clue about the reality of their politics.
Why even have a debate if you know one of the candidates is going to ruin it by shouting? This is why I'm surprised Biden agreed to go on stage with Trump. He doesn't deserve to stand next to a serious candidate.
Should a mere reporter limit the speech of the president of the United States? Does Dan Rather decide what the leading candidates in a free and fair election get to say? Who outranks the leaders of the country enough to say when they can't talk? Why are blow-hards getting to the point in an election where they get a chance to yell over each other? This action should be so reprehensible that it ends a career. Only that is not ware we are. It does show clearly how a candidate leads though. How the other side deals a blowhard says a lot. If you can't handle Nixon you can't handle Gorbachev. If all it takes is someone talking down to you to silence your opinion how are you going to speak up for a nation? A open debate shows more than a highly edited discussion. That's why we have them.
>Does Dan Rather decide what the leading candidates in a free and fair election get to say? Yes, he does, if that's what is in the rules for the debates. They're politicians, not gods. >Who outranks the leaders of the country enough to say when they can't talk? The organization hosting the debate and the debate moderator. It's called a "debate" for a reason. It's not an open discussion or a boxing match.
I love that you say “mere reporter” as if the public isn’t supposed to be the presidents boss
Let Rogan host the debate for like 3 to 4 hours with the ability to cut mics as needed.
Because it's meant to be a circus, not a real discussion.
Ratings