system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The U.S. presidential debates should be formatted more like longer form, intellectual debates held at universities.

Most of you probably watched the disastrous debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. In my opinion, the only way in which you could consider it a “debate” is that it features two participants who were against each other regarding their politics, or fighting to win over the viewers to their party. Other than that, it really can’t be considered a debate. It was extremely informal, there were not many solid arguments being given, they only had two minutes to speak, the moderator was incredibly active (which isn’t bad, it’s just not *usual*), there wasn’t a clearly structured cross-examination of the opponents, and there weren’t any questions taken from the audience (again, not bad considering the circumstances, just not usual). 
This wasn’t the only problem with the debate, however. The main problem is that it was not intellectually stimulating. It was banter. Unorganized, talking-point-oriented banter. 
*What needs to happen*
The citizens of this country deserve a real, intellectual debate. Here is a rough idea:
Side 1: 10 minutes of uninterrupted introduction (the contestant must lay out their arguments)
Side 2: 10 minutes of uninterrupted introduction (same as above)
Side 1: 5 minutes of response time
Side 2: 5 minutes of response time
1: 2 minutes
2: 2 minutes
1: Question for 2, 2 gets 2 minutes to answer
2: Question for 1, 1 gets 2 minutes to answer
Maybe repeat questioning?
Audience questions (this would look more like the presidential debates we have seen). 
Don’t grill me on my knowledge of debate construction, I know it’s not perfect. My main point is that, in order to really be able to decide who is educated, and who will perform better as president, we need an intellectual debate, not banter. 
Change my view!!!
gpt
The issue is that your main critique is of the substantive offerings of each debater (talking points, ad hominem attacks, lack of real cross-examination, etc) and that isn’t really a feature of the structure of the debate. What you proposed wouldn’t change that. 

The problem is that the candidates aren’t really trying to “win” a debate in the traditional sense. They are trying to create favorable media clips for themselves, generate enthusiasm for their side, embarrass their opponent, etc.... but never to convince some unbiased judge they’ve made the strongest case.