# Presidential Debate formats- your favorites and your own **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 8, 2008, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidential-debate-formats-your-favorites-and-your-own/467065 "2008-10-08T20:58:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![tds1273](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/df705f/32.png) [@tds1273](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tds1273)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidential-debate-formats-your-favorites-and-your-own/467065/1 "2008-10-08T20:58:05Z")
Having read the rules prior to the debate last night, I was not expecting to much from it, and for a while it was living up to those expectations. However, once Obama and McCain started insisting on followups, despite Brokaw’s best efforts, wouldn’t you know it, we started to have an actual debate on our hands. This got me to thinking about what sort of debate I would like to see. Here is what I came up with… > [@](#): > > Rules: > > Four topics will be debated for a total of 25 minutes each; 2½ minutes for each person to summarize their position and two 10 minute periods of Q&A, per topic. > > Determined by a coin flip for first pick, the candidates will each choose(draft?) two general but unrelated topics in alternating order. The topics would ideally be picked according to the candidate’s perceived strength. This would be done in advance of the debate to allow the campaigns time to prepare. > > At the start of each topic the two candidates would then take two and a half minutes to summarize their policy position directly to the audience. > > They would then sit down at a smaller table directly facing each other. The idea is to do what Jim Lehrer was attempting and get the candidates to actually talk _to_ each other. To that point, I would also try and be mindful of the camera placements so that the candidates are not tempted to look at those, rather than their opponent. > > For each topic there will then be two ten-minute periods of debating. > > The candidate who \*did not \*chose the topic would begin by getting to ask the other a question, of their own choosing, regarding that topic and/or their opponent’s position on that topic. These questions shall not be shared with anyone prior, however, at the moderator’s discretion they may be forced to come up with a new question if it is deemed too off topic. > > The topic-choosing candidate would then be allowed to answer the question and the questioner would be allowed off-the-cuff follow ups. There is to be no set time limits with in the period, however, due to the time constraints the moderator will be allowed to cut off any attempts at filibustering or going off topic. > > At the end of the first ten minutes, the other candidate(the chooser of the topic) would then be allowed their own ten minutes to question their opponent. > > With in these Q&A periods, questions should, for the most part, only go one way per each period. Though perhaps it could be opened up to just 15-20 minutes of open conversation; the first question would come from the person who did not pick the topic. My goal with such a format would be to put the candidates in a position where they are forced to engage the each other and have an actual conversation. The question’s would be, for the most part, off-the-cuff, which should hopefully force the answers off-the-stump. Given the semi-spontaneous nature of the debate, I’m aware that it would be tough, if not impossible, to get the candidates to agree to the format, but what the hell anyway; it’s just an idea, not a formal proposal. ## Alot would ride on the moderator as well. I would be looking for someone who could play it fairly down the line and who would also be able to control the candidates enough that it doesn’t devolve into an episode of Hannity & Colmes. ## As an even less realistic, though far more entertaining, and perhaps the most insightful format idea-\* Presidential Poker\*. This would be done towards the beginning of each primary season while there are still about 8 candidates per party. It would be Texas Hold’em rules just like any of the countless other poker games on TV now. I haven’t yet worked out how to mix in policy discussions, but even if it were just regular card playing banter, I think far more could be learned about the candidates that from most of the other debates we have had. As I have never been involved in any formal debates, I welcome any critique of my proposed format, as well as forum-placement of this OP, but I want to hear your ideas as well. What would be your ideal debate formats? What type of debates in the past have you found to be the most valuable? ---
**Author:** ![footballisplayedwithyourfeet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9f8e36/32.png) [@footballisplayedwithyourfeet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/footballisplayedwithyourfeet)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidential-debate-formats-your-favorites-and-your-own/467065/2 "2008-10-09T14:06:25Z")
Ever seen ‘The Debate’ in the last season of The West Wing? That would be awesome!!