The “debates” are awful because they are not debates

Pratt on Texas - copyright Pratt on Texas all rights reservedI’ve had much contempt for the so-called Presidential Debate process and formats for decades.

The events are neither debates or issue forums, instead they are setup with time formats that are insulting to the nation when one realizes the importance of what is at hand; the events are built around the media questioners and moderators as much as around letting the public hear the candidates in their own words, and; the media, not the candidates, are driving the subject matter with questions.

All of this is wrong.

The candidates should be given ten to fifteen minutes to layout their contentions which can range from their vision for  the country, policy positions to their accomplishments and the negatives of their opponents – whatever each candidate chooses to put forth.

Then real rebuttal should be allowed without insultingly short time limits and number of turns of speaking.

The two people on those stages, one of whom will be a president of these United States, should be bringing forward the topics of discussion and then should be allowed a fairly free-form format to discuss and argue over such.

The pseudo-debates are what they are because they are not debates in any classical sense; they don’t even approach the great debates of Abraham Lincoln and Democrat Stephen Douglas. But don’t expect a big change because the people running these shows are elitists who not only think the audience can’t handle real debate, they think the candidates, folks who serve or will serve as president(!) aren’t talented enough to engage in such.

Speak Your Mind


© Pratt on Texas / Perstruo Texas, Inc.