Some debates during the Primaries should feature candidates between both parties
Debate Rounds (3)
We've seen 2 debates featuring all the candidates of the GOP (4 if you count the happy hour debates) and most recently we saw the 1st debate featuring all the Democratic candidates, but we have not nor will not see any debates featuring candidates from BOTH parties until well after the nomination for both parties has been clinched...
I will argue that that should be changed.
Imagine if in addition to seeing debates among candidates from just one party, we also get to see debates featuring candidates between both parties.... Imagine if we could see Jeb go up against Hillary, or Trump against Bernie, or only the top polling candidates of each side go up against each other.
I believe that these kinds of debates should be allowed, where candidates from the opposing parties can go up against each other even before either party has nominated a candidate.
24 hours between rounds, 3000 characters, 3 rounds
1) It would better demonstrate how candidates will do against their 'real' opponents.
Anyone who watched the Democratic debate saw that all the candidates seemed to remember that they are part of the same team (Democrats). A lot of people wanted to see Bernie really tear into Clinton, or see Clinton hold her own against an onslaught of tough questions, but neither of these things happened, and its arguable that it might not happen in later debates either since no one realy wants to hurt the overall chances for their own party to win the race.
By allowing there to be debates featuring candidates from both sides though, we could better see how each candidate behaves and is tested. Hillary will receive far more heat from GOP candidates than from Dem candidates, and Bernie will be far more likely to try to tear a GOP candidate a new a**hole than he would someone from his own party. Allowing debates between both parties would better indicate to the viewers how good of a debater a candidate truly is before the primaries end.
2) Focuses on the best polling candidates
CNN and Fox have, so far, judged admittance into their debates based on how well each candidate is polling.... Debates featured between candidates from both sides of the political spectrum though could allow Fox and CNN to implement different standards to better limit the debate to candidates who are polling well. Rather than have podiums be occupied by nobodies like Huckabee, Santorum, Webb, Or Chafee, debates between both parties early in the primaries could revolve around who is polling in the top 2 or 3 spots for each party, which greatly reduces the number of candidates featured in a debate to just those who are actually polling well.
The top 3 candidates for each side right now are Fiorina, Carson, and Trump for the GOP, and Clinton, Sanders, and Biden from the Dem side. Since Biden isnt running, this would set up a debate featuring Carson, Fiorina, Clinton, Trump, and Sanders.
Doesn't that sound far more interesting to watch than debates limited to candidates from the same party?
Yes, while candidates need to have insight on what their stance is on other 'real' candidates as you mentioned, the two parties are associated as such; democratic party to liberalism(usually) and republican to conservative(usually). Although the candidates should all have a level playing field and be able to acknowledge ideas and propositions from other parties, the two parties could have conflicting beliefs which would interfere with the hard facts of the debate and mingle with political stances.
On your second argument, I do agree with you on the point that 'better', more viewed candidates should have more focus as they have more potential to become president, but we have to look at and realize the main goal that the U.S. is trying to achieve: to find a president worthy enough to aid the country and progress it as best as they can. And although a lot of viewers and support potentially means that you've worked harder and deserve more attention, it doesn't mean that you have the fullest potential to aid the country the best. All candidates should have equal debate time seeing as they all might have ideas that are the best for America.
Man this is the second time in a row now one of my debates switched from 24 hours between rounds to 72 hours between rounds....
1) Factual accuracy in debates between both parties
"The two parties could have conflicting beliefs which would interfere with the hard facts of the debate and mingle with political stances."
That already happens with debates between candidates who already won the nomination though... Debates between both parties once each side has nominated a candidate risks the distortion of facts over political stances just as much as debates between candidates of different parties prior to either party nominating a candidate. Therefore it's irrelevant that a debate between candidates from 2 parties might distort facts since presidential debates between candidates who already won the nomination are allowed to happen, even though in those debates facts can be distorted to.
In fact, even in primary debates limited to one party there are still a distortion of facts due to conflicting beliefs and differing political stances. This means that since all kinds of debates that already exist and are allowed to exist are suseptible to political stances distorting facts, that we shouldnt therefore ban a different kind of debate from taking place for the same reason.
2) Negatively affects lesser polling candidates
"All candidates should have equal debate time seeing as they all might have ideas that are the best for America."
All candidates are given equal time in primary debates limited to a single party already. I am arguing that IN ADDITION to those debates limited to a single party during the primaries that there should ALSO be debates between candidates from both parties while the primaries are still going on. Other candidates not polling as well as top candidates will still have the opportunity to have their voice heard in different debates that feature only candidates from one party. Debates between top candidates from both parties meanwhile would allow viewers to see how well candidates do in debate against the opposing party, rather than just against their own party in smaller debates featuring less liked candidates
Even if something happens and is regularly acknowledged does not mean that it is allowed. More importantly, I realize that you point out that once two candidates are nominated from each party, mixed beliefs are in risk to mingle in with political views and other ideas. However, a smarter candidate try not to lean towards certain religions or beliefs so they can attract a wider variety of potential voters. The debates between the two specific parties would allow candidates to express their actual beliefs, more or less, in a less serious (than two nominees being elected to debate each other) environment but also market themselves how they feel like.
Clearly, you did not receive the message I was trying to deliver. Every candidate has right to equal debate time, and to allow only certain candidates, most likely with the most money if they are doing well, have a superior debate between the parties. I do agree that a such debate would be interesting, but granting candidates with more supporters and sponsors more public attention would make the playing field everything but level. Why shouldn't lower ranking candidates also be gifted the privilege of demonstrating their prowess with other candidates from an opposite party?
1) Factual accuracy in debates
"Even if something happens and is regularly acknowledged does not mean that it is allowed."
Except in this case it is allowed.... There are not fact-checkers on the stage to validify every claim that a candidate makes in a debate, meaning that in any debate, whether it be presidential debates, primary debates, or the hybrid debates I am proposing in this debate right here, factual inaccuracy is a byproduct of the debates.... It is for that reason that it cannot be used as a reason to not allow debates between both parties from occurring before the nomination ends, since that would be selectively punishing these proposed debates when other debates where factual inaccuracies take place are allowed to continue.
"However, a smarter candidate try not to lean towards certain religions or beliefs so they can attract a wider variety of potential voters"
Thats completely irrelevant to the debate though. If presidential debates between candidates from both parties are allowed to take place, than debates between candidates of both parties prior to either side nominating a candidate should be allowed as well.
2) Negatively affects lesser polling candidates
"Granting candidates with more supporters and sponsors more public attention would make the playing field everything but level."
It would favor those polling well initially sure, but polls change over time. Scott Walker and Jeb Bush were polling #1 and 2 in the GOP at one point and now Walker is out of the race completely, due mostly to his terrible debate performance, while Bush is lagging in 5th place.
When leading candidates do bad in debates, and there always are a few, then they drop in the polls and someone else is usually there to fill in the spot.
Not only that, lesser polling candidates still are able to prove themselves and overtake better polling candidates in debates limited to one political party, as I stated before.
Debates between both political parties while the primaries are still going on will allow voters to get a better idea of just how well their preferred candidate would do in a future presidential debate if they win the nomination, and let them adjust their vote accordingly if they like a different candidate better. Debates between the top candidates of both parties would focus on the top polling candidates on both sides of the race, while lesser polling candidates will still have more than enough opportunity to make up ground on better polling candidates in debates limited to one party.
For the reasons in the debate, you should vote pro
Presidential debates between candidates from both parties AFTER the sides nominate a candidate are remarkably different from average debates between opposite parties. Yes, while both include a republican and democratic point of view, one has a candidate that the other candidates in the same party trust their opinions and beliefs in, and the other could hold a wide variety of perspectives and ideas. The debate that takes place with nominees from both parties is meant to have two candidates with perhaps their own ideas, but also the other running members' ideas infused into their debate strategy. This debates eliminates the need of the other, smaller debates between parties because, yes, the nominees will focus on their ideas, but will also be influenced by their competitors within their party.
In your second point, while yes, "polls change over time," your entire argument is based off of chance. Can we be sure that less popular candidates will take the spots of the higher polling candidates after one debate? Sure, we could definitely procure a handful of examples, but this is just assuming candidates doing worse will suddenly shape up and candidates doing better will lose their cool. You also mention that "lesser polling candidates still are able to prove themselves and overtake better polling candidates in debates limited to one political party." While this is true, debates between parties have a much higher chance of receiving more views on the popular news channels. Although they will also show single party debates, they would most likely be ignored in comparison to the shows featuring higher polling candidates from both parties. This would be giving already higher polling candidates yet another advantage if inter-party debates are allowed, further handicapping the candidates not doing as well.
Presidential debates should be limited to a single party. Not only would debates between the parties featuring higher polling candidates put lower polling candidates at a serious disadvantage, but beliefs and ideals kept within parties would be intertwined with political stature, consequently confusing voters and giving false statements. Debates should stay as they are; although debates between parties would certainly be interesting and help news channel views, America should focus on true goals for the presidential election. Clearly, debates should be kept within houses, and maintain the orderly fashion we have always put into action.
P.S. "For the reasons in the debate" is a pretty sucky way to wrap things up.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.