Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar
This past year, three presidential debates have been broadcast to the public, with animosity only growing between each one. Given this, it is paramount that debates follow a standardized ruleset to avoid confusion and hostility. The way they’ve been formatted is flimsy and harmful and in dire need of revision.
Trump/Biden debate
On June 27, the first debate of the year between Donald Trump and Joe Biden was hosted by CNN.
The rules allocated candidates two-minute responses to questions, one-minute rebuttals and one-minute responses.
Muting of candidates’ microphones was also a key rule, decided upon after Biden’s notorious “Will you shut up, man?” retort during the 2020 presidential cycle.
Now, whether or not these guidelines were upheld is an issue of its own.
Within the first 20 minutes of the broadcast, Trump’s microphone was not cut while Biden spoke. This was followed by constant interruptions, with the same attacks on each other’s character present during the previous election cycle.
Moderators frequently struggled to steer the debate in the right direction when the candidates elected to go off on unrelated tangents.
There was also the issue of live fact-checking during this particular debate, of which there was none.
After the debate ended, The Washington Post summarized 35 faulty statements.
This absence of fact-checking once again only serves to confuse viewers, resulting in an inaccurate idea of candidates’ policies and stances.
Trump/Harris debate
Once Kamala Harris was nominated to take Biden’s place, a second debate took place on Sept. 10.
This one was hosted by ABC with slightly tweaked rules. Though mostly the same, there was live fact-checking and the allotted rebuttal period was two minutes, rather than one.
While these changes were theoretically beneficial, once again the issue arose of whether or not they were followed. Despite the microphone rule being enforced at times, there were occasions of mics being unmuted to allow candidates to speak when they should not have been allowed to.
Moderators also continued to be spoken over. In addition to this, fact-checking was ignored at times due to the fact that it is not a standard candidates are expected to be held to.
Vance/Walz debate
After the presidential dialogues came the debate between J.D. Vance and Tim Walz on Oct.1. Hosted by CBS, the ruleset was a bit different.
Mics remained on for both speakers throughout the broadcast, though moderators could turn them off at any time. There was also no live fact-checking and rebuttal time was similar to that of the previous debate.
All of these rules met trouble, namely the one regarding microphones. Leaving them on at all times led to disorder, making it necessary to completely cut them at one point due to an argument that arose.
Fact-checking was also a large issue, as CBS News found a plethora of misleading or blatantly false claims following the debate.
So, what should the rules be?
Despite opposition, live fact-checking and mic-muting would aid in maintaining the integrity of conversations and preventing false claims from being made, diminishing confusion and allowing more genuine arguments that cannot mislead voters.
Parker Hodges-Beggs is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at [email protected]
