I think a seriously entertaining debate structure would be to eliminate the moderator and eliminate questions.
Instead, each candidate would get specific periods of time. The first candidate would get 1 minute. Then they would alternate 3-minute time periods, and could say whatever they want. And at the end, the 2nd person would get 1 minute, the first 30 seconds, and the second 30 seconds (to limit the damage of the last person getting to throw out a bunch of stuff that doesn’t get answered).
The microphones would only be on during their periods. That would control the time. 3 minutes up, your mike cuts off. If you stop early, the other person still doesn’t get to start until their time starts.
Each candidate would either answer something the opponent said, or introduce a new topic, or raise questions — and the opponent could ignore those questions. People would decide for themselves how “presidential” each candidate was, and whether they seemed serious about the issues that were important.
If structure is needed, there could be “subjects” for each half-hour period, and the subject would be put across the top of the screen, so people would see the subject while the candidates spoke. The candidates could ignore the subject, and the viewers could decide if that was a good or bad decision.
The WI senate debate tonight was like that I guess.
I didn’t watch but it there was a moderator there to ask the question. Each was given two minutes to answer personally and then a 6 minute “free for all” followed. Moderator only to speak when it was time to move to next question.
Will be curious to hear reviews of the style.
Good post, but it has one big problem. It’s too simple for the libs to figure it out. They could “feel” something like that for hours and still be in the dark.
Terrific recommendations. I especially like the muting of the mikes at the end of his time.