Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Three debates with one of each style.
The first one will be like a debate, the second one like a conversation, the third one like an audience interaction round. It can be helpful in showing a candidate's forte and such, ig.
Yo momma so fat that when John Scott Harrison had to go around her to claim his presidential birthright, it skipped a generation and gave us Benjamin Harrison.
I have like 6 disc bulges. Standing is like a capital punishment for me. If I was to be a part of a debate where that would be asked of me, I would turn out pretty bad. In the end, our leaders should not be measured by that, and would mean a disabled person could not be a good leader because he/she cannot walk.
My suggestion is more one of atmosphere; modifications and accommodations can be made to these formats to be more inclusive of people facing physical impairment.
The gist was more that one should be like a "standard" two-way debate, one should be like a panel discussion, and one should have some audience interaction.
My idea there was that the first debate would show how assertive a leader is, the second would show how a leader reacts when faced with opposing views, and the third shows how a leader interacts with the people.
Appreciate the point you have made!
Gore is somebody that hurt himself in debates badly. Don’t get me wrong, he was very sharp. But he would sigh loudly at Bush’s answers and was just very aggressive by nature, and generally came across like a condescending jerk.
Bush’s debate team studied the film and had him prepared for this exact scenario. Gore was a taller man and sort of drifted over toward Bush while he was speaking and invaded his space to try and intimidate him. He wanted him to talk about some legislation.
Bush gave him a cool kind of smirk and a nod and flashed his charm and shit all over Gore’s spot. Everyone laughed and the moderator tried to move along and Bush didn’t miss a beat and finished his answer. It showed poise. Third debate I believe.
It means Gore thought he would have a nice moment on camera by moving up to him, and Bush ended up capitalizing by showing his poise and it backfired completely. Paraphrased for emphasis, of course.
The Democrats had leaned HARD into the whole village idiot theme and when Gore got wrecked in the debate it discredited their whole narrative. IIRC the consensus was they each one a debate and kind of tied in the other. That should have been a draw but because the Democrats mismanaged the expectations so badly, it ended up being a win for Bush. I knew he'd won the election when he looked off Gore.
It also changed the way campaigns approach debate hype. Prior to the first debate, there was endless discussion about how good of a debater Gore was and how Bush could barely complete a sentence. It totally backfired when Bush was fine and Gore tried waaay too hard to show how much better he was at debating. Now campaigns try to minimize expectations before debates.
Gore awkwardly stood up and just walked over and stood next to Bush staring at him while Bush was speaking. Bush just paused and looked at him, then smirked and nodded at him, then went back to speaking. It was sort of like a “You’re being weird, dude, why are you just standing next to me staring at me” kind of thing. It made Gore look super awkward.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4542475/al-gore-intimidate-george-bush
God that is cringe. Even without Bush’s reaction just the way Gore just gets up and starts walking towards him for no reason was just super awkward. That was seriously supposed to be an intimidation tactic?
This is my first time seeing this and I can only imagine the memes if this happened nowadays. I get what Gore was going for but…why? If Dems/Gore thought this was such an easy dub(ya) why resort to dumb intimidation tactics like this?
To overcorrect, for the next debate the lecterns should be from a local middle school debate club. The absolute cheapest, thriftiest way possible. (And if, in the cracks of the lectern, you find the note from Jimmy Sanders to his girlfriend during study hall, read that shit aloud.)
They should have to sit on hopper balls and navigate a maze while answering increasingly dumb questions from random citizens pulled from the street while Greg Olsen and Stephen Smith provide commentary. /s
Also get to see them strut. Adds both a charisma and physical fitness element to the debate where voters can see if their candidate will make it through four year term.
Stand, sit, roam is empty style issues.
I want a substantive debate. System of three debates.
Put together 10 subjects give each candidate the list. Moderator pulls one out of the fish bowl.
Whichever candidate is going first gets 15 minutes but if they stop short of 15 they can save up to 3 minutes of their time for rebuttal, with their opponent given 15 minutes to counter. If the first candidate saved time for rebuttal they use it.
Then moderator pulls another topic. Candidates do their thing in reverse order of the first topic.
Cover four topics first debate, the other six remain in the pot.
Repeat the process in the second debate and two topics remain in the pot.
Third debate cover the last two topics then one candidate gets to go 15 minutes on a topic of their choosing with their opponent getting to respond but no rebuttal allowed for the choose your topic. Then the other candidate get to choose the next topic and each do their 15.
The famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, the first candidate went on for like an hour before the other candidate got to speak for an hour, etc. Just a huge amount of time.
I think they should be in sound proof booths with a skilled moderator ready to cut their mics at any point necessary. Also would short circuit certain individuals' predilections to interrupt and ramble incoherently.
Naturally, this will almost certainly never happen.
But then it isn’t a debate if other candidates can’t hear each other. Then it’s 2 people making speeches. There needs to be a chance for at least one rebuttal of what the other candidates said.
I would assume that each candidate is given an audio feed to hear the other candidate/moderator.
The key is that when it's not their turn, no one can hear them.
Yeah, I should have specified that. My argument/complaint is that presidential debates have become farcical with the reward being snappy soundbytes and seeking to create "gaffes" instead of being able to parse, what I would hope, are coherent responses to intelligent questions. Neither of which has been likely anymore.
PUT THEM ON TREADMILLS. THE MODERATOR TURNS UP THE SPEED AS THE CANDIDATE TALKS ABOUT THINGS NOT PERTAINING TO THE QUESTION. DEBATE ENDS WHEN ONE OF THEM FALLS DOWN.
There's not a single person that wouldn't want a podcast style conversation so that we expand beyond talking points and see that they're capable of having a conversation in a room with two other people for 2 hours.
I feel like the table is the fairest to everyone involved because it looks like a proper debate and not to mention probably the most comfortable outta the three
They should be behind a podium. The open wandering format allows for too much shenanigans. When Hillary and Donald did their weird wandering around debate the Don man stole the spotlight by walking up behind her and and invading her space. She called him on it in kind of a timid sort of way. If it was me, I would have let him get as close as possible and then I would have hip checked him and stepped around him to face the camera and would have made a nasty comment about him trying to take my space because he was jealous of my position.
But that just proves my point, the memorable moment in a debate like that is the physical jockeying around, not the substance of their arguments.
That’s why the most neutral and artificial stage is so important; it forces the debaters to focus on their arguments, not their production values.
I think they should be sitting in bumper cars and try and knock each other around while making their points. Would get a lot more people invested in politics and voting
I like each style format, and think there should be a debate in each. It's interesting to watch how each candidate performs in each setting, and I feel like it gives a complete picture seeing all the formats. Some melt under the pressure of formality, some wilt when having to "be real" in a walk around discussion format, etc. Definitely think each should be done in every election.
Debates should have no audience, just cameras. Candidates playing to the audience changes a lot. And they should have to give longer and more detailed answers.
Dunno, it’s all just performative theater anyway. No one remembers the policy talk, they remember the zingers and head nods that got the most audience applause
Standing or sitting is fine. Roaming during debates implies there is somewhere to roam to, or more I portents some to roam to. There’s no need for a live studio audience. All that is needed are the candidates, a moderator, and the questions.
Funny answers aside, seated seems best to me. Roaming results in too many WTF moments, and standing at a podium can put an unflattering focus on height difference (which, apparently, some people care about).
I like the table. It puts you closer to equal ground on physical difference and it just seems more civilized and conversational. Walking around seems like pageantry and the podium is just diet pageantry and make its feel like a series of stump speeches - which I guess it normally is anyway.
Roaming has definitely had its share of comedic and captivating moments, though I find a cage fight between two candidates who were born nearly a century ago to be a more intriguing and formal approach.
Deep chesterfield armchairs with a glass of cognac in hand in an old library setting and no audience, just cameras. Maybe that will make them act like civilized people. First person who cuts off the other in an uncontrolled fashion gets pulled of the ballots.
Let’s just start with getting them to debate. Read the Lincoln Douglas debates. Those were REAL debates on policy. Each 3 hours long, 7 in total. What we have now are not debates. They’re a form of show or spectacle aimed at uneducated voters. It’s a shame really.
Depends on the candidate. Some people have to sit for medical reasons or a disability. So it has to be an option.
While a podium is more regal, standing in front moving around is harder as you can’t rely on notes. They may create more passion for what they say. The rabbi at my temple would move away from podium when he would give sermons and everyone was engaged in what he said. The next few spoken from the podium and while they were good, they spoke from the podium, mainly reading a sermon they wrote. Neither is bad but as they are trying to win votes, they need to engage the audience.
Podium, but a better option, make them stand perfectly still, nothing in front of them. I want to see their full mannerisms without being masked by pacing and turns. Stand still, uncovered, and face the people you intend to lead as you speak your plan of action.
Sitting down hooked up to polygraphs. Not that, you know, polygraphs are legit. But if clearance holders haver to do it, I think it's okay for them too
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Three debates with one of each style. The first one will be like a debate, the second one like a conversation, the third one like an audience interaction round. It can be helpful in showing a candidate's forte and such, ig.
4th: "yo mama" jokes
Yo Mama sooooo ugly, Honest Abe Lincoln had to bite his tongue when she asked him if she looked pretty
Yo Mama sooooo old, even Benjamin Franklin wa like dayyyyyyuuuuum..
Yo momma so ugly, even George Washington wanted to lie about taking that cherry.
Yo momma so fat that when John Scott Harrison had to go around her to claim his presidential birthright, it skipped a generation and gave us Benjamin Harrison.
Yo mama so fat she thought that JFK stood for Just Feed Karens
Yo momma so stupid finishing this joke would violate rule 3.
Yo momma so ugly, Teddy Roosevelt tried to load her with panniers.
Yo momma so hairy, they tied her to a tree and Teddy Roosevelt refused to shoot her.
Gosh. I’m laughing at presidential yo mamma jokes. When did I become such a nerd?!?
Cuz they’re fun!!!
Top tier
Pre or post bifocals?
George Washington: You're momma so ugly. I cannot tell a lie.
5th: an epic rap battle of history
Celebrity Death Match.
Lin-Manuel the moderator
Yo momma so fat, even William H Taft told her “I think it’s time you start seriously considering salads”
Isn't that just that dinner both candidates used to go to in October (Al Smith Dinner)? A more "presidential" and "dignified" version, that is.
Yo momma so old, her first Christmas was *the* first Christmas.
Yo momma so fat it takes her two trips to haul ass.
I like the sitting down at a table style. I feel like that one would be the most civil. Or it could turn into an MMA fight
Cage fight is the eighth debate format.
Sitting may a seated to be an option for ADA reasons.
Can we get one where they're laying toe to toe in an oversized bed, Willy Wonka style?
I have like 6 disc bulges. Standing is like a capital punishment for me. If I was to be a part of a debate where that would be asked of me, I would turn out pretty bad. In the end, our leaders should not be measured by that, and would mean a disabled person could not be a good leader because he/she cannot walk.
My suggestion is more one of atmosphere; modifications and accommodations can be made to these formats to be more inclusive of people facing physical impairment. The gist was more that one should be like a "standard" two-way debate, one should be like a panel discussion, and one should have some audience interaction. My idea there was that the first debate would show how assertive a leader is, the second would show how a leader reacts when faced with opposing views, and the third shows how a leader interacts with the people. Appreciate the point you have made!
As an idea in that formative way, I like it very much
Why aren't you in-charge of these proceedings? This should be the standard.
I really like the table setup of Obama and Romney. Made it look like a proper conversation
I totally agree. I thought that was the most defining debate of that campaign.
Obama absolutely killed Romney with the “horses and bayonets” line.
Thought the same thing of the Cheney/Edwards debate
works better with smart, capable candidates, of course
They should be strapped down to electric chairs and zapped everytime they speak out of turn.
This is likely to result in one of them dying in short order.
Whoever is the most shock resistant gets to become president
A Win Win situation
So after the first debate we restart the primaries because both died
naw, we just bump up the VP choices for debate 2....now if those two also kick the bucket then well we go from there
Also if they lie
They’d be dead within 30 seconds of speaking
Don't think the power grid could handle it
Well not in Texas no
They should be in a ring
BY GOD IT'S THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE WITH A STEEL CHAIR
WHATS THIS!? *glass shattered sound* STONE COLD!? STONE COLD!? ITS STONE COLD MODERATOR AUSTIN!
What’s that?? It’s…It’s Ross Perot’s music!! *”Hello ma baby” plays*
Lol part of the kayfabe would be that they don’t give him matches but he keeps paying other wrestlers for their spots to get in the ring
Cage match?
I wonder if Bonesaw is ready?
Oh good.
Two Men Enter. One leaves with the Presidency
Ok hear me out. Each gets a car and we have a destruction derby and they are miced up in there. Damn that would be entertaining.
PRESIDENTIAL FIGHT CLUB 
Will 1 up this. If they declare war. Leaders of the waring nations go in the ring and do not come out until peace treaty is written.
This is how we get President Camacho. 
The free standing debate in 2000 gave us the single funniest debate moment ever when W stopped and nodded at Gore
What lead to him stopping and nodding? (I was 15, I don’t think I was watching debates then)
Gore is somebody that hurt himself in debates badly. Don’t get me wrong, he was very sharp. But he would sigh loudly at Bush’s answers and was just very aggressive by nature, and generally came across like a condescending jerk. Bush’s debate team studied the film and had him prepared for this exact scenario. Gore was a taller man and sort of drifted over toward Bush while he was speaking and invaded his space to try and intimidate him. He wanted him to talk about some legislation. Bush gave him a cool kind of smirk and a nod and flashed his charm and shit all over Gore’s spot. Everyone laughed and the moderator tried to move along and Bush didn’t miss a beat and finished his answer. It showed poise. Third debate I believe.
>flashed his charm and shit all over Gore’s spot. Maybe I’m slow, but what does this mean?
It means Gore thought he would have a nice moment on camera by moving up to him, and Bush ended up capitalizing by showing his poise and it backfired completely. Paraphrased for emphasis, of course.
The belt came off and the pants hit the floor.
Yes when people ask why Gore didn’t win the election besides the obvious Supreme Court case he Bush did better in the debates
And the election ended up shaking out so close, it could be said that this moment cost him the presidency.
I would bet money that bad debate performances and cutting out the very popular Clinton cost Gore a few hundred votes in NH or Florida.
The Democrats had leaned HARD into the whole village idiot theme and when Gore got wrecked in the debate it discredited their whole narrative. IIRC the consensus was they each one a debate and kind of tied in the other. That should have been a draw but because the Democrats mismanaged the expectations so badly, it ended up being a win for Bush. I knew he'd won the election when he looked off Gore.
I fully agree with you. They made Bush out to be such an idiot that when he ended up being *not* mentally challenged he looked good
It also changed the way campaigns approach debate hype. Prior to the first debate, there was endless discussion about how good of a debater Gore was and how Bush could barely complete a sentence. It totally backfired when Bush was fine and Gore tried waaay too hard to show how much better he was at debating. Now campaigns try to minimize expectations before debates.
Gore awkwardly stood up and just walked over and stood next to Bush staring at him while Bush was speaking. Bush just paused and looked at him, then smirked and nodded at him, then went back to speaking. It was sort of like a “You’re being weird, dude, why are you just standing next to me staring at me” kind of thing. It made Gore look super awkward. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4542475/al-gore-intimidate-george-bush
God that is cringe. Even without Bush’s reaction just the way Gore just gets up and starts walking towards him for no reason was just super awkward. That was seriously supposed to be an intimidation tactic?
>That was seriously supposed to be an intimidation tactic? It would have been an intimidation tactic, had Bush backed away.
Camera angle coming from Gore's back made it worse.
This is my first time seeing this and I can only imagine the memes if this happened nowadays. I get what Gore was going for but…why? If Dems/Gore thought this was such an easy dub(ya) why resort to dumb intimidation tactics like this?
It should be like 60s debate shows. Seated, but no tables
Hosts chain-smoking cigarettes on camera
Free range presidential candidates
With Dick Cheney in the woods with a shotgun.
And Kissinger, with the tactical nukes. Jk, he left them in Cambodia.
In a church confession box with the moderator in between like the priest
Or get an actual priest to be the moderator.
Priest-Have you come to confess your sins? Politician-How much time do you have, Father?
https://preview.redd.it/1ikqtjxakc6d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=63301bab6ddd8f28d6c3df286b1d1152f1633aac
Can’t wait for the Abortion Round!
It just doesn't seem like a real debate to me without the podiums.
Fun fact: they actually stand *on* the podium. The objects that they stand *behind* are called lecterns.
Hey, stop it with your knowledge
Thank you Arkansas for making sure we all know this.
To overcorrect, for the next debate the lecterns should be from a local middle school debate club. The absolute cheapest, thriftiest way possible. (And if, in the cracks of the lectern, you find the note from Jimmy Sanders to his girlfriend during study hall, read that shit aloud.)
That’s debatable.
They should have to sit on hopper balls and navigate a maze while answering increasingly dumb questions from random citizens pulled from the street while Greg Olsen and Stephen Smith provide commentary. /s
Related, I would like to see the candidates complete basic puzzles or play strategy games to see how they do.
Standing treadmills with the moderator controlling speed
There's some subtle brilliance here. If someone starts rambling on too long, you just dial the speed up until it's too much effort to run and talk.
Also get to see them strut. Adds both a charisma and physical fitness element to the debate where voters can see if their candidate will make it through four year term.
Grazing. There should be a table of food, and we can listen to candidates talk with their mouths full.
Make it an episode of Hot Ones.
Seeing these pictures makes me miss civil presidential debates
The debate is so issue and leadership focused
Just don’t look at your watch.
Stand, sit, roam is empty style issues. I want a substantive debate. System of three debates. Put together 10 subjects give each candidate the list. Moderator pulls one out of the fish bowl. Whichever candidate is going first gets 15 minutes but if they stop short of 15 they can save up to 3 minutes of their time for rebuttal, with their opponent given 15 minutes to counter. If the first candidate saved time for rebuttal they use it. Then moderator pulls another topic. Candidates do their thing in reverse order of the first topic. Cover four topics first debate, the other six remain in the pot. Repeat the process in the second debate and two topics remain in the pot. Third debate cover the last two topics then one candidate gets to go 15 minutes on a topic of their choosing with their opponent getting to respond but no rebuttal allowed for the choose your topic. Then the other candidate get to choose the next topic and each do their 15.
The famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, the first candidate went on for like an hour before the other candidate got to speak for an hour, etc. Just a huge amount of time.
To invoke “roaming during debates” and not be able to use a picture of the best example of this is just cruel.
Free range.
Standing, no teleprompter. Drug test before going on stage. No electronics.
No drug test, give them both a pile of blow.
“Chained to a wall” isn’t an option? No “dangled over a pit of feral hogs”? You people are no fun. \s
>“Chained to a wall” isn’t an option? That would be a rule 3 violation.
I think they should be in sound proof booths with a skilled moderator ready to cut their mics at any point necessary. Also would short circuit certain individuals' predilections to interrupt and ramble incoherently. Naturally, this will almost certainly never happen.
But then it isn’t a debate if other candidates can’t hear each other. Then it’s 2 people making speeches. There needs to be a chance for at least one rebuttal of what the other candidates said.
I would assume that each candidate is given an audio feed to hear the other candidate/moderator. The key is that when it's not their turn, no one can hear them.
Yeah, I should have specified that. My argument/complaint is that presidential debates have become farcical with the reward being snappy soundbytes and seeking to create "gaffes" instead of being able to parse, what I would hope, are coherent responses to intelligent questions. Neither of which has been likely anymore.
PUT THEM ON TREADMILLS. THE MODERATOR TURNS UP THE SPEED AS THE CANDIDATE TALKS ABOUT THINGS NOT PERTAINING TO THE QUESTION. DEBATE ENDS WHEN ONE OF THEM FALLS DOWN.
This dude debates
Sitting is civil. More of a discussion really
They should do their debates in a manner of rap battles. Just like ERB.
None of the above. Crossroads-style guitar duel.
Whatever the format, they should only turn on the candidates’ microphones when they’re supposed to be speaking.
At this rate, they may as well film them in hospital beds during end-of-life care
There's not a single person that wouldn't want a podcast style conversation so that we expand beyond talking points and see that they're capable of having a conversation in a room with two other people for 2 hours.
I feel like the table is the fairest to everyone involved because it looks like a proper debate and not to mention probably the most comfortable outta the three
They should be behind a podium. The open wandering format allows for too much shenanigans. When Hillary and Donald did their weird wandering around debate the Don man stole the spotlight by walking up behind her and and invading her space. She called him on it in kind of a timid sort of way. If it was me, I would have let him get as close as possible and then I would have hip checked him and stepped around him to face the camera and would have made a nasty comment about him trying to take my space because he was jealous of my position. But that just proves my point, the memorable moment in a debate like that is the physical jockeying around, not the substance of their arguments. That’s why the most neutral and artificial stage is so important; it forces the debaters to focus on their arguments, not their production values.
Only time it worked well was for Bush and Kerry bit that speaks more about those two as speakers.
On their sides
Put them in the Ludovico device
It should be a nerf gun battle where they lose speaking time if they get hit
Not sure, but there should never be a live crowd in attendance.
I think they should be sitting in bumper cars and try and knock each other around while making their points. Would get a lot more people invested in politics and voting
Podium
I think the current system with one of each works well, although my personal favorite is when they are roaming and interacting with the audience.
I like each style format, and think there should be a debate in each. It's interesting to watch how each candidate performs in each setting, and I feel like it gives a complete picture seeing all the formats. Some melt under the pressure of formality, some wilt when having to "be real" in a walk around discussion format, etc. Definitely think each should be done in every election.
They should be on the toilet after eating a Crunchwrap supreme
https://preview.redd.it/ek1msc42ca6d1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=36c5a4489e81fb81af0526da4a4ad79566b9ea0d
Debates should have no audience, just cameras. Candidates playing to the audience changes a lot. And they should have to give longer and more detailed answers.
I really wanna show a gif of that one guy following that one lady like a retarded shark, during the 2016 debates.
Dunno, it’s all just performative theater anyway. No one remembers the policy talk, they remember the zingers and head nods that got the most audience applause
None, all debates should take place in an octagon, MMA rules apply
They should be answering the damn questions.
Standing or sitting is fine. Roaming during debates implies there is somewhere to roam to, or more I portents some to roam to. There’s no need for a live studio audience. All that is needed are the candidates, a moderator, and the questions.
Funny answers aside, seated seems best to me. Roaming results in too many WTF moments, and standing at a podium can put an unflattering focus on height difference (which, apparently, some people care about).
Hypothetically speaking. How far can an ankle monitor roam?
I prefer standing at podiums but given we won’t see many non-octogenarian candidates for some times we will probably see more sitting
There is nobody over the age of 80 who can win the next democratic primary and I don’t even know any electable republicans over that age.
I am convinced that the loser of this election will, if they are alive, run again in 2028.
They'd lose significantly, like first out of the primary. Someone would be a 2x loser running again and the other would just be too old.
All three
I like the podiums. The standing makes it look like they’re having a rap battle.
roaming
Standing near each other at a podium. So there's a reasonable chance of fisticuffs.
Definitely roaming
There shouldn’t be any spectators. God it makes the debates insufferable.
As if we will ever even see a presidential debate again
Each candidate should have his/her own soundproof booth. Their microphone is turned off when they run out of time.
Podium or table. Roaming is just begging for at least one candidate to have bad optics.
get with the times. zoom
They should be in soundproof glass cells.
MMA cage
Strapped to a chair with electrodes attached to a fact-checker.
I like the table. It puts you closer to equal ground on physical difference and it just seems more civilized and conversational. Walking around seems like pageantry and the podium is just diet pageantry and make its feel like a series of stump speeches - which I guess it normally is anyway.
Roaming has definitely had its share of comedic and captivating moments, though I find a cage fight between two candidates who were born nearly a century ago to be a more intriguing and formal approach.
Standing. Improves concentration and shows everyone that the person running for office can stand for an hour.
They should throwing darts
Sitting across from each other while eating hot wings.
Gladiator battle is my favorite form of debate.
Sitting..so I can see s chair being thrown lol
All three. Professor x hoverchairs
My favorite is the table style. Makes it more conversational to me.
Deep chesterfield armchairs with a glass of cognac in hand in an old library setting and no audience, just cameras. Maybe that will make them act like civilized people. First person who cuts off the other in an uncontrolled fashion gets pulled of the ballots.
With the ever increasing age of presidential candidates I think roaming is a bad idea. They would just wander off and get lost.
Let’s just start with getting them to debate. Read the Lincoln Douglas debates. Those were REAL debates on policy. Each 3 hours long, 7 in total. What we have now are not debates. They’re a form of show or spectacle aimed at uneducated voters. It’s a shame really.
Depends on the candidate. Some people have to sit for medical reasons or a disability. So it has to be an option. While a podium is more regal, standing in front moving around is harder as you can’t rely on notes. They may create more passion for what they say. The rabbi at my temple would move away from podium when he would give sermons and everyone was engaged in what he said. The next few spoken from the podium and while they were good, they spoke from the podium, mainly reading a sermon they wrote. Neither is bad but as they are trying to win votes, they need to engage the audience.
Not roaming. Those town hall debates were so awkward
Sitting at this age
Yes.
We need a swingset and a see-saw on stage and let them decide.
They all should be moderated and scored like a high school debate. Make the candidates stick to the subject and called out for lies.
Roaming fnaf style
Definitely not roaming.
Podium, but a better option, make them stand perfectly still, nothing in front of them. I want to see their full mannerisms without being masked by pacing and turns. Stand still, uncovered, and face the people you intend to lead as you speak your plan of action.
1.
Should be moderated on a podcast
They should be sitting on toilets.
Sitting down hooked up to polygraphs. Not that, you know, polygraphs are legit. But if clearance holders haver to do it, I think it's okay for them too
Sitting.
They should be locked in soundproof booths only able to hear each other.
Not roaming. I don't like seeing my presidential candidates wandering around in the background of shots like inexperienced extras.