Forum Thread

Presidential Debates Shouldn't Be Held Before a Live Audience

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 2 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    Sanctioned Presidential debates aren't like the primary debates and should not be held before a live audience. I've come to believe this after watching the first two debates between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton where the audience willfully ignored the numerous instructions to refrain from clapping or booing, which basically made a mockery of the debates themselves. This isn't a wrestling match, it's a conversation between two individuals who want to be the leader of the free world.

    Cheering, booing, and hollering serve no purpose in the discussion and only encourage both candidates to try to get in the best applause line instead of actually having a serious debate about the many issues our country faces. How can either candidate have a legitimate debate if they are more concerned about the reaction from the audience?

    That's why I think the Commission on Presidential Debates needs to seriously reconsider allowing debates to be in front of live audiences. That way the candidates can actually have a debate focused on the issues and not be focused on who their guests of honor are or whether they get the biggest applause line.

    Does anyone else feel the same way as me or do you think that a live audience is important to have in these debates?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    I am all for that idea, for 2 of the 3 debates at least. For the townhall format, I like having the members of the audience be in person to ask questions directly. Gives them a chance to inflect on words, and generally just ask the question in the tone and cadence that it was intended. Of course, that could be done via Skype or something.