Holding a debate with a chronic liar without moderator fact checking

[spooky3]

Is like playing a basketball game with one team that commits fouls and every other infraction, but the referees simply don’t call them on any. It gives the cheaters free rein to cheat and the other team can’t fight back legitimately. Refusing to fact check is the thumb on the scale for Rethug liars.

[Silent Type]

1. Seems to me that recent debate formats -- 2 minutes, and several minutes for responses -- give both candidates

ample opportunity to say, "That's just not true. . . . . ." And the moderators last night often asked, "Do you have any comments on that."

[spooky3]

2. It does, but you are ignoring two things

(A) the average American who is just now starting to pay attention to the election doesn’t know many of the statistics and facts or that one side lies far more often than the other. They may perceive the candidate who confronts in a negative way.

(B) the first candidate can simply repeat, “i’m not lying” and then lie about the other’s record again. The uninformed voter doesn’t know who is telling the truth.

It should not be the candidate’s job to enforce rules of fair play.

[Silent Type]

3. So, you think debates should be 5 hours, giving researchers time to come back after each response and

say it's true or not. Sorry, that just won't work and is unnecessary.

I get lots of voters don't know chit, but a 5 hour -- factchecked debate -- won't help them.

[spooky3]

4. No, I agree with Lawrence O'Donnell that there is no principled

Journalistic basis for moderators’ refusing to fact check.

All it usually takes is one sentence from a journalist along these lines: “no, Mr. Vance, the FBI statistics, posted on our site clearly show crime declined during the Biden administration” or “Mr. Vance, your immigration statistics are incorrect; the correct numbers are x, y, z.”

A reasonably smart liar would soon see that he’s looking bad because it’s a third party, not his opponent, who is setting the record straight, and cut back on the lies, allowing for a higher quality debate.

Your argument is extremely weak..