The attempts at shoe horning in a couple dozen candidates into a “debate” when everyone just throws out sound bites and gets talked over by each other and the moderators has to change.
1-on-1 Tournament, Oxford style debates that touch on 3 topics each where candidates differ. Can have a losers bracket as well, so everyone gets 2 cracks at it minimum.
Boom, problem solved. What’s next!?!
BTW, “Intelligence Squared” is a great podcast that showcases the format.
They need to turn off all the microphones except for the speaker and give them sixty seconds at a clip and shut the speaker’s mic off at that point, maybe give them a ten second bell to finish up.
I understand the motivation behind your comment but that highlights one of the things that is inherently wrong with the "debates’. It is virtually impossible to be able to provide a comprehensive answer to any complex issue with the current format. What you get are soundbites and slogans and no substantive discussion/debate.
What would be a better format and in some ways borrows from your suggestion would be to have a certain number of topics that the two candidates could actually discuss. Maybe have each candidate give an opening address of 2 minutes and then two alternate 5 minute periods where each candidate articulates their agenda on the topic and end each period where each candidate gets the opportunity to ask the other a question where the candidate has up to 2 minutes to answer. For the next topic, the candidates swap positions etc.
And before it starts the two candidates are told they any diverging from the topic will result in a first warning from the moderator. Any further infractions the candidate will lose the remaining portion of their time.