With all due respect, your argument against a presidential debate is very unconvincing. How could this country possibly not benefit from the presidential candidates discussing their own vision of government in a common setting with their rivals. While every other public event in this presidential campaign is a pre-packaged, pre-produced rally, a debate would actually require that the candidates connect with the people in a serious discussion of relevant issues and ideas for at least 60 minutes. The presence of all major candidates together on the same stage ensures that the event has a level of authenticity because the candidates can all be called to task by rivals on their responses and statements. Even if the candidates are not allowed to directly ask each other questions, at least having the candidates on the same stage and involved in a common discusison generated by questions from the media and the people in attendance would be an open and enlightening campaign exercise. While you suggest this would only be a “glorified group interview”, wouldn’t such a glorified group interview be a better way for voters to inform themselves before choosing their next president rather than watching a candidate drive by and wave from the back of a truck or seeing a candidate’s picture on a campaign poster covered with meaningless slogans.