All methods have flaws, at least that one is mostly fair.
That said, a crucial flaw and one that is easily exploited in a live debate is the use of the gish gallop method of rapid fire questions/accusations/falsehoods that are difficult to both address in a limited timespan, as well as also fit in time for your own speaking points.
But losing the moderators would be a good move. The fact there's even "fact checkers" is even more ludicrous considering that it's basically enshrining the literal idea of politically correct speech. That in and of itself should be called out as basic pro-establishment abuse of power.
theoretically I don't have issue with live fact checking. however, the fact check would have to come from an actually neutral source that is actually interested in the truth.
the moderators in these debates are blatantly running cover for the Democrat candidate, and I don't really trust any media institution to do differently.
"Fact checking" is explicitly antithetical to the nature of a debate though. The whole point is that both sides are meant to argue for their points and against their opponents. That isn't the role of the moderator, it's the role of the people debating.
There's no kind way of sugar-coating it: stop conceding ground.
challenge them to a debate without moderators.
put the mics on timers that rigidly enforce equal speaking times. deliver the prompts through text.
are the flaws with this method? yes but it's much better than the 2 minutes hate we've currently got
All methods have flaws, at least that one is mostly fair.
That said, a crucial flaw and one that is easily exploited in a live debate is the use of the gish gallop method of rapid fire questions/accusations/falsehoods that are difficult to both address in a limited timespan, as well as also fit in time for your own speaking points.
But losing the moderators would be a good move. The fact there's even "fact checkers" is even more ludicrous considering that it's basically enshrining the literal idea of politically correct speech. That in and of itself should be called out as basic pro-establishment abuse of power.
theoretically I don't have issue with live fact checking. however, the fact check would have to come from an actually neutral source that is actually interested in the truth.
the moderators in these debates are blatantly running cover for the Democrat candidate, and I don't really trust any media institution to do differently.
"Fact checking" is explicitly antithetical to the nature of a debate though. The whole point is that both sides are meant to argue for their points and against their opponents. That isn't the role of the moderator, it's the role of the people debating.
There's no kind way of sugar-coating it: stop conceding ground.
without a live fact check, the winning strategy in a debate is Gish Gallop.
Fucking internet bloodsports would be better than this.