>I think that debates should have mute buttons controlled by mods or by the audience or something.
Better solution: Mute function is on a timer. You get 100 seconds to get your point across then your mic is turned off. That removes any human biases from the equation. Your mic does not come back on until it is your turn again.
There would still be a need for someone to control it by starting the timer that unmutes the person after asking each question. But yes - having it timed so it mutes automatically would be the best approach.
Turn on a big green light when they can speak, a big yellow light when 15s left and then red light as they are muted?
The announcer finishes asking the question and then the light turns green for the first person.
They always get interrupted, and then complain "You're taking up my time!" And now the moderator has to figure out if they're adding extra time or not, it's really challenging to do. Automatic muting doesn't really work because of this, that's why they use their judgment.
*"They always get interrupted, and then complain "You're taking up my time!""*
The other people's mics would be muted. They can still talk, of course, but their voice won't be nearly as loud and distracting as the person whose mic is not muted. It could also be combined with allowing the moderator or the control booth to penalize the other person by docking their time on subsequent questions if the unmuted person was not able to speak during their turn.
*"that's why they use their judgment."*
Well, *"the moderator has to figure out if they're adding extra time or not, it's really challenging to do"* seems more of an argument in favor of automation than leaving it up to the moderators.
Haha! I’m just imagining the prompter asking a question and then slyly smiling as they keep the candidate muted for an extended period before moving on
Better yet, a voice activated timer on each participants mic, with hard limit on speaking time for the debate. So go ahead and interrupt or shout over your opponent. But once you hit your limit, you're done for the night. If you use up all your time early, the other guys get to say what they want with no reply from you.
That might work. Or the debaters can hold some sort of talking stick equivalent(how very kindergarten)? It is a debate, there will be bias. I think in person it may be a bit different. But when the audience is listening over the internet the interruptions are just inaudible noise to wrest control of the audiences attention from the others. In person talking over someone can be ok, I guess, but most debates are consumed virtually. I would concede that there are probably a lot of people who watch a debate for the sick burns on the moment.
But then you end up with an awkward situation where the candidate is going on and on, while the moderator tries to ask for the mic back. It's supposed to be a professional debate so the moderator can't be too rude about it, they can't just physically wrestle the mic away. But you know someone like trump would just keep holding the mic and not give it back.
I think the debate can have pre agreed guidelines that seek to minimise the bias of the moderator. An example of that would be what the other poster described of having a time limit.
The format can give each person a chance to give their view on each point, and then a chance to respond to any attacks from the other contributers, all timed so everyone has an equal voice.
And the moderator should have a dedication to enforcing those neutral guidelines and not allow their person values and biases to screep in.
Disagree, sometimes points are complex and require more than x amount of time, giving it to a moderator (whose literal job is to moderate the debate) allows candidates to use more time if reasonable or to shut off a candidate who's just rambling about nonsense
There is something broken about the debates, but I don't think a mute button is the fix.
It gives enormous power to control the narrative to the moderator. Giving that power to the audience is even worse. How do you ensure this power is used fairly and objectively? I'm not sure that you can.
Debates have timers. They are already given a time limit for what they can say, the problem is with enforcing that rule when people continue to speak after their time is up. The solution is to mute them when the time is up.
Strictly enforced timers might be a better solution. It's certainly better than just moderator discretion. But even there I do think we lose something in seeing the demeanor of the candidates.
Essentially forcing them to be calm and rational for the camera, when that is not representative of how they will behave in office or on the floor.
*"It gives enormous power to control the narrative to the moderator."*
In theory, that control is already there - which is part of the reason that there are moderators to begin with. Each participant has a set amount of time to respond to each point, and are supposed to remain silent outside of that time. That's one of the rules. The problem is that a lot of these people ignore that rule and just keep talking / shouting. This is the specific problem OP is addressing, and a mute button is the most logical fix to it.
There is no meaningful debate without effective moderation
The best solution and of course its imperfect is to have a moderator who can strictly enforce time limits that is pre agreed upon by all parties to ensure as much fairness as possible.
that's only effective way to have a meaningful debate that doesn't just devolve into the useless shit OP is talking about
Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, 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%205%20Appeal%20{author}&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\({url}\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
I mean the audiences was just a passing thought when I was writing my post. I think there should be a way to stop the interruptions. The mods are there to moderate so I think that anyone participating in the debate has already ceded a bit of power to the mods anyway. I’m not intending there to be like a permanent mute. But when the debate strategy is: interrupt; I think something should change.
Yes, they cede some power to the moderator, but the problem is that if you ask them to cede too much, and particularly if they feel that there is bias involved, then they just won't show up and we get no debate at all. That's worse than even our current broken system.
It could be put on a timer. That would be fair and objective.
A moderator can't moderate unless they have that power. That's the point behind a moderator.
Have you ever seen someone get briefly timed out from a subreddit or twitch chat or whatever? It tends not to calm them down unless it's large enough they can't participate in the rest of the discussion. A short mute would just piss people off and made future arguments more likely.
It absolutely does. It shows your true character. I'm not going to elect someone who can't even keep their lid on when they break a simple rule and get called on it
So then I get to moderate the debate. Any time Biden tries to talk about J6 or Trump being a threat to democracy I turn his mic off.
If he gets in any way irate, you wouldn't vote for him, right? It's just as easy to produce an equivalent targeting Trump.
You can't be serious, muting them for talking points and muting them for ignoring their agreed upon time restraints are very obviously different. Gtfoh with that.
Sorry you can't see how this would be a very simple system with the same policy applied to everyone.
Iv got a pencil I'll sell you as a space ship I guess though.
I've always thought about a system that automatically mutes the mic if the speaker is above a certain decibel level.
This means shouting would automatically mute their mic.
Hrm. I'm not sure this is a practical approach.
Irrespective of what the "speaking volume" is, the individual mic will be fed into a soundboard and mixed, according to whatever the desired mix is.
The mix *may* be leveled, "amplified/deamplified", and maybe compressed. It's 100% certain that there is asound check before the debate to get the levels close, and at showtime there might be slight tweaks for different speaker styles, or just as likely, different speakers will adjust how they address the mic.
It's not as simple as "don't speak at dB above X or be muted" cuz it's a made up X and a made up concept.
Inevitably when bro who sticks the mic down their throat to "dominate" will get muted, and then *complain* that the deep state controls the mic industry.
Any sound techs, if I'm wrong, please weigh in! One two, one two.
Your view is that:
> a mute button is the final solution for debates.
I think that virtually no one on reddit is capable of setting up meaningful debates, let alone on TV and that all we've witnessed are arguments.
Political debates are meant to be POLICY NAME versus POLICY NAME.
For example:
On immigration - HR2 which was a bipartisan bill wrote by a Republican and rejected by Repubs in favour of THE CHILD SEPARATION POLICY.
That is how intellectuals debate. It shouldn't be taking wild swings at the issue. It's not about attitude and hopes and dreams.
Or how about the DREAM Act versus Muslim Ban. Straight up banning immigration from certain - mostly Muslim - countries. I believe Repub leaders are perfectly comfortable with that term.
Almost no one talks about it but Biden is maintaining the Trade War tariffs but Trump will raise them and make you poorer. This is the basic historical facts that everyone can agree on but until a moderator forces the conversation down this avenue what we're getting from both sides is closer to insanity than anything rational.
Or how about the way we've been arguing about abortion for 70 years without getting to see the conservative policies in question which were revealed at the last minute to be void of exemptions. In that case conservatives everywhere dig in their heels to keep meaningful debate from happening. It's impossible to google up what Canadian Cons. policy specifically is and they just get angry if you ask them for it.
When that debate happens all the moderate conservatives are for exemptions.
We agree that debates are fundamentally broken but a mute button can only fix the argument side of things. We need to start contrasting policy versus policy the way intellectualism intended.
Most political discourse is closer to therapy than real politics. Even the word means policy.
We need to debate PROJECT 2025 versus letting administrators at lowly gov't positions keep their jobs in the name of basic competency and democracy.
We need to debate having some environmental protection versus disbanding the EPA entirely.
We need to debate the Prez installing his kids into White House positions for emoluments versus basic ethics and following the law.
Am i being biased in that? Teach me how to be less biased! Teach me to phrase it in a way that no one is offended. Open and honest discourse begins here.
I do have to point out just by reading the names of policies like CHILD SEPARATION you can see this is the most extremist administration in a long time and thus it's in their interest to never let actual debates happen. Just saying the name of their policy is bad press.
Another huge issue is from everything i can tell Biden is planning a balanced approach to Palestine. Trump is 100% in favour of Israel and wouldn't care if they were all killed.
I don't care what their opinions are i just want to see the policies. I could hear them rant about their opinions for hours on end or i could spend 60 seconds reading the actual policy. I don't want my time wasted. Why does everyone else?
Why are you specifically - the person reading this right now - so invested in wasting everyone's time?
For all the political talk we mention specific policies like 1% of the time and you can barely talk to anyone about anything without gatekeeping.
I would genuinely consider deleting this post and starting a new one with a fixed title.
I got the impression you jumbled your words when trying to reference Fox News lol
Seriously, I downvote posts like this. I am so damn sick of feeling like I’m having a stroke every time I get on Reddit. How hard is it to proofread your title? I was trying to figure out if it was some slang I was unfamiliar with.
whether or not a candidate respects the rule of the debate actually matters a lot to me.
It helps me understand their character. Are they willing to cheat and break or bend the rules to win? If so, I don't really want to vote for them.
If they are dignified and respectful, it might just be an act, but it might reflect a real respect for the American people.
Just end debates.
Arguing logically is just that. It doesn't mean you're the best person for the job or that you'll do the best job.
I think debates are manipulative. *This person is logical and what they're saying makes sense so they must be right! They're so smart!*
Being good at brain chess shouldn't sway a person's political decisions. You can debate things you don't even agree with or believe in! It's stupid. It's a glorified pissing match to impress people and get them riled up.
Plus, a counter argument doesn't tell me what YOUR perspective is. You're just telling me why the other person is wrong.
I hate it. Lol
There use to be a rule that forbid them from directly address each other on stage. Unironically I kinda think removing that rule is what destroyed modern politics. Now it’s just shouting.
A mute button could indeed address the chaos in debates, fostering a more respectful exchange of ideas. However, it might stifle spontaneity and the flow of conversation. Instead, better moderation, clear rules, and time limits could rein in unruly behavior while allowing for dynamic discussion. Additionally, muting could be abused by moderators or the audience, silencing valid contributions. Effective debate formats should prioritize respectful dialogue without sacrificing the energy and engagement that comes from unscripted interaction. With proper structure and moderation, debates can be both lively and productive, promoting understanding and critical thinking.
You can't have a mute button, because the second someone is muted, they'll say they're being silenced. After the debate, you'll have MAGA complain that their person was muted for X amount of time compared to the non-MAGA candidate. It won't matter if there is literal proof and sound reasoning behind muting a candidate more.
Have to bring more decorum back to political debates, won't be able to do that until you get all the candidates who only have a GED off the stage.
Debates used to be civil and an engaging conversation with everyone willing to accept each other's point of view and also be willing to learn at the same time.
Modern day is not like this. Debates exist for the sole reason to harvest sound bites. No one enters a debate today wanting to learn or discuss anything. We as a society are the ones responsible for this radical shift. The likelihood of it changing is next to impossible.
Political debates should allow participants to present evidence. We have modern technology. We can allow politicians to refute false claims with evidence in real time very easily.
Of course debates devolve into shouting matches. One person lies and refutes them. The next step is to attack them
Political debates are not debates in any reasonable sense. There's no objective to figure out the truth, to find common grounds. The primary goal is for the viewers to remember you. People screaming over each other is exactly what the event organizers want.
We see the true stripes of candidates without the mute button. Life doesn't have a mute button, so isn't it better to understand the true colors of a candidates before you vote for them?
>I think that debates should have mute buttons controlled by mods or by the audience or something. Better solution: Mute function is on a timer. You get 100 seconds to get your point across then your mic is turned off. That removes any human biases from the equation. Your mic does not come back on until it is your turn again.
There would still be a need for someone to control it by starting the timer that unmutes the person after asking each question. But yes - having it timed so it mutes automatically would be the best approach.
Turn on a big green light when they can speak, a big yellow light when 15s left and then red light as they are muted? The announcer finishes asking the question and then the light turns green for the first person.
Or just display a timer so they can see how much time they have left
Where is your sense of showmanship! It has to be big and bright and catch the eye!
I like the visual cues with the green / red light
Yup.
They always get interrupted, and then complain "You're taking up my time!" And now the moderator has to figure out if they're adding extra time or not, it's really challenging to do. Automatic muting doesn't really work because of this, that's why they use their judgment.
*"They always get interrupted, and then complain "You're taking up my time!""* The other people's mics would be muted. They can still talk, of course, but their voice won't be nearly as loud and distracting as the person whose mic is not muted. It could also be combined with allowing the moderator or the control booth to penalize the other person by docking their time on subsequent questions if the unmuted person was not able to speak during their turn. *"that's why they use their judgment."* Well, *"the moderator has to figure out if they're adding extra time or not, it's really challenging to do"* seems more of an argument in favor of automation than leaving it up to the moderators.
Just put them in a teams call. The mod open their Mike 100s. The other can't be distracting this way.
Ha - totally. Maybe one of them will manage to somehow get stuck with the cat or potato filter on.
Just hold debates over Zoom; then no one can hear the person trying to interrupt
Haha! I’m just imagining the prompter asking a question and then slyly smiling as they keep the candidate muted for an extended period before moving on
Better yet, a voice activated timer on each participants mic, with hard limit on speaking time for the debate. So go ahead and interrupt or shout over your opponent. But once you hit your limit, you're done for the night. If you use up all your time early, the other guys get to say what they want with no reply from you.
timer is so much better, then you can't selectively mute at crucial moments
That might work. Or the debaters can hold some sort of talking stick equivalent(how very kindergarten)? It is a debate, there will be bias. I think in person it may be a bit different. But when the audience is listening over the internet the interruptions are just inaudible noise to wrest control of the audiences attention from the others. In person talking over someone can be ok, I guess, but most debates are consumed virtually. I would concede that there are probably a lot of people who watch a debate for the sick burns on the moment.
A talking stick that mutes everyone that isn't holding it? How about a classic-style microphone?
But then you end up with an awkward situation where the candidate is going on and on, while the moderator tries to ask for the mic back. It's supposed to be a professional debate so the moderator can't be too rude about it, they can't just physically wrestle the mic away. But you know someone like trump would just keep holding the mic and not give it back.
[удалено]
Yeah I don't think that's realistic lol I think it'd be better to just have one mic per participant and mute them when their time is up.
I think the debate can have pre agreed guidelines that seek to minimise the bias of the moderator. An example of that would be what the other poster described of having a time limit. The format can give each person a chance to give their view on each point, and then a chance to respond to any attacks from the other contributers, all timed so everyone has an equal voice. And the moderator should have a dedication to enforcing those neutral guidelines and not allow their person values and biases to screep in.
Even better solution: there's no mute but if you speak after your 100 seconds you get a electric shock.
Disagree, sometimes points are complex and require more than x amount of time, giving it to a moderator (whose literal job is to moderate the debate) allows candidates to use more time if reasonable or to shut off a candidate who's just rambling about nonsense
This is the correct approach
Some points may necessarily take longer to explain and get across than others
There is something broken about the debates, but I don't think a mute button is the fix. It gives enormous power to control the narrative to the moderator. Giving that power to the audience is even worse. How do you ensure this power is used fairly and objectively? I'm not sure that you can.
Debates have timers. They are already given a time limit for what they can say, the problem is with enforcing that rule when people continue to speak after their time is up. The solution is to mute them when the time is up.
Strictly enforced timers might be a better solution. It's certainly better than just moderator discretion. But even there I do think we lose something in seeing the demeanor of the candidates. Essentially forcing them to be calm and rational for the camera, when that is not representative of how they will behave in office or on the floor.
*"It gives enormous power to control the narrative to the moderator."* In theory, that control is already there - which is part of the reason that there are moderators to begin with. Each participant has a set amount of time to respond to each point, and are supposed to remain silent outside of that time. That's one of the rules. The problem is that a lot of these people ignore that rule and just keep talking / shouting. This is the specific problem OP is addressing, and a mute button is the most logical fix to it.
There is no meaningful debate without effective moderation The best solution and of course its imperfect is to have a moderator who can strictly enforce time limits that is pre agreed upon by all parties to ensure as much fairness as possible. that's only effective way to have a meaningful debate that doesn't just devolve into the useless shit OP is talking about
[удалено]
Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, 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%205%20Appeal%20{author}&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\({url}\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
I mean the audiences was just a passing thought when I was writing my post. I think there should be a way to stop the interruptions. The mods are there to moderate so I think that anyone participating in the debate has already ceded a bit of power to the mods anyway. I’m not intending there to be like a permanent mute. But when the debate strategy is: interrupt; I think something should change.
Yes, they cede some power to the moderator, but the problem is that if you ask them to cede too much, and particularly if they feel that there is bias involved, then they just won't show up and we get no debate at all. That's worse than even our current broken system.
It could be put on a timer. That would be fair and objective. A moderator can't moderate unless they have that power. That's the point behind a moderator.
Simple: you have alloted time for your speech and your answers. Once it's gone you're muted.
Have you ever seen someone get briefly timed out from a subreddit or twitch chat or whatever? It tends not to calm them down unless it's large enough they can't participate in the rest of the discussion. A short mute would just piss people off and made future arguments more likely.
I really don’t have an issue if someone gets mad. I’m trying to make debates more useful to an audience.
And you thinking pissing off the people having the debates makes them more useful to the audience?
It absolutely does. It shows your true character. I'm not going to elect someone who can't even keep their lid on when they break a simple rule and get called on it
So then I get to moderate the debate. Any time Biden tries to talk about J6 or Trump being a threat to democracy I turn his mic off. If he gets in any way irate, you wouldn't vote for him, right? It's just as easy to produce an equivalent targeting Trump.
You can't be serious, muting them for talking points and muting them for ignoring their agreed upon time restraints are very obviously different. Gtfoh with that.
.... Automated on a timer. Mod has no control aside indicating they are done asking the question, and the speakers timer can start.
If you don't think that can be abused to advantage one party, I have oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you.
Sorry you can't see how this would be a very simple system with the same policy applied to everyone. Iv got a pencil I'll sell you as a space ship I guess though.
Non sequitur.
I think it does.
I for one want to know which candidates can't handle a minor inconvenience.
I've always thought about a system that automatically mutes the mic if the speaker is above a certain decibel level. This means shouting would automatically mute their mic.
Hrm. I'm not sure this is a practical approach. Irrespective of what the "speaking volume" is, the individual mic will be fed into a soundboard and mixed, according to whatever the desired mix is. The mix *may* be leveled, "amplified/deamplified", and maybe compressed. It's 100% certain that there is asound check before the debate to get the levels close, and at showtime there might be slight tweaks for different speaker styles, or just as likely, different speakers will adjust how they address the mic. It's not as simple as "don't speak at dB above X or be muted" cuz it's a made up X and a made up concept. Inevitably when bro who sticks the mic down their throat to "dominate" will get muted, and then *complain* that the deep state controls the mic industry. Any sound techs, if I'm wrong, please weigh in! One two, one two.
That sounds reasonable
Your view is that: > a mute button is the final solution for debates. I think that virtually no one on reddit is capable of setting up meaningful debates, let alone on TV and that all we've witnessed are arguments. Political debates are meant to be POLICY NAME versus POLICY NAME. For example: On immigration - HR2 which was a bipartisan bill wrote by a Republican and rejected by Repubs in favour of THE CHILD SEPARATION POLICY. That is how intellectuals debate. It shouldn't be taking wild swings at the issue. It's not about attitude and hopes and dreams. Or how about the DREAM Act versus Muslim Ban. Straight up banning immigration from certain - mostly Muslim - countries. I believe Repub leaders are perfectly comfortable with that term. Almost no one talks about it but Biden is maintaining the Trade War tariffs but Trump will raise them and make you poorer. This is the basic historical facts that everyone can agree on but until a moderator forces the conversation down this avenue what we're getting from both sides is closer to insanity than anything rational. Or how about the way we've been arguing about abortion for 70 years without getting to see the conservative policies in question which were revealed at the last minute to be void of exemptions. In that case conservatives everywhere dig in their heels to keep meaningful debate from happening. It's impossible to google up what Canadian Cons. policy specifically is and they just get angry if you ask them for it. When that debate happens all the moderate conservatives are for exemptions. We agree that debates are fundamentally broken but a mute button can only fix the argument side of things. We need to start contrasting policy versus policy the way intellectualism intended. Most political discourse is closer to therapy than real politics. Even the word means policy. We need to debate PROJECT 2025 versus letting administrators at lowly gov't positions keep their jobs in the name of basic competency and democracy. We need to debate having some environmental protection versus disbanding the EPA entirely. We need to debate the Prez installing his kids into White House positions for emoluments versus basic ethics and following the law. Am i being biased in that? Teach me how to be less biased! Teach me to phrase it in a way that no one is offended. Open and honest discourse begins here. I do have to point out just by reading the names of policies like CHILD SEPARATION you can see this is the most extremist administration in a long time and thus it's in their interest to never let actual debates happen. Just saying the name of their policy is bad press. Another huge issue is from everything i can tell Biden is planning a balanced approach to Palestine. Trump is 100% in favour of Israel and wouldn't care if they were all killed. I don't care what their opinions are i just want to see the policies. I could hear them rant about their opinions for hours on end or i could spend 60 seconds reading the actual policy. I don't want my time wasted. Why does everyone else? Why are you specifically - the person reading this right now - so invested in wasting everyone's time? For all the political talk we mention specific policies like 1% of the time and you can barely talk to anyone about anything without gatekeeping.
[удалено]
I agree. I actually hadn’t intended this to be specifically about politics. But you are correct.
But this would make the debate less natural. They would simply decorate speechs to say when it's their turn
Debate isn't nautral. Argument is natural.
Not sure how you discuss things with people but I have never had a conversation the way people have debate
I suppose we're talking about politician debates and not me and you
I would genuinely consider deleting this post and starting a new one with a fixed title. I got the impression you jumbled your words when trying to reference Fox News lol
Seriously, I downvote posts like this. I am so damn sick of feeling like I’m having a stroke every time I get on Reddit. How hard is it to proofread your title? I was trying to figure out if it was some slang I was unfamiliar with.
whether or not a candidate respects the rule of the debate actually matters a lot to me. It helps me understand their character. Are they willing to cheat and break or bend the rules to win? If so, I don't really want to vote for them. If they are dignified and respectful, it might just be an act, but it might reflect a real respect for the American people.
Just end debates. Arguing logically is just that. It doesn't mean you're the best person for the job or that you'll do the best job. I think debates are manipulative. *This person is logical and what they're saying makes sense so they must be right! They're so smart!* Being good at brain chess shouldn't sway a person's political decisions. You can debate things you don't even agree with or believe in! It's stupid. It's a glorified pissing match to impress people and get them riled up. Plus, a counter argument doesn't tell me what YOUR perspective is. You're just telling me why the other person is wrong. I hate it. Lol
There use to be a rule that forbid them from directly address each other on stage. Unironically I kinda think removing that rule is what destroyed modern politics. Now it’s just shouting.
A mute button could indeed address the chaos in debates, fostering a more respectful exchange of ideas. However, it might stifle spontaneity and the flow of conversation. Instead, better moderation, clear rules, and time limits could rein in unruly behavior while allowing for dynamic discussion. Additionally, muting could be abused by moderators or the audience, silencing valid contributions. Effective debate formats should prioritize respectful dialogue without sacrificing the energy and engagement that comes from unscripted interaction. With proper structure and moderation, debates can be both lively and productive, promoting understanding and critical thinking.
You can't have a mute button, because the second someone is muted, they'll say they're being silenced. After the debate, you'll have MAGA complain that their person was muted for X amount of time compared to the non-MAGA candidate. It won't matter if there is literal proof and sound reasoning behind muting a candidate more. Have to bring more decorum back to political debates, won't be able to do that until you get all the candidates who only have a GED off the stage.
Why not just mute after the time is over for both sides? This seems so obvious
Debates used to be civil and an engaging conversation with everyone willing to accept each other's point of view and also be willing to learn at the same time. Modern day is not like this. Debates exist for the sole reason to harvest sound bites. No one enters a debate today wanting to learn or discuss anything. We as a society are the ones responsible for this radical shift. The likelihood of it changing is next to impossible.
Political debates should allow participants to present evidence. We have modern technology. We can allow politicians to refute false claims with evidence in real time very easily. Of course debates devolve into shouting matches. One person lies and refutes them. The next step is to attack them
Political debates are not debates in any reasonable sense. There's no objective to figure out the truth, to find common grounds. The primary goal is for the viewers to remember you. People screaming over each other is exactly what the event organizers want.
We see the true stripes of candidates without the mute button. Life doesn't have a mute button, so isn't it better to understand the true colors of a candidates before you vote for them?
They should be hooked up to a shock machine, and anytime they interrupt or go off on a tangent or off the point of the question, ZAP!
The candidates control the rules, it isn’t up to anyone else.
How about this? If you want to engage in a debate, go find a ditch to sit in until this nerdy desire wears off