I agree that top presidential candidates should debate publicly. Debates provide voters with an opportunity to hear the candidates’ positions on the issues and to compare their qualifications. They also allow the candidates to challenge each other’s positions and to clarify their own views.
There are a number of benefits to public debates. First, they allow voters to hear the candidates’ positions on the issues in their own words. This is important, as it can be difficult to get a clear understanding of a candidate’s positions from reading their campaign literature or watching their campaign ads.
Second, debates allow voters to compare the candidates’ qualifications. This is important, as it can be difficult to assess a candidate’s qualifications simply by looking at their resume or reading about their experience.
Third, debates allow the candidates to challenge each other’s positions. This can be helpful for voters, as it can help them to see how the candidates think and how they react under pressure.
Fourth, debates allow the candidates to clarify their own views. This can be helpful for voters, as it can help them to understand the candidates’ positions on complex issues.
Of course, there are also some potential drawbacks to public debates. First, debates can be seen as a game, and the candidates may focus on scoring points rather than on discussing the issues.
Second, debates can be very long, and they can be difficult for voters to follow.
Third, debates can be dominated by the candidates who are more skilled at public speaking.
Despite these drawbacks, I believe that the benefits of public debates outweigh the risks. I believe that public debates are an important part of the democratic process, and I believe that they should be a regular part of presidential campaigns.