Jdsizzleslice wrote:Dukasaur wrote:I don't know what part you're finding hard to comprehend. I support everyone involved having a fair chance to speak. In order to be meaningful, rules need to be enforced. If people are not playing by the rules and interrupting others, they need to be told to STFU until it's their turn. For most people this is a really simple issue.
You have a contradiction above. You believe in having a fair chance to speak, but are for removing the avenue for which one would speak, should he say something you disagree with. Pick one or the other, because the two cannot go together. You say that Trump interrupts, but so does Biden. So according to you, both should have their method of delivery removed if they don't do what you want them to do. Authoritarian.2dimes wrote:Duke wants a debate. That means each person gets time to try to explain their opinion.
Other wise it's a speech or a lecture and you only need one side present.
They are only proposing turning off the mic to force him to pause. It's different from taking his mic away.
Turning off his mic, forcing him to "pause" has the same effect as taking away someone's avenue to speak. Force.
I don't know what it is you aren't comprehending. When there is a debate among civilized persons, one speaks and makes his point while the other listens respectfully. Then it's the other one's turn, and the roles are reversed. The second speaks and makes his point while the first listens respectfully. It's not rocket science. It's a basic underpinning of civilized society. If you get a boorish thug like Trump who can't follow the rules on his own, the rules have to be enforced on him.
What if you had a baseball game where a team refused to leave the plate when it was the other team's turn to bat? You would try to reason with them at first, but ultimately if they refused to listen to reason and play by the rules, they would have to be ejected from the game.