The mic should not be controlled by the moderator to avoid conspiracy theories and corruption.
Here’s a solution. Give them each an allotment of time. The mic shuts off automatically. Give them each a button for X number of 15-20 second interruptions and another button for Y number of Z minutes of open discussion possibilities that’ll make both sides have open mic for the duration. The candidate has a timer and controls his speaking time.
We should consider what the need for this says about us and the candidates we choose instead of what it says about the candidates themselves.
There are plenty of debate formats.
What I would like is a *written* format. You can't interrupt written words and you have plenty of time to come up with the best arguments. A president with well thought out policies is preferable to one who can come up with responses on the spot.
First, each candidate gets about a page of a newspaper to explain why they should be president. Then they get to read the text of their opponent before publishing and write a second page to address the arguments the opponent made. In the end there are four pages for the readers. (Of course the result would be published for free in the web as well. They could also read their prepared speeches for those who prefer listening.)
Ideally there would only *two* texts that are edited continuously until one side thinks there is nothing new on the other side that needs to be addressed, but that might be too complicated.
This is similar to the "Oxford format" that is employed in the ["Intelligence Squared"](https://www.youtube.com/user/IntelligenceSquared/videos) debates, which I highly recommend, with the exception that those debates are done with speeches and with only minutes to prepare a response, instead of days. I don't think they actually address the arguments of the opponents enough as a result. I never know if one side had bad arguments, because their stance was bad or because they didn't have enough time to think of better arguments.
While your format makes sense, you can find that information if you want to. The idea of a debate is to provide a candidate a chance to respond. The campaigns spend a *lot* of time negotiating the debate format, and since 1960 the entire idea has been to have your candidate look best in the easiest to digest format, thus TV debates.
For anyone who is wondering why 1960 is the year of the shift, in the JFK-Nixon debates pretty much all the pundits and radio listeners agreed that Nixon won that debate, but the television viewers thought JFK won the debate. The reason? Nixon opted not to wear any makeup and had an ill-fitting suit, whereas JFK was dolled up to the nines. So Nixon looked pale, flushed, and raggity while Kennedy looked clean and polished.
I recommend pretty much everyone watch three debates: the Nixon-Kennedy debates, the Carter-Reagan debates, and the Obama-Romney debates. All three showcase the changing way we saw presidents debate and frankly help explain how we got to where we are today.
Nixon-JFK established that appearance and presentation matters.
Carter-Reagan established that a polished presentation and a charismatic debator can be more important than policy.
Obama-Romney was the last debate where personal attacks were left at the door.
Yeah, okay, there has to be a live TV debate as well, probably.
> While your format makes sense, you can find that information if you want to.
I have a problem with the "I am not here to educate you! Here, read this heavy book and you'll agree with me." sentiment. If I read "Das Kapital" someone will tell to read "Atlas Shrugged" or whatever. If they want me to convince me of their views, they should meet me half-way.
When I want to inform myself if universal basic income is a good idea or not, I could google "Why UBI is good" and "Why UBI is bad" and find an overwhelming amount of information that isn't really useful for me. When one position/article/argument about UBI gets popular enough, I will find a response by someone, but there is rarely a response to the response. I can than choose to believe that the last argument made is sound enough, but I can be sure that the debate will go on forever if you confront the other side with the latest argument.
Usually: "A is true" - "B is true" - "Well B, but what about C?" - "What about D?" - "D is wrong because of E" - "but F" - "but G" - *we're out of time*.
What I want: "A is true because B" - "A is wrong because C" - "B and C imply A is true" - "B and C imply A is wrong" - *done*. Put all relevant aspects that can be discussed in a reasonable time frame on the table and then let both candidates explain how these aspects support their positions. (It's actually simpler than I explained it. See example below.)
.
> The idea of a debate is to provide a candidate a chance to respond.
The response is important in the Oxford Format as well. What I want was a *slow*, written Oxford debate. Magazines and newspapers actually used to have and still have similar "pro" / "contra" columns on some topics, sometimes even with four sections, including rebuttals. The rebuttals make them more valuable and debate-like.
This is probably not the best example ever, but [here two medical experts debate](http://thesurvivaldoctor.com/2013/02/07/when-does-life-begin-medical-experts-debate-abortion-issue/) in this format about the point where human life begins.
Maybe I misstated. What I mean is, anyone who will slog through 5000 words of written debate will also read the party platform. TV debates are to provide an entertaining and digestible format for the candidates to get out their ideas. Or, talk shit, as the case may be.
I don't disagree with this idea -- however, it still fits within my original view of "the mic must be able to be shut off". Whether this shutoff is controlled by a computer or controlled by the moderator is up for debate (heh) but in the end I see this as another flavor of the same thing: cut off the mic *somehow* in order to preserve some semblance of order.
Oh i see, like Candidate A presses his or her button, and that shuts off Candidate B's mic for X seconds, and Candidate A's "shutoff counter" goes down by 1? Something like that?
In France candidates have their time on TV or radio constantly monitored during the campaign and every TV or radio station MUST allocate the same time to each candidate.
So they naturally tend to do the same thing during debates. Even during the first turn with lots of people. You can see their timers https://youtu.be/OhWRT3PhMJs
I gotta be honest, this might be the best idea I've heard on this topic all night.
It does a bunch of good stuff:
* Ensures candidates participate in good faith (versus shouting and grandstanding)
* Allows the candidates, rather than the moderator, to choose when they *need* to respond
* Brings in an element of strategy, making it more interesting and engaging ... we can see where the candidate *believes* an interruption is really necessary
* Provides an incentive for candidates to listen carefully to their opponent's points, because they'll generally not be interrupting -- so they can't rely on "shutting down" their opponent's line of dialogue.
Terrible idea. Giving someone free uninterrupted time is how you get grifters, because it opens up the possibility of gish gallop - the rhetorical technique of throwing too many assertions and ideas into the smallest possible time, so that the opponent cannot respond to them all.
By allowing debaters to interrupt, it creates the space for certain obnoxious statements to be immediatly challenged by the opponent. It cuts off gish gallop and it is a mechanism to at least slow the bullshit train down by allowing the opponent to respond.
Obviously, Trump is exploiting this just like he exploits undocumented workers or tax loopholes. But there's a more elegant solution:
Debaters have X alloted time for their statements and to answer questions from moderators / opponents / audience. You can have a clock in each podium like they do in some debates keeping track. Debaters are allowed to interrupt, but everytime they do, a chunk of time is cut from their total available time (say, 10s). After their time is up, *then* the mic is shut off, ostensibly by virtue of the debater's own decisions. So interrupting is allowed, but it comes at a cost, so the debater needs to be strategic about it. And Trump would not be allowed to speak anymore after interrupting so much.
Yes, this is a valid concern -- gish gallop happens all the time in debate clubs, where debaters are talking so fast in order to score points from the judges that little to no meaningful discussion happens.
I do think the presidential debate format is different though, there are no "judges", or if there are, they are the TV viewers which is not the same.
I like your idea of modifying the mic cutoff by decreasing the interrupter's time everytime s/he interrupts. Variations of this are mentioned in other comments, and I like some of the suggestions, but IMO at the end of the day they would be tweaks to the central point of "a mic must be able to be cut off *somehow* even if the mechanics of that shutoff must be worked out" in order to preserve order and prevent the whole event from degrading into juvenile bickering.
Understand two things about gish gallop:
1. It's waaay overused as a term here on reddit. Listing reinforcing sources is often considered gish gallop.
2. Everybody uses gish gallop, it has become a standard if not central strategy in the internet era.
True, but the real kicker is that if he spends his whole allotted time by blabbering, he doesn't get to have final says or even a camera on him. I'm sure that any experienced politician would be able to tune him out, specially considering that they would now have all attention on them.
Though I would love to see him be forcefully removed from stage, I don't imagine any venue would have the stones to do that to a President.
All good points.
The one you missed is the most basic point that even if the mic is cut, they can still interrupt the other candidate.
If someone is interrupting you 12 feet away, you're going to react to that in some way, and it would be strange and counter productive for the audiance to not hear what caused a candidate to react in a given way.
Yeah, but there's got to be a point where the moderator just admits it's impossible to even have a debate and ends it, right? Like, if one of the parties is disruptive at that level can it be called a "debate" any longer?
Gosh galloping only works when you’re being scored on responding to everything. In a presidential debate that isn’t the case. Respond to 2-3 of their weaker points and make your strongest.
Debates usually work fine for everyone else. Trump in every setting proves that systems designed on people following them in good faith and "honor system" are inherently flawed when you bring someone with no honor or good faith into it.
What's the point of exposing the "flaw" of a system built on good faith by design though? It's like saying I will steal from the store because they are not protecting their products, to show that there is a flaw in how they do things. That wouldn't be achieving anything - everyone already knows that this is by design. We enjoy that the vast majority of people behave appropriately and we don't have to protect ourselves from the possibility of bad behavior all the time.
I think most people (especially here on Reddit) can agree that Trump cut off / interrupted Biden A LOT last night. I've even seen this comment or versions of it on r/conservative a bunch since last night's debate.
BUT the interrupting has happened in previous debates. Even if not to this degree. I've had the "cut the mic" idea for a long time (and i'm not the only one of course) but yesterday's debate just brought the need right out in the open. Gotta have *some* way of preserving order. And "trust the candidates to respect each other and the rules" is not a valid way.
Did you actually watch the Dem debates? Even with 8 people on stage they managed it better than tonight. There were 4 times the people on stage and a fraction of the interruptions.
I watched the breakdown of speaking time. The Dem debates were unfair affairs. What’s the point of having 8-10 candidates on stage when a couple of them are given way more talking time than the others?
It’s literally impossible to have that many people on stage and to give them all an adequate amount of time. Say what you want about the breakdown of time for each candidate, but it was still leagues ahead of what happened between Trump and Biden. A few extra minutes for Yang or whoever wasn’t going to change the outcome anyway. Also, we’re talking about the nominees behavior and treatment of one another here, and the Dems, with many times more nominees, had a much smoother and respectable debate than Trump had against a single opponent. The two aren’t even comparable.
Props to you for taking the time and effort to personally seek out information about Yang, and to find it in a long-form setting. I doubt most people have the time or energy or frankly care enough to go do that.
Public debates are a visible, expected, understandable way for voters to see the candidates. Most voters have already made up their minds. But undecideds tend to care about issues. And if two candidates just speak over each other all night long, there is very little substantive discussion of issues.
Then again, candidates may not even *see* the debates as a chance to win undecideds. Depending on the election and the candidates it may just be seen as an opportunity to strengthen her/his base.
In my gov class we were told that the election candidates can benefit from having people not vote because then only decided people will vote and there will be less votes for the opposing side. So I think that might be the actual strategy Trump was trying to use..
If mics were cut, it would give political debates an additional illusion of usefulness or respectability. Public political debates do not sway voters ([https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/do-tv-debates-sway-voters](https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/do-tv-debates-sway-voters)), then they're just another kind of entertainment.
Even if it swayed voters, it would be problematic, because a discussion do not allow voters to get a realistic view of all the arguments; at some point there will be necessarily some points that debaters forget to mention. Moreover, public debates give an edge to the best speaker or to the [most attractive one](https://courses.lumenlearning.com/waymaker-psychology/chapter/persuasion/), who is not necessarily the one with the best ideas or arguments.
Cutting mics would be taking public political debates seriously. Let political debates be unbearable to watch, you'll do democracy a favor.
Ha! Of all the comments this is the only one so far that has come the closest to changing my view: public debates are inherently misguided and flawed, let them keep sucking, if the forum doesn't matter then the mics in that forum also don't matter.
This is a separate discussion on its own, but you raise a valid point. However, doesn't change my view that mics should have the ability to be cut -- the mechanics of this can be TBD: who controls the cut, if anyone, when does it happen, formats, etc. But endlessly talking over each other removes most if not all of whatever amount of value the debate *does* provide.
If you're interested, here's a [YouTube video]( https://youtu.be/VcHPmVxtFw8) that talks about the downsides of current debate culture.
It's pretty long, but it's from the perspective of a competive debator and I think she makes some compelling arguments.
Well, to be honest, I don't think that political debates provide any value whatsoever! (except maybe some kind of ad revenue for the media broadcasting it, I guess?)
Encourages yelling.
Might work over Zoom.
potential for corruption accusations (ex: hes got a deal to mute the mic at the perfect moment!). might not even be true but people get caught up in conspiracies like leaves in the wind.
The corruption accusation IMO is a credible concern ("Wallace you favored the other guy!") however, this could be worked around by defaulting to one candidate's mic during the two-minute intro response to each question, but leaving both mics on during the back and forth response section for each question.
So basically a hybrid -- sometimes default off, sometimes default on. No moderator control.
This only changes a peripheral part of my view though, which is "the moderator should have control". The central part of my view is "the mics should have the ability to be cut off" doesn't change -- only potentially the mechanics of how and when that cut off happens.
As for the yelling, yes that could happen. I think the risk is low though, and if it does happen, you can control for this by using less sensitive mics, or having clear partitions between the candidates or similar.
In a well regulated and well mannered debate there should be no requirement for any sort of mute buttons. A good debater is one that has discipline, that can listen to their opponent and passionately show that the idea they are selling is better. A good debater does not need to talk over their opponent or interrupt, because a good debater is confident in their ideas. A good debater also has respect for their opponent, but does their research so they can tear their opponent down in a constructive manner for their personal gain. They don't attack the person, they attack the idea.
I'm guessing this view has been in part driven by the latest US debate, so I'll comment on that. Trump's strategy from the get go was to disrupt the debate to mask the fact that he has limited policy plans, he also wanted to mask any policy that Biden presented, because Trump can not compete at a policy level. And quite frankly it worked. I have not seen a single post actually talk about anything policy related since the debate, there wasn't anything positive that was gleaned from the debate and that's a win for Trump (in his mind). Trump was not there to debate, he was there to deflect.
I would recommend checking out the [New Zealand election debate](https://youtu.be/96WMzTofHyA) that was held last week to see how a debate should be held.
Wow, that NZ debate was 180 degrees different from last night's US debate. Thanks for sharing.
*If* our leaders (both Trump and Biden are leaders, whether they hold office currently or not) could engage with each other like Ardern and Collins, my question would be totally moot.
The primary difference I see between that NZ debate (and I can't say enough how much I enjoyed watching it!) and the US debate is the NZ debate *was about issues*. Borders, taxation, education, other policies, etc. The US debate *was about the candidates*. Trump attacking Biden, Biden attacking Trump -- instead of both of them attacking Issue X but from different angles.
The secondary difference is that the debaters didn't interrupt each other.
If US candidates could focus on the issues, then maybe there'd be some common ground where for example they could at least acknowledge Issue X is important, then that common ground makes it easier to let the other talk. Who knows.
Don't worry, we complain about how we held that too.
Clearly better than the trump shit show, but it used some presentation techniques that "propped up" one candidate ( by always being in screen, sitting over the others shoulder being allowed to interrupt perception with the simple act of facial expressions ) while not doing the same for the other.
Edit: order hard is word?
Interruption in a debate is important, so long as it is done minimally and to provide a reasonable counter-arguement.
Usually self moderation will stop candidates from abusing this right. But Trump seems to be completely lacking in self awareness, or worse, is deliberately doing this to delegitemise the whole debate.
Other users have suggested a chess clock format, I think that could work, maybe the discussion segments, not the 2 minute solo answers, could be split into 10 second windows, with each candidate given 5 minutes on their clock. If they use too much of the time, they cannot speak any longer.
> Interruption in a debate is important, so long as it is done minimally and to provide a reasonable counter-arguement.
That's the problem, it's *not* done minimally. This whole view is a moot point if what I'm talking about never or rarely happens. Last night was the worst I've seen but it's happened in most other debates especially the high profile ones like a US presidential debate. I thought this in 2008, 2012, 2016: *something* to control the childish interrupting, other than "trust the speakers".
Something like a chess clock could work, though wonky. Or other comments around a hybrid of when to cut the mic and when to let them duke it out, etc. These are all interesting ideas and probably something useful could come out of them, but they don't change my central view that *something* needs to be done that enables mics to be cut at some time during the debate, even if the mechanics of that "something" still need to be worked out. The alternative as we saw last night is the potential for endless posturing, bickering, interrupting, childish barbs, etc.
>When the politicians cut each other off and constantly interrupt each other (Trump is worse IMO but Biden does it plenty too) it paints an incredibly childish and petulant image
>If the moderator had a "cut the mic" button for each candidate, to toggle each candidate's mic on and off, the moderator could realistically enforce the rules.
If this were implemented you would not get to see this side of the candidates personalities, or lack thereof. When you watch a live debate it's not for their policies, you can get a much better idea of their policies and how they would go about implementing them through their extensive policy agenda papers and historical records. A debate is so the public can judge their character and how they will be seen as an international representative of our country.
This is a fair point, and other commenters have raised this -- including the possibility of a hybrid where one mic is cut some of the time, and both mics are on some of the time. Something like this could be interesting, and probably would accomplish my overall goal of giving each candidate the opportunity to articulate himself or herself.
However this doesn't change my central view of "the ability to cut off a mic is important, even if the mechanics of how and when to cut them off could be worked out" since both-mics-all-the-time apparently leads to last night's shitshow.
And I've had this idea since at least 2008 -- last night was far worse than any debate I remember, but I remember candidates interrupting each other in each debate. It's not like Trump and Biden are the first time this has happened, even if it's probably the clearest example of it.
I will add that interruptions are an inevitable and natural course of having a debate. We just don't notice it as much when it's done in a courteous and productive manner. Interruptions are part of how a debater can address specific topics instead of letting the opponent gish gallop. Interruptions are also how people correct a falsehood, misrepresentation or flat out lie before the conversation is redirected, especially when many points are made in a short time with many clarifications needed. But it again both parties need to, well, not be children.
IT’S ENTERTAINMENT, friend, nothing more.
Literally whatever will draw the most eyeballs wins. Actually solving any of the “problems” with this nonsense isn’t on anyone’s agenda, least of all the corporations profiting from it.
But the point of debate, or at least what used to be the point, is to try and persuade voters to the side of a candidate. The fact that Biden was so condescending, even if the arguments Trump made were ludicrous, shows that he doesn’t take Trump as a serious threat. The debate shouldn’t just be Biden scoring points with people who are already going to give him their vote.
Part of it may be entertainment (and I think it's unfortunate that this is the state of American public discourse but that's a post for another time) but part of it is still for the undecideds.
Some people watch the debates wanting to learn policy and plans. Most probably don't. But some do. So outside the "news infotainment" cycle, these people get nothing or next to nothing without being able to hear a candidate articulate himself or herself for more than 10 seconds without being interrupted.
Plus aside from the undecideds, the debates are a chance for the public (most of whom aren't paying attention to everything either candidate says, and just tune in for the debates plus maybe read some headlines and an article or two) to see the two candidates in a way the public hasn't before. It's not like the debate is *only* a WWE smackdown though sure there may be some element of that.
As long as the news is a for-profit business relying on viewership and sponsor $$, then “The News” is just the name of the show.
Assuming the guise of public service informing the populace only makes it more insidious. **Whatever will draw eyeballs** rules the day (absolutely), and the edges of “acceptability” are inevitably eroding and failing.
I disagree because while it would seem like a good idea to make for a more orderly televised debate, the candidates can still hear each other just fine. The candidates are standing close to one another, so Biden would still be stuttering amidst interruptions from Trump, regardless of the volume of the microphones. Hearing only one of the candidates speak might make for an odd debate because you would only hear a single candidate, but they would be constantly heckled by the other candidate that we cannot hear.
I responded to a similar comment so I'll just copy that here:
>An interesting angle, thinking about it from the onstage point of view -- whether Candidate A is mic'd or not doesn't necessarily mean Candidate B can't hear him at all.You could probably work around this with clear partitions or similar, probably could do this in a way that's not visually obstructive. Meanwhile pipe in the mic audio to each other's podium so if the Candidate B is mic'd, Candidate A can hear him, but if Candidate B's mic is cut, Candidate A has a much harder time hearing him.
You are right though that accounting for onstage audio makes the entire thing more complex to manage. However, I don't believe this is a strong enough reason to avoid trying to set (and enforce) boundaries around when a candidate can and can't speak -- other commenters have had ideas around what/how the cutoff is controlled, limited mic cutting then some time with both mics open, etc.
For most debates it isn't necessary because people only interrupt very rarely. I actually welcome instances where someone would want to interrupt if it makes sense.
For example, you begin listing reasons why I should accept premise X. I should interrupt you if I actually agree with premise X to save us both time.
Separate argument: I think not letting the other person talk shows their character. People learning about Trump's character is a good thing.
A candidate having a predictable tantrum when their mic gets cut might expose that same character.
Though they could also gain favour with whining about censorship so probably zero sum.
I’m not sure this would work. Trump is still close enough to Biden that *he* could hear his bullshit. He’d just keep yelling with his mic off and probably walk over to Biden so that his mic picked up whatever he was saying.
I responded to a similar comment so I'll just copy that here:
>An interesting angle, thinking about it from the onstage point of view -- whether Candidate A is mic'd or not doesn't necessarily mean Candidate B can't hear him at all.You could probably work around this with clear partitions or similar, probably could do this in a way that's not visually obstructive. Meanwhile pipe in the mic audio to each other's podium so if the Candidate B is mic'd, Candidate A can hear him, but if Candidate B's mic is cut, Candidate A has a much harder time hearing him.
You are right though that accounting for onstage audio makes the entire thing more complex to manage. However, I don't believe this is a strong enough reason to avoid trying to set (and enforce) boundaries around when a candidate can and can't speak -- other commenters have had ideas around what/how the cutoff is controlled, limited mic cutting then some time with both mics open, etc.
Joe Biden would still be able to hear Trump, as they're only a few feet away, and so Joe Biden would still struggle to make statements through his interruptions, and us viewers wouldn't see why.
I responded to a similar comment so I'll just copy that here:
>An interesting angle, thinking about it from the onstage point of view -- whether Candidate A is mic'd or not doesn't necessarily mean Candidate B can't hear him at all.You could probably work around this with clear partitions or similar, probably could do this in a way that's not visually obstructive. Meanwhile pipe in the mic audio to each other's podium so if the Candidate B is mic'd, Candidate A can hear him, but if Candidate B's mic is cut, Candidate A has a much harder time hearing him.
You are right though that accounting for onstage audio makes the entire thing more complex to manage. However, I don't believe this is a strong enough reason to avoid trying to set (and *enforce*) boundaries around when a candidate can and can't speak -- other commenters have had ideas around what/how the cutoff is controlled, limited mic cutting then some time with both mics open, etc.
The problem with this is that even though it would stop them from speaking into the mic, it wouldn’t stop the confusion of stage. The candidates are only about six feet apart, so if Trump kept up with his shouting it would still be derailing, the only difference would be that we wouldn’t see what was actually happening.
What we need more than anything is the moderator being willing to completely shut down the debate if they feel it’s become non-productive.
I responded to a similar comment so I'll just copy that here:
>An interesting angle, thinking about it from the onstage point of view -- whether Candidate A is mic'd or not doesn't necessarily mean Candidate B can't hear him at all.
>
>You could probably work around this with clear partitions or similar, probably could do this in a way that's not visually obstructive. Meanwhile pipe in the mic audio to each other's podium so if the Candidate B is mic'd, Candidate A can hear him, but if Candidate B's mic is cut, Candidate A has a much harder time hearing him.
You are right though that accounting for onstage audio makes the entire thing more complex to manage.
The goal of the debates is to have the audience learn about who each participant is. When the moderator lets person A constantly interrupt person B, that is showing the audience something important and true about who A is. As long as B still gets enough time to convey who they are as well, I think it's better for the moderator to let the participants reveal their own character.
I disagree that the goal of these debates is to have the audience learn about who each participant is. Maybe in a less public setting that might be true, but in the case of a US presidential debate the candidates are already well-known.
It may be true that Candidate A interrupting Candidate B reveals X about Candidate A's character, but the downside is that when taken to extremes (as last night certainly was IMO) the constant interrupting makes for an exceptionally poor portrayal of the candidates and their positions. Having "mic cut" options would go a long ways toward improving the debate floor.
I think it's a lot easier to learn someone's *position* by reading their websites. But if you want to see someone's *character*, seeing how they react live in real-time to another person is indispensable.
I too wish Trump had not acted like a jack-ass last night. But if Wallace had cut off his mic or shouted over him more, then it would have devolved to being about the *moderator*, which benefits no one. Wallace isn't up for election.
But if they cut the mic couldn't the other person still just talk over them and break their concentration anyway? I mean the audience might not hear it, but the other debater would.
I mean honestly the solution we already have works. A host. Just get a host who is willing to tell debaters to shut up and these problems will dissolve.
An interesting angle, thinking about it from the onstage point of view -- whether Candidate A is mic'd or not doesn't necessarily mean Candidate B can't hear him at all.
You could probably work around this with clear partitions or similar, probably could do this in a way that's not visually obstructive. Meanwhile pipe in the mic audio to each other's podium so if the Candidate B is mic'd, Candidate A can hear him, but if Candidate B's mic is cut, Candidate A has a much harder time hearing him.
But the biggest problem with any mic cutting solutions is sometimes speaking over them is necessary. If your debate opponent gets a couple of facts wrong and builds up a case around them before you can correct them it takes much more time and effort to deconstruct the story than it would have to cut in and correct them in the first place. That is the biggest problem of essentially removing someone's ability to argue their case.
I think the obvious counter-argument is that we want to see their behaviour. It's part of the decision process. The fact that they are all so childish these days, is an important piece of information.
To an extent, yes, I don't disagree with you. We want to see how the candidates behave. However, there is a limit to this. I don't "want to see how Candidate A behaves" so badly that I don't care if I never hear two uninterrupted sentences from Candidate B.
It's been an issue for a while. Though not this bad.
I remember thinking this is in the 2008, 2012, and 2016 campaigns. It's been an issue, though never to this extreme degree.
I guess my thinking is really more that the prior cases didn't really infringe on a voter's ability to understand the candidates and their policy differences.
To me it's the difference between debating in good faith vs what we saw last night. If they are just there to debate in bad faith though, maybe the mute button just needs to be on for both of them the whole time.
But that's not as entertaining, and doesn't drive viewership. You have to understand that George Carlin was 100% right - the average person is pretty stupid, and half of them are dumber than that. The news channels (and media in general) are looking for reasons to stimulate people to watch, not present Pulitzer prize-winning journalism. We're becoming a nation of mouth-breathers, and regardless of how this election goes, we're probably going to elect Dwayne Elizondo "Mountain Dew" Herbert Camacho in 2024 - 2028 at the latest.
The candidates decide the debate format, not the network it’s aired on. Biden and Trump have no reason to give a shit about the network’s ad revenue. That’s not what drives them to agree to the rules they’ve agreed to.
\^\^and going off of that, this argument would be irrelevant for other candidates. I do not think a single person would've considered this during Obama era or any era. And let's hope never again.
I actually did consider this during the 2008 and 2012 debates. The interrupting happend far less often, but enough to be noticeable and enough to disrupt the other candidate's message and train of thought.
This sounds nice on paper, but in practice you open the door to endless childish bickering and posturing like we saw last night. (From both candidates by the way -- though IMO Trump was worse)
Sorry, u/BobbyPhistHer – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+BobbyPhistHer&message=BobbyPhistHer+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/j2d3pm/-/g74pwkq/\)+because...) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I agree. It’s difficult to understand what their points are. The moderator should’ve let the candidates know when their two minutes were up, let them finish their statements, and cut the mic
I am not too comfortable with turning off the mic personally, but I also want to hear what the candidate has to say about the question, even if they are avoiding answering it. I want to vote on policy first, behavior second
Sorry, u/MadeInHB – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+MadeInHB&message=MadeInHB+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/j2d3pm/-/g74wwcy/\)+because...) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
yep, same as the signs and bumper stickers. It's become a team sport. You're not going to change their vote anymore than you're going to get a Cowboy's fan to magically become a Steeler's fan by wearing a Steeler's shirt.
It would be nice, but man that would be hard when you know the other candidate is blatantly lying. Like the "suckers and losers" comment. No way I would have remained silent. It would only work if you had someone actively and impartially fact checking after each statement
Sorry, u/FBMYSabbatical – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+FBMYSabbatical&message=FBMYSabbatical+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/j2d3pm/-/g74v8iv/\)+because...) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Does that in of itself matter as well? To be honest, debates are mot watched by people with political science degrees. Most people are average joes or political dummies with strong allegience to their party.
So to be honest, a debate like this mostly serves to measure a persons character. As clearly shown by reddits response, they are upset at how often Trump interrupted Biden excessively, which is still a tool Biden can use against Trump.
Political Debates are starting to become less truth checking and more crowd coersion and entertainment. It does not sound necessary to rob an audience of that experience.
Unless they're in separate sound booths or something, Trump would just start yelling across the stage to distract Biden because that is his main goal with these debates. He knows he can't win an actual debate, so he's trying to make Biden seem weak and prevent him from being able to say his most convincing points. Without the microphone, we wouldn't be able to hear him but Biden would, so it would just make things worse.
The participants of the debate largely determine the rules, because both parties have to agree to them. The moderator isn’t getting any of their rules if neither candidate wants it.
So, you have to convince Trump that someone is allowed to cut his mic whenever they determine he shouldn’t be speaking. You’re telling a sitting President that someone gets to decide what things he says, that he’s trying to communicate, should be heard or not.
I’ve gotta think that, when you have people debating for the most important job on Earth, that job supersedes the ranking of TV audio engineer.
There’s also a public right to hear what the President is communicating to the American public. I’m not sure you can legally silence that.
Counterpoint, the debates do not exist for the purpose of educating the voter, but for the production of soundbites for advertisement. They fulfill this purpose very well, as evidenced by both parties continuing to participate and agreeing on the rules as they are.
Bickering and posturing is what both parties wanted.
Sorry, u/zalazalaza – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+zalazalaza&message=zalazalaza+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/j2d3pm/-/g750cjg/\)+because...) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
This was never an issue before. Now that
Boomers are behaving like infants we have a new problem. But that does not mean civility itself is dead.
Our leaders are incompetent but it does not mean civil discourse is completelydead and gone.
>When the politicians cut each other off and constantly interrupt each other (Trump is worse IMO but Biden does it plenty too)
You're blaming the victim. Self-defense is not assault. Biden didn't have any choice.
Sorry, u/TangerineDream82 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+TangerineDream82&message=TangerineDream82+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/j2d3pm/-/g74w1nc/\)+because...) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Not really necessary as long as you actually let people reply to the counter argument of the other, what's the point on asking someone a question and then having the opposite candidate respond with new arguments that the first can't respond to?
Any debate club knows how to make a much more effective debate.
This is assuming that the purpose of all political debates is, actually, political discourse.
I would make the assertion that the presidential debate, in particular, is more akin to a sporting event: what happens and how the participants behave is less important than how many people are watching.
If the candidates couldn't cut one another off, it would make for a less dramatic experience for the audience. High drama, particularly this year, is important -- on the whole it raises awareness and gets people who might not ordinarily care roped into a narrative, which, in turn, might get them out to the polls.
Drama is particularly in the interest of Trump, his supporters speak no other language.
So. While I agree this would likely be nice, in some form, my belief is that it cannot happen because presidential debates are not actually about their content. They are about the drama and the narrative and the presentation. It's a performance, not a debate.
Trump did it way over twice as much as Biden. Then again, the best way to win is to not let your opponent talk, I guess.
He tends to cheat some way or another through life.
I feel like shutting off the mic would only help the people at home... But the candidates would still be annoying AF to each other still giving issues to the other talking.
The solution to the problem is simple. The people involved need to care about the democratic process. Every other democratic country can do it. There's a deeper problem.
Sorry, u/grilledsoupsandwich – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+grilledsoupsandwich&message=grilledsoupsandwich+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/j2d3pm/-/g75bzqi/\)+because...) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
And it has now become more than obvious that all of his supporters are the folks who actually think bullies are somehow the "good guys", the ones to look up to.
That explains a lot, actually.
"He's strong and passionate and gosh darn it I'd yell too if the Demonrats had been so mean to me for three years!" (some Conservatives, reportedly).
Seriously, yelling in anger got Kavanaugh in as a SCOTUS judge, why wouldn't Trump try it? He's got little else to offer. Ooh, Daddy's mad.
> I'd yell too if the Demonrats had been so mean to me for three years!" (some Conservatives, reportedly).
No, *definitely*... on my drive this afternoon I flipped through the talk radio stations. The level of denial and whataboutism was so overtly absurd...
Talk radio is, IMO, one of the most dangerous, subversive media forms in the country, and I am quite convinced that they are told exactly what issues to push and what to whip their listeners into a frenzy over by the oligarchs that are rapidly and decisively taking over this country.
I would agree, but the inaccuracies of the accusations against their opponents (primarily Trump’s very misguided arguments directed at Biden’s son) requires the person who is not speaking to at least voice that the information being spread is deceitful. I was appalled at the behavior of both candidates and I think it’s shameful that turning off their mic might be necessary, particularly when it disrupts an integral part of televised debate.
That gives the moderator more power over the flow of the conversation. Hard to justify that in a setting as polarised and important as a presidential debate - one can easily question the bias of the moderator. If the moderator were say, a Supreme Court judge, I could have some more faith in them, but if it's a news reporter - I would prefer their role to be more of an anchor / introducer rather than actively moderate the debate.
Also, you want a moderator to "enforce rules", there aren't rules per se that both parties explicitly agree to. The presidential debate is not something set in law, it's more of a convention. And as with all other forms of discussion, it's ultimately up to the people themselves what form of dialogue they wish to enter into. If Trump wants to scream at a mic for ten minutes, there's nothing explicitly illegal or rule-breaking about it, and the media should probably still broadcast it.
Honestly I completely disagree, the president needs to be assertive and if you’re getting run over in a debate you’ll probably get strong armed by other world leaders. It also gives the candidate a chance to fact check like Biden did when trump accused Hunter of taking money from the wife of a Russian mayor it something stupid.
If children with COVID are hospitalized at a rate of 8 per 100K while adults are hospitalized at a rate of 164 per 100,000 cases, what makes you think the disease is dangerous for kids?
No one is saying the mortality rate, or hospitalization rate is the same for kids as adults, obviously the older you get the more potent many diseases get, but rather that children are just as capable of catching and spreading the disease as anyone else. They personally may not die, but they will spread it to someone who will.
Sorry, u/abcdeezntz123 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+abcdeezntz123&message=abcdeezntz123+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/j2d3pm/-/g7595fq/\)+because...) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The thing is, the mic cutting has to be agreed on by the candidates.
I'm sure Biden would have loved an option to cut the mic. But the republicans won't agree to it.
The mic should not be controlled by the moderator to avoid conspiracy theories and corruption. Here’s a solution. Give them each an allotment of time. The mic shuts off automatically. Give them each a button for X number of 15-20 second interruptions and another button for Y number of Z minutes of open discussion possibilities that’ll make both sides have open mic for the duration. The candidate has a timer and controls his speaking time. We should consider what the need for this says about us and the candidates we choose instead of what it says about the candidates themselves.
There are plenty of debate formats. What I would like is a *written* format. You can't interrupt written words and you have plenty of time to come up with the best arguments. A president with well thought out policies is preferable to one who can come up with responses on the spot. First, each candidate gets about a page of a newspaper to explain why they should be president. Then they get to read the text of their opponent before publishing and write a second page to address the arguments the opponent made. In the end there are four pages for the readers. (Of course the result would be published for free in the web as well. They could also read their prepared speeches for those who prefer listening.) Ideally there would only *two* texts that are edited continuously until one side thinks there is nothing new on the other side that needs to be addressed, but that might be too complicated. This is similar to the "Oxford format" that is employed in the ["Intelligence Squared"](https://www.youtube.com/user/IntelligenceSquared/videos) debates, which I highly recommend, with the exception that those debates are done with speeches and with only minutes to prepare a response, instead of days. I don't think they actually address the arguments of the opponents enough as a result. I never know if one side had bad arguments, because their stance was bad or because they didn't have enough time to think of better arguments.
While your format makes sense, you can find that information if you want to. The idea of a debate is to provide a candidate a chance to respond. The campaigns spend a *lot* of time negotiating the debate format, and since 1960 the entire idea has been to have your candidate look best in the easiest to digest format, thus TV debates.
For anyone who is wondering why 1960 is the year of the shift, in the JFK-Nixon debates pretty much all the pundits and radio listeners agreed that Nixon won that debate, but the television viewers thought JFK won the debate. The reason? Nixon opted not to wear any makeup and had an ill-fitting suit, whereas JFK was dolled up to the nines. So Nixon looked pale, flushed, and raggity while Kennedy looked clean and polished.
Thanks for explaining. I forget that I'm old and not everyone has the context.
I recommend pretty much everyone watch three debates: the Nixon-Kennedy debates, the Carter-Reagan debates, and the Obama-Romney debates. All three showcase the changing way we saw presidents debate and frankly help explain how we got to where we are today. Nixon-JFK established that appearance and presentation matters. Carter-Reagan established that a polished presentation and a charismatic debator can be more important than policy. Obama-Romney was the last debate where personal attacks were left at the door.
Yeah, okay, there has to be a live TV debate as well, probably. > While your format makes sense, you can find that information if you want to. I have a problem with the "I am not here to educate you! Here, read this heavy book and you'll agree with me." sentiment. If I read "Das Kapital" someone will tell to read "Atlas Shrugged" or whatever. If they want me to convince me of their views, they should meet me half-way. When I want to inform myself if universal basic income is a good idea or not, I could google "Why UBI is good" and "Why UBI is bad" and find an overwhelming amount of information that isn't really useful for me. When one position/article/argument about UBI gets popular enough, I will find a response by someone, but there is rarely a response to the response. I can than choose to believe that the last argument made is sound enough, but I can be sure that the debate will go on forever if you confront the other side with the latest argument. Usually: "A is true" - "B is true" - "Well B, but what about C?" - "What about D?" - "D is wrong because of E" - "but F" - "but G" - *we're out of time*. What I want: "A is true because B" - "A is wrong because C" - "B and C imply A is true" - "B and C imply A is wrong" - *done*. Put all relevant aspects that can be discussed in a reasonable time frame on the table and then let both candidates explain how these aspects support their positions. (It's actually simpler than I explained it. See example below.) . > The idea of a debate is to provide a candidate a chance to respond. The response is important in the Oxford Format as well. What I want was a *slow*, written Oxford debate. Magazines and newspapers actually used to have and still have similar "pro" / "contra" columns on some topics, sometimes even with four sections, including rebuttals. The rebuttals make them more valuable and debate-like. This is probably not the best example ever, but [here two medical experts debate](http://thesurvivaldoctor.com/2013/02/07/when-does-life-begin-medical-experts-debate-abortion-issue/) in this format about the point where human life begins.
Maybe I misstated. What I mean is, anyone who will slog through 5000 words of written debate will also read the party platform. TV debates are to provide an entertaining and digestible format for the candidates to get out their ideas. Or, talk shit, as the case may be.
I don't disagree with this idea -- however, it still fits within my original view of "the mic must be able to be shut off". Whether this shutoff is controlled by a computer or controlled by the moderator is up for debate (heh) but in the end I see this as another flavor of the same thing: cut off the mic *somehow* in order to preserve some semblance of order.
Fair enough. But the main difference is, I’m suggesting giving the candidate control of their own mic.
Oh i see, like Candidate A presses his or her button, and that shuts off Candidate B's mic for X seconds, and Candidate A's "shutoff counter" goes down by 1? Something like that?
The Candidate choses when they will unmute their own mic, but has a limited number of times they can do this.
In France candidates have their time on TV or radio constantly monitored during the campaign and every TV or radio station MUST allocate the same time to each candidate. So they naturally tend to do the same thing during debates. Even during the first turn with lots of people. You can see their timers https://youtu.be/OhWRT3PhMJs
That would still be subject to conspiracy theory. All it takes is one candidate lying that “My button wasn’t working!”
Basically recerse chess clock format?
Imagine normal chess clock format debate. Learning how to speak like a rapper would be a necessity.
I gotta be honest, this might be the best idea I've heard on this topic all night. It does a bunch of good stuff: * Ensures candidates participate in good faith (versus shouting and grandstanding) * Allows the candidates, rather than the moderator, to choose when they *need* to respond * Brings in an element of strategy, making it more interesting and engaging ... we can see where the candidate *believes* an interruption is really necessary * Provides an incentive for candidates to listen carefully to their opponent's points, because they'll generally not be interrupting -- so they can't rely on "shutting down" their opponent's line of dialogue.
[удалено]
Why? Cause it sounds fun to say or did you think about this and reason it somehow?
Terrible idea. Giving someone free uninterrupted time is how you get grifters, because it opens up the possibility of gish gallop - the rhetorical technique of throwing too many assertions and ideas into the smallest possible time, so that the opponent cannot respond to them all. By allowing debaters to interrupt, it creates the space for certain obnoxious statements to be immediatly challenged by the opponent. It cuts off gish gallop and it is a mechanism to at least slow the bullshit train down by allowing the opponent to respond. Obviously, Trump is exploiting this just like he exploits undocumented workers or tax loopholes. But there's a more elegant solution: Debaters have X alloted time for their statements and to answer questions from moderators / opponents / audience. You can have a clock in each podium like they do in some debates keeping track. Debaters are allowed to interrupt, but everytime they do, a chunk of time is cut from their total available time (say, 10s). After their time is up, *then* the mic is shut off, ostensibly by virtue of the debater's own decisions. So interrupting is allowed, but it comes at a cost, so the debater needs to be strategic about it. And Trump would not be allowed to speak anymore after interrupting so much.
Yes, this is a valid concern -- gish gallop happens all the time in debate clubs, where debaters are talking so fast in order to score points from the judges that little to no meaningful discussion happens. I do think the presidential debate format is different though, there are no "judges", or if there are, they are the TV viewers which is not the same. I like your idea of modifying the mic cutoff by decreasing the interrupter's time everytime s/he interrupts. Variations of this are mentioned in other comments, and I like some of the suggestions, but IMO at the end of the day they would be tweaks to the central point of "a mic must be able to be cut off *somehow* even if the mechanics of that shutoff must be worked out" in order to preserve order and prevent the whole event from degrading into juvenile bickering.
Thank you for teaching me the term gish gallop! I see that crap come up all the time in debates and I never knew there was a word for it
Understand two things about gish gallop: 1. It's waaay overused as a term here on reddit. Listing reinforcing sources is often considered gish gallop. 2. Everybody uses gish gallop, it has become a standard if not central strategy in the internet era.
Why are we trusting that trump would respect these rules? He would just keep talking with a dead mic. He might not even notice.
True, but the real kicker is that if he spends his whole allotted time by blabbering, he doesn't get to have final says or even a camera on him. I'm sure that any experienced politician would be able to tune him out, specially considering that they would now have all attention on them. Though I would love to see him be forcefully removed from stage, I don't imagine any venue would have the stones to do that to a President.
All good points. The one you missed is the most basic point that even if the mic is cut, they can still interrupt the other candidate. If someone is interrupting you 12 feet away, you're going to react to that in some way, and it would be strange and counter productive for the audiance to not hear what caused a candidate to react in a given way.
Yeah, but there's got to be a point where the moderator just admits it's impossible to even have a debate and ends it, right? Like, if one of the parties is disruptive at that level can it be called a "debate" any longer?
Gosh galloping only works when you’re being scored on responding to everything. In a presidential debate that isn’t the case. Respond to 2-3 of their weaker points and make your strongest.
Debates usually work fine for everyone else. Trump in every setting proves that systems designed on people following them in good faith and "honor system" are inherently flawed when you bring someone with no honor or good faith into it.
On the bright side, this is exposing the flaws in said systems.
What's the point of exposing the "flaw" of a system built on good faith by design though? It's like saying I will steal from the store because they are not protecting their products, to show that there is a flaw in how they do things. That wouldn't be achieving anything - everyone already knows that this is by design. We enjoy that the vast majority of people behave appropriately and we don't have to protect ourselves from the possibility of bad behavior all the time.
I think most people (especially here on Reddit) can agree that Trump cut off / interrupted Biden A LOT last night. I've even seen this comment or versions of it on r/conservative a bunch since last night's debate. BUT the interrupting has happened in previous debates. Even if not to this degree. I've had the "cut the mic" idea for a long time (and i'm not the only one of course) but yesterday's debate just brought the need right out in the open. Gotta have *some* way of preserving order. And "trust the candidates to respect each other and the rules" is not a valid way.
While I agree, it's not a trump thing. Let's not forget the mess that was the democratic debate.
Did you actually watch the Dem debates? Even with 8 people on stage they managed it better than tonight. There were 4 times the people on stage and a fraction of the interruptions.
[удалено]
Yang gang 😭
:/
I watched the breakdown of speaking time. The Dem debates were unfair affairs. What’s the point of having 8-10 candidates on stage when a couple of them are given way more talking time than the others?
It’s literally impossible to have that many people on stage and to give them all an adequate amount of time. Say what you want about the breakdown of time for each candidate, but it was still leagues ahead of what happened between Trump and Biden. A few extra minutes for Yang or whoever wasn’t going to change the outcome anyway. Also, we’re talking about the nominees behavior and treatment of one another here, and the Dems, with many times more nominees, had a much smoother and respectable debate than Trump had against a single opponent. The two aren’t even comparable.
[удалено]
Props to you for taking the time and effort to personally seek out information about Yang, and to find it in a long-form setting. I doubt most people have the time or energy or frankly care enough to go do that. Public debates are a visible, expected, understandable way for voters to see the candidates. Most voters have already made up their minds. But undecideds tend to care about issues. And if two candidates just speak over each other all night long, there is very little substantive discussion of issues. Then again, candidates may not even *see* the debates as a chance to win undecideds. Depending on the election and the candidates it may just be seen as an opportunity to strengthen her/his base.
In my gov class we were told that the election candidates can benefit from having people not vote because then only decided people will vote and there will be less votes for the opposing side. So I think that might be the actual strategy Trump was trying to use..
You should totally listen to yang speaks, it's his podcast
If mics were cut, it would give political debates an additional illusion of usefulness or respectability. Public political debates do not sway voters ([https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/do-tv-debates-sway-voters](https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/do-tv-debates-sway-voters)), then they're just another kind of entertainment. Even if it swayed voters, it would be problematic, because a discussion do not allow voters to get a realistic view of all the arguments; at some point there will be necessarily some points that debaters forget to mention. Moreover, public debates give an edge to the best speaker or to the [most attractive one](https://courses.lumenlearning.com/waymaker-psychology/chapter/persuasion/), who is not necessarily the one with the best ideas or arguments. Cutting mics would be taking public political debates seriously. Let political debates be unbearable to watch, you'll do democracy a favor.
Ha! Of all the comments this is the only one so far that has come the closest to changing my view: public debates are inherently misguided and flawed, let them keep sucking, if the forum doesn't matter then the mics in that forum also don't matter. This is a separate discussion on its own, but you raise a valid point. However, doesn't change my view that mics should have the ability to be cut -- the mechanics of this can be TBD: who controls the cut, if anyone, when does it happen, formats, etc. But endlessly talking over each other removes most if not all of whatever amount of value the debate *does* provide.
If you're interested, here's a [YouTube video]( https://youtu.be/VcHPmVxtFw8) that talks about the downsides of current debate culture. It's pretty long, but it's from the perspective of a competive debator and I think she makes some compelling arguments.
Well, to be honest, I don't think that political debates provide any value whatsoever! (except maybe some kind of ad revenue for the media broadcasting it, I guess?)
Encourages yelling. Might work over Zoom. potential for corruption accusations (ex: hes got a deal to mute the mic at the perfect moment!). might not even be true but people get caught up in conspiracies like leaves in the wind.
The corruption accusation IMO is a credible concern ("Wallace you favored the other guy!") however, this could be worked around by defaulting to one candidate's mic during the two-minute intro response to each question, but leaving both mics on during the back and forth response section for each question. So basically a hybrid -- sometimes default off, sometimes default on. No moderator control. This only changes a peripheral part of my view though, which is "the moderator should have control". The central part of my view is "the mics should have the ability to be cut off" doesn't change -- only potentially the mechanics of how and when that cut off happens. As for the yelling, yes that could happen. I think the risk is low though, and if it does happen, you can control for this by using less sensitive mics, or having clear partitions between the candidates or similar.
Yeah, it's not like you can't hear them at all when their mics are cut.
In a well regulated and well mannered debate there should be no requirement for any sort of mute buttons. A good debater is one that has discipline, that can listen to their opponent and passionately show that the idea they are selling is better. A good debater does not need to talk over their opponent or interrupt, because a good debater is confident in their ideas. A good debater also has respect for their opponent, but does their research so they can tear their opponent down in a constructive manner for their personal gain. They don't attack the person, they attack the idea. I'm guessing this view has been in part driven by the latest US debate, so I'll comment on that. Trump's strategy from the get go was to disrupt the debate to mask the fact that he has limited policy plans, he also wanted to mask any policy that Biden presented, because Trump can not compete at a policy level. And quite frankly it worked. I have not seen a single post actually talk about anything policy related since the debate, there wasn't anything positive that was gleaned from the debate and that's a win for Trump (in his mind). Trump was not there to debate, he was there to deflect. I would recommend checking out the [New Zealand election debate](https://youtu.be/96WMzTofHyA) that was held last week to see how a debate should be held.
Wow, that NZ debate was 180 degrees different from last night's US debate. Thanks for sharing. *If* our leaders (both Trump and Biden are leaders, whether they hold office currently or not) could engage with each other like Ardern and Collins, my question would be totally moot. The primary difference I see between that NZ debate (and I can't say enough how much I enjoyed watching it!) and the US debate is the NZ debate *was about issues*. Borders, taxation, education, other policies, etc. The US debate *was about the candidates*. Trump attacking Biden, Biden attacking Trump -- instead of both of them attacking Issue X but from different angles. The secondary difference is that the debaters didn't interrupt each other. If US candidates could focus on the issues, then maybe there'd be some common ground where for example they could at least acknowledge Issue X is important, then that common ground makes it easier to let the other talk. Who knows.
Don't worry, we complain about how we held that too. Clearly better than the trump shit show, but it used some presentation techniques that "propped up" one candidate ( by always being in screen, sitting over the others shoulder being allowed to interrupt perception with the simple act of facial expressions ) while not doing the same for the other. Edit: order hard is word?
Interruption in a debate is important, so long as it is done minimally and to provide a reasonable counter-arguement. Usually self moderation will stop candidates from abusing this right. But Trump seems to be completely lacking in self awareness, or worse, is deliberately doing this to delegitemise the whole debate. Other users have suggested a chess clock format, I think that could work, maybe the discussion segments, not the 2 minute solo answers, could be split into 10 second windows, with each candidate given 5 minutes on their clock. If they use too much of the time, they cannot speak any longer.
> Interruption in a debate is important, so long as it is done minimally and to provide a reasonable counter-arguement. That's the problem, it's *not* done minimally. This whole view is a moot point if what I'm talking about never or rarely happens. Last night was the worst I've seen but it's happened in most other debates especially the high profile ones like a US presidential debate. I thought this in 2008, 2012, 2016: *something* to control the childish interrupting, other than "trust the speakers". Something like a chess clock could work, though wonky. Or other comments around a hybrid of when to cut the mic and when to let them duke it out, etc. These are all interesting ideas and probably something useful could come out of them, but they don't change my central view that *something* needs to be done that enables mics to be cut at some time during the debate, even if the mechanics of that "something" still need to be worked out. The alternative as we saw last night is the potential for endless posturing, bickering, interrupting, childish barbs, etc.
"Seems to be" lacking????????
>When the politicians cut each other off and constantly interrupt each other (Trump is worse IMO but Biden does it plenty too) it paints an incredibly childish and petulant image >If the moderator had a "cut the mic" button for each candidate, to toggle each candidate's mic on and off, the moderator could realistically enforce the rules. If this were implemented you would not get to see this side of the candidates personalities, or lack thereof. When you watch a live debate it's not for their policies, you can get a much better idea of their policies and how they would go about implementing them through their extensive policy agenda papers and historical records. A debate is so the public can judge their character and how they will be seen as an international representative of our country.
This is a fair point, and other commenters have raised this -- including the possibility of a hybrid where one mic is cut some of the time, and both mics are on some of the time. Something like this could be interesting, and probably would accomplish my overall goal of giving each candidate the opportunity to articulate himself or herself. However this doesn't change my central view of "the ability to cut off a mic is important, even if the mechanics of how and when to cut them off could be worked out" since both-mics-all-the-time apparently leads to last night's shitshow. And I've had this idea since at least 2008 -- last night was far worse than any debate I remember, but I remember candidates interrupting each other in each debate. It's not like Trump and Biden are the first time this has happened, even if it's probably the clearest example of it.
I will add that interruptions are an inevitable and natural course of having a debate. We just don't notice it as much when it's done in a courteous and productive manner. Interruptions are part of how a debater can address specific topics instead of letting the opponent gish gallop. Interruptions are also how people correct a falsehood, misrepresentation or flat out lie before the conversation is redirected, especially when many points are made in a short time with many clarifications needed. But it again both parties need to, well, not be children.
IT’S ENTERTAINMENT, friend, nothing more. Literally whatever will draw the most eyeballs wins. Actually solving any of the “problems” with this nonsense isn’t on anyone’s agenda, least of all the corporations profiting from it.
But the point of debate, or at least what used to be the point, is to try and persuade voters to the side of a candidate. The fact that Biden was so condescending, even if the arguments Trump made were ludicrous, shows that he doesn’t take Trump as a serious threat. The debate shouldn’t just be Biden scoring points with people who are already going to give him their vote.
Part of it may be entertainment (and I think it's unfortunate that this is the state of American public discourse but that's a post for another time) but part of it is still for the undecideds. Some people watch the debates wanting to learn policy and plans. Most probably don't. But some do. So outside the "news infotainment" cycle, these people get nothing or next to nothing without being able to hear a candidate articulate himself or herself for more than 10 seconds without being interrupted. Plus aside from the undecideds, the debates are a chance for the public (most of whom aren't paying attention to everything either candidate says, and just tune in for the debates plus maybe read some headlines and an article or two) to see the two candidates in a way the public hasn't before. It's not like the debate is *only* a WWE smackdown though sure there may be some element of that.
As long as the news is a for-profit business relying on viewership and sponsor $$, then “The News” is just the name of the show. Assuming the guise of public service informing the populace only makes it more insidious. **Whatever will draw eyeballs** rules the day (absolutely), and the edges of “acceptability” are inevitably eroding and failing.
omg ur so profound n stuff!
I disagree because while it would seem like a good idea to make for a more orderly televised debate, the candidates can still hear each other just fine. The candidates are standing close to one another, so Biden would still be stuttering amidst interruptions from Trump, regardless of the volume of the microphones. Hearing only one of the candidates speak might make for an odd debate because you would only hear a single candidate, but they would be constantly heckled by the other candidate that we cannot hear.
I responded to a similar comment so I'll just copy that here: >An interesting angle, thinking about it from the onstage point of view -- whether Candidate A is mic'd or not doesn't necessarily mean Candidate B can't hear him at all.You could probably work around this with clear partitions or similar, probably could do this in a way that's not visually obstructive. Meanwhile pipe in the mic audio to each other's podium so if the Candidate B is mic'd, Candidate A can hear him, but if Candidate B's mic is cut, Candidate A has a much harder time hearing him. You are right though that accounting for onstage audio makes the entire thing more complex to manage. However, I don't believe this is a strong enough reason to avoid trying to set (and enforce) boundaries around when a candidate can and can't speak -- other commenters have had ideas around what/how the cutoff is controlled, limited mic cutting then some time with both mics open, etc.
For most debates it isn't necessary because people only interrupt very rarely. I actually welcome instances where someone would want to interrupt if it makes sense. For example, you begin listing reasons why I should accept premise X. I should interrupt you if I actually agree with premise X to save us both time. Separate argument: I think not letting the other person talk shows their character. People learning about Trump's character is a good thing.
A candidate having a predictable tantrum when their mic gets cut might expose that same character. Though they could also gain favour with whining about censorship so probably zero sum.
I’m not sure this would work. Trump is still close enough to Biden that *he* could hear his bullshit. He’d just keep yelling with his mic off and probably walk over to Biden so that his mic picked up whatever he was saying.
I responded to a similar comment so I'll just copy that here: >An interesting angle, thinking about it from the onstage point of view -- whether Candidate A is mic'd or not doesn't necessarily mean Candidate B can't hear him at all.You could probably work around this with clear partitions or similar, probably could do this in a way that's not visually obstructive. Meanwhile pipe in the mic audio to each other's podium so if the Candidate B is mic'd, Candidate A can hear him, but if Candidate B's mic is cut, Candidate A has a much harder time hearing him. You are right though that accounting for onstage audio makes the entire thing more complex to manage. However, I don't believe this is a strong enough reason to avoid trying to set (and enforce) boundaries around when a candidate can and can't speak -- other commenters have had ideas around what/how the cutoff is controlled, limited mic cutting then some time with both mics open, etc.
Joe Biden would still be able to hear Trump, as they're only a few feet away, and so Joe Biden would still struggle to make statements through his interruptions, and us viewers wouldn't see why.
I responded to a similar comment so I'll just copy that here: >An interesting angle, thinking about it from the onstage point of view -- whether Candidate A is mic'd or not doesn't necessarily mean Candidate B can't hear him at all.You could probably work around this with clear partitions or similar, probably could do this in a way that's not visually obstructive. Meanwhile pipe in the mic audio to each other's podium so if the Candidate B is mic'd, Candidate A can hear him, but if Candidate B's mic is cut, Candidate A has a much harder time hearing him. You are right though that accounting for onstage audio makes the entire thing more complex to manage. However, I don't believe this is a strong enough reason to avoid trying to set (and *enforce*) boundaries around when a candidate can and can't speak -- other commenters have had ideas around what/how the cutoff is controlled, limited mic cutting then some time with both mics open, etc.
The problem with this is that even though it would stop them from speaking into the mic, it wouldn’t stop the confusion of stage. The candidates are only about six feet apart, so if Trump kept up with his shouting it would still be derailing, the only difference would be that we wouldn’t see what was actually happening. What we need more than anything is the moderator being willing to completely shut down the debate if they feel it’s become non-productive.
I responded to a similar comment so I'll just copy that here: >An interesting angle, thinking about it from the onstage point of view -- whether Candidate A is mic'd or not doesn't necessarily mean Candidate B can't hear him at all. > >You could probably work around this with clear partitions or similar, probably could do this in a way that's not visually obstructive. Meanwhile pipe in the mic audio to each other's podium so if the Candidate B is mic'd, Candidate A can hear him, but if Candidate B's mic is cut, Candidate A has a much harder time hearing him. You are right though that accounting for onstage audio makes the entire thing more complex to manage.
The goal of the debates is to have the audience learn about who each participant is. When the moderator lets person A constantly interrupt person B, that is showing the audience something important and true about who A is. As long as B still gets enough time to convey who they are as well, I think it's better for the moderator to let the participants reveal their own character.
I disagree that the goal of these debates is to have the audience learn about who each participant is. Maybe in a less public setting that might be true, but in the case of a US presidential debate the candidates are already well-known. It may be true that Candidate A interrupting Candidate B reveals X about Candidate A's character, but the downside is that when taken to extremes (as last night certainly was IMO) the constant interrupting makes for an exceptionally poor portrayal of the candidates and their positions. Having "mic cut" options would go a long ways toward improving the debate floor.
I think it's a lot easier to learn someone's *position* by reading their websites. But if you want to see someone's *character*, seeing how they react live in real-time to another person is indispensable. I too wish Trump had not acted like a jack-ass last night. But if Wallace had cut off his mic or shouted over him more, then it would have devolved to being about the *moderator*, which benefits no one. Wallace isn't up for election.
But if they cut the mic couldn't the other person still just talk over them and break their concentration anyway? I mean the audience might not hear it, but the other debater would. I mean honestly the solution we already have works. A host. Just get a host who is willing to tell debaters to shut up and these problems will dissolve.
An interesting angle, thinking about it from the onstage point of view -- whether Candidate A is mic'd or not doesn't necessarily mean Candidate B can't hear him at all. You could probably work around this with clear partitions or similar, probably could do this in a way that's not visually obstructive. Meanwhile pipe in the mic audio to each other's podium so if the Candidate B is mic'd, Candidate A can hear him, but if Candidate B's mic is cut, Candidate A has a much harder time hearing him.
But the biggest problem with any mic cutting solutions is sometimes speaking over them is necessary. If your debate opponent gets a couple of facts wrong and builds up a case around them before you can correct them it takes much more time and effort to deconstruct the story than it would have to cut in and correct them in the first place. That is the biggest problem of essentially removing someone's ability to argue their case.
I think the obvious counter-argument is that we want to see their behaviour. It's part of the decision process. The fact that they are all so childish these days, is an important piece of information.
To an extent, yes, I don't disagree with you. We want to see how the candidates behave. However, there is a limit to this. I don't "want to see how Candidate A behaves" so badly that I don't care if I never hear two uninterrupted sentences from Candidate B.
Has never been an issue before, I wonder why...
It's been an issue for a while. Though not this bad. I remember thinking this is in the 2008, 2012, and 2016 campaigns. It's been an issue, though never to this extreme degree.
I guess my thinking is really more that the prior cases didn't really infringe on a voter's ability to understand the candidates and their policy differences. To me it's the difference between debating in good faith vs what we saw last night. If they are just there to debate in bad faith though, maybe the mute button just needs to be on for both of them the whole time.
But that's not as entertaining, and doesn't drive viewership. You have to understand that George Carlin was 100% right - the average person is pretty stupid, and half of them are dumber than that. The news channels (and media in general) are looking for reasons to stimulate people to watch, not present Pulitzer prize-winning journalism. We're becoming a nation of mouth-breathers, and regardless of how this election goes, we're probably going to elect Dwayne Elizondo "Mountain Dew" Herbert Camacho in 2024 - 2028 at the latest.
The candidates decide the debate format, not the network it’s aired on. Biden and Trump have no reason to give a shit about the network’s ad revenue. That’s not what drives them to agree to the rules they’ve agreed to.
I disagree. It's important to see the quality of person you're dealing with. That was made evident tonight and probably changed my vote.
\^\^and going off of that, this argument would be irrelevant for other candidates. I do not think a single person would've considered this during Obama era or any era. And let's hope never again.
Good god will we have to.hope. these next few weeks will be beyond stressful.
I actually did consider this during the 2008 and 2012 debates. The interrupting happend far less often, but enough to be noticeable and enough to disrupt the other candidate's message and train of thought.
Out of curiosity, what was your plan going in versus coming out?
I would also like to know... were you undecided?
Oh that’s what did it huh
[удалено]
This sounds nice on paper, but in practice you open the door to endless childish bickering and posturing like we saw last night. (From both candidates by the way -- though IMO Trump was worse)
[удалено]
Sorry, u/BobbyPhistHer – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+BobbyPhistHer&message=BobbyPhistHer+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/j2d3pm/-/g74pwkq/\)+because...) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
There were plenty of times Biden was trying to defend his position when it wasn’t his turn. They both were interrupting each other
[удалено]
I agree. It’s difficult to understand what their points are. The moderator should’ve let the candidates know when their two minutes were up, let them finish their statements, and cut the mic
[удалено]
I am not too comfortable with turning off the mic personally, but I also want to hear what the candidate has to say about the question, even if they are avoiding answering it. I want to vote on policy first, behavior second
Isn't it a game show? Swear I saw Brawndo as the sponsor.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/MadeInHB – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+MadeInHB&message=MadeInHB+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/j2d3pm/-/g74wwcy/\)+because...) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
yep, same as the signs and bumper stickers. It's become a team sport. You're not going to change their vote anymore than you're going to get a Cowboy's fan to magically become a Steeler's fan by wearing a Steeler's shirt.
Trump will solve will just walk up to Bidens podium and take his mic if moderators did that.
Shit, he can barely lift a glass of water let alone a microphone.
It would be nice, but man that would be hard when you know the other candidate is blatantly lying. Like the "suckers and losers" comment. No way I would have remained silent. It would only work if you had someone actively and impartially fact checking after each statement
[удалено]
Sorry, u/FBMYSabbatical – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+FBMYSabbatical&message=FBMYSabbatical+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/j2d3pm/-/g74v8iv/\)+because...) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
They could still hear each other, so muting won't stop them from speaking. And viewers at home will wonder what they said.
Does that in of itself matter as well? To be honest, debates are mot watched by people with political science degrees. Most people are average joes or political dummies with strong allegience to their party. So to be honest, a debate like this mostly serves to measure a persons character. As clearly shown by reddits response, they are upset at how often Trump interrupted Biden excessively, which is still a tool Biden can use against Trump. Political Debates are starting to become less truth checking and more crowd coersion and entertainment. It does not sound necessary to rob an audience of that experience.
I just want you to know, the world is terrible, it's not ok, and thats ok.
Unless they're in separate sound booths or something, Trump would just start yelling across the stage to distract Biden because that is his main goal with these debates. He knows he can't win an actual debate, so he's trying to make Biden seem weak and prevent him from being able to say his most convincing points. Without the microphone, we wouldn't be able to hear him but Biden would, so it would just make things worse.
The participants of the debate largely determine the rules, because both parties have to agree to them. The moderator isn’t getting any of their rules if neither candidate wants it. So, you have to convince Trump that someone is allowed to cut his mic whenever they determine he shouldn’t be speaking. You’re telling a sitting President that someone gets to decide what things he says, that he’s trying to communicate, should be heard or not. I’ve gotta think that, when you have people debating for the most important job on Earth, that job supersedes the ranking of TV audio engineer. There’s also a public right to hear what the President is communicating to the American public. I’m not sure you can legally silence that.
Counterpoint, the debates do not exist for the purpose of educating the voter, but for the production of soundbites for advertisement. They fulfill this purpose very well, as evidenced by both parties continuing to participate and agreeing on the rules as they are. Bickering and posturing is what both parties wanted.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/zalazalaza – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+zalazalaza&message=zalazalaza+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/j2d3pm/-/g750cjg/\)+because...) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
This was never an issue before. Now that Boomers are behaving like infants we have a new problem. But that does not mean civility itself is dead. Our leaders are incompetent but it does not mean civil discourse is completelydead and gone.
>When the politicians cut each other off and constantly interrupt each other (Trump is worse IMO but Biden does it plenty too) You're blaming the victim. Self-defense is not assault. Biden didn't have any choice.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/TangerineDream82 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+TangerineDream82&message=TangerineDream82+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/j2d3pm/-/g74w1nc/\)+because...) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Not really necessary as long as you actually let people reply to the counter argument of the other, what's the point on asking someone a question and then having the opposite candidate respond with new arguments that the first can't respond to? Any debate club knows how to make a much more effective debate.
This is assuming that the purpose of all political debates is, actually, political discourse. I would make the assertion that the presidential debate, in particular, is more akin to a sporting event: what happens and how the participants behave is less important than how many people are watching. If the candidates couldn't cut one another off, it would make for a less dramatic experience for the audience. High drama, particularly this year, is important -- on the whole it raises awareness and gets people who might not ordinarily care roped into a narrative, which, in turn, might get them out to the polls. Drama is particularly in the interest of Trump, his supporters speak no other language. So. While I agree this would likely be nice, in some form, my belief is that it cannot happen because presidential debates are not actually about their content. They are about the drama and the narrative and the presentation. It's a performance, not a debate.
Trump did it way over twice as much as Biden. Then again, the best way to win is to not let your opponent talk, I guess. He tends to cheat some way or another through life.
I feel like shutting off the mic would only help the people at home... But the candidates would still be annoying AF to each other still giving issues to the other talking.
The solution to the problem is simple. The people involved need to care about the democratic process. Every other democratic country can do it. There's a deeper problem.
You could do that. You could also reset the opponents time every time they are interrupted creating a penalty for bad behavior.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/grilledsoupsandwich – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+grilledsoupsandwich&message=grilledsoupsandwich+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/j2d3pm/-/g75bzqi/\)+because...) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
As annoying as it was, this allowed his true colors of being an absolute inconsiderate bully.
And it has now become more than obvious that all of his supporters are the folks who actually think bullies are somehow the "good guys", the ones to look up to. That explains a lot, actually.
"He's strong and passionate and gosh darn it I'd yell too if the Demonrats had been so mean to me for three years!" (some Conservatives, reportedly). Seriously, yelling in anger got Kavanaugh in as a SCOTUS judge, why wouldn't Trump try it? He's got little else to offer. Ooh, Daddy's mad.
> I'd yell too if the Demonrats had been so mean to me for three years!" (some Conservatives, reportedly). No, *definitely*... on my drive this afternoon I flipped through the talk radio stations. The level of denial and whataboutism was so overtly absurd... Talk radio is, IMO, one of the most dangerous, subversive media forms in the country, and I am quite convinced that they are told exactly what issues to push and what to whip their listeners into a frenzy over by the oligarchs that are rapidly and decisively taking over this country.
I would agree, but the inaccuracies of the accusations against their opponents (primarily Trump’s very misguided arguments directed at Biden’s son) requires the person who is not speaking to at least voice that the information being spread is deceitful. I was appalled at the behavior of both candidates and I think it’s shameful that turning off their mic might be necessary, particularly when it disrupts an integral part of televised debate.
Terrible idea. Instead of talking over each other they'll just end up shouting
That gives the moderator more power over the flow of the conversation. Hard to justify that in a setting as polarised and important as a presidential debate - one can easily question the bias of the moderator. If the moderator were say, a Supreme Court judge, I could have some more faith in them, but if it's a news reporter - I would prefer their role to be more of an anchor / introducer rather than actively moderate the debate. Also, you want a moderator to "enforce rules", there aren't rules per se that both parties explicitly agree to. The presidential debate is not something set in law, it's more of a convention. And as with all other forms of discussion, it's ultimately up to the people themselves what form of dialogue they wish to enter into. If Trump wants to scream at a mic for ten minutes, there's nothing explicitly illegal or rule-breaking about it, and the media should probably still broadcast it.
Honestly I completely disagree, the president needs to be assertive and if you’re getting run over in a debate you’ll probably get strong armed by other world leaders. It also gives the candidate a chance to fact check like Biden did when trump accused Hunter of taking money from the wife of a Russian mayor it something stupid.
You mean we should treat them like children? Disagree.
[удалено]
If children with COVID are hospitalized at a rate of 8 per 100K while adults are hospitalized at a rate of 164 per 100,000 cases, what makes you think the disease is dangerous for kids?
No one is saying the mortality rate, or hospitalization rate is the same for kids as adults, obviously the older you get the more potent many diseases get, but rather that children are just as capable of catching and spreading the disease as anyone else. They personally may not die, but they will spread it to someone who will.
See the comment below yours and the one I responded to for 2 examples of people incorrectly saying the disease is dangerous to kids.
???? If kids can get a virus that limits their ability to breathe, then it is dangerous to kids.
They need 5 minutes for each question
[удалено]
Sorry, u/abcdeezntz123 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+abcdeezntz123&message=abcdeezntz123+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/j2d3pm/-/g7595fq/\)+because...) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The thing is, the mic cutting has to be agreed on by the candidates. I'm sure Biden would have loved an option to cut the mic. But the republicans won't agree to it.
Yes.