+ about blog explore contest write login register
Three ways to fix the debates - NewViewNews






view responses


Do you...

agree disagree other

View Argument

Would you like to view the article in the split view?

Three ways to fix the debates

Prometheus agrees with this · politics · opinion · 10/12/2020 · edited

article image
Now that that's out of the way, let's see how we could have cleansed this mudsling sans nuclear bomb.

Muting: Keeping The Roll of a Di- Out of The Monologue

The selective mic cut could have worked wonders in allowing the two minute """""uninterrupted"""" section to live up to its name. While, as navid mentioned, interruptions were also a problem during the open debate sections, giving the moderator power to cut a mic during them introduces a level of subjectivity that might be too much in what is supposed to be free-flowing discussion. But if the intention of those two minutes was to give each candidate an uninterrupted monologue, the mic of the other candidate has no reason to be on at all; it shouldn't even be up to Wallace when the mic is cut: just automatically mute the mic of the candidate without the allotted soapbox. 

Pluralism: Let them speak

By selecting candidates based on polling numbers, only candidates that already get media attention would be given a spot at the debate, giving them more media attention. It’s this “the rich get richer” policy that has bolstered the two-party system -- the reason we had that “debate” a few nights ago. By allowing intellectually diverse candidates, like Jo Jorgensen and Howie Hawkins of the Libertarian and Green parties, the conversation can either be entirely less focused on personal mudslinging between Joe and Don, or the american people can see a clear contrast between people who want to talk about issues and those who solely want to take part in the aforementioned mudslinging. Let cooler heads prevail. 

This year, the polls that dictate which candidate gets on the stage didn’t even include anyone except for Trump and Biden. 


It’s a great idea; let the people who may be president hash it out over important issues. But it’s not about that anymore. Debates in their current state shouldn’t go on as they are only doing more to polarize and divide by placing significance on issues of little importance for the hope of soundbites and news. These news agencies have a clear agenda with the way they do debates; they are seeking to create news where it isn’t by probing controversial answers and often misrepresenting them. Until there is more independent moderation of these debates, we should put much less emphasis on them than we do now.

Other Articles


commenter profile picture

It's such an absolute sham. You have two people who don't actually give a damn about anyone who barely disagree on anything important arguing about each other to distract from that. Both are capitalists with a racist past. Neither care about the working or lower class. It's a sham.


commenter profile picture

I didn't for him in 2016, but it's pretty clear that DJT is killing it. He absolutely dominated Sleepy Biden in that debate