Did you like the way the second Presidential Debate was replaced with separate, dueling town halls?


According to the Associated Press, the second Presidential Debate between President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden was officially cancelled. The decision was made on October 9, only a day after the Nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates announced the debate would be held virtually because Trump had tested positive for COVID-19.

When Trump refused to take part in a virtual debate, Biden scheduled a town hall with ABC News that same day. The town halls were hosted by NBC in Miami for Trump and ABC in Philadelphia for Biden on Thursday, October 15. The separation of the two candidates on different networks, each in their own sphere with their own moderator, allowed voters to witness the wide contrast between their personal styles and approaches to key topics as they flipped back and forth between the two channels.

North Star News always welcomes your opinions and we want to know: Did you like the way the second Presidential Debate was conducted in separate, dueling town halls? Or would you have preferred it to be another in-person debate?


Here are some explanations from readers who said no:

The debates split the audience which means people had to make a decision on who they wanted to watch before they actually watched it. This may have pushed people to vote for someone they wouldn’t have otherwise because they just heard their side of the  story.



It seems like they’ve given up at communicating successfully with each other, which is not a good sign of leadership.



The format was not conducive to the flow of information. You had to pick a candidate to listen to, which violates the purpose of a debate: to hear both sides.



I think that having them at the same time was really difficult.  If we are supposed to look at differing viewpoints, having the debates at the same time made that harder.  I am happy that it was virtual as it kept everyone safer.



Here are some explanations from readers who said yes:


This was more organized and there were no interruptions. We could clearly focus on each of the candidates and see what they have to say. In addition to that, each candidate was allowed to express clearly rather than being on each other’s head. Most important of all, it was safer.



I kind of have mixed feelings about it to be honest. I think that it may have been good over Zoom because of Trump testing positive for Covid, but I think this is also good because you get to see both of their personalities.

 – Freshman


Because the candidates were separated, this allowed them to speak as much as they wanted without interruption from their opponent within their own sphere of topics, concerns, and format. This was a really interesting way of doing the town hall debates. I think it should be considered to have something like this again.

–  Sophomore


It was more effective without the constant interruptions from either side.


Readers’ opinions are welcome in our next poll: Which format are you going to use to vote for the upcoming presidential election?