Mad magazine used to have this featurette called “Scenes We’d Like to See,” where they lampooned a famous movie scene in their inimitable style.

The new debate structure agreed upon by our two top presidential campaigns comes close to something I’d like to see, that perhaps many of us would like to see. It could be even better.

For the longest time, I have complained that our debates have been more circus than substance, more a television event than a public service. They’ve hardly been thoughtful. They’ve hardly even been debates. They’ve been so much closer to laughable that they’ve hardly even mattered. Instead, they became about zingers, applause lines and the occasional high-five moment for your guy or theirs.

Like NASCAR, you waited for the crash. It’s what we talked about the next morning: who had the best witticism, who tanked like a bag of hammers. It fit neatly with our short attention spans and our need for affirmation. That is not a debate. We should be watching debates to be informed, not entertained.

There’s promise we might get more of the former and less of the latter if the new and improved structural elements crafted by the campaigns are finalized: a TV studio rather than a large venue; no audience; alternative turns to speak without interruption; microphones automatically cut off when a speaker’s time limit has elapsed.

Nevertheless, President Joe Biden’s campaign and former President Donald Trump’s brood have agreed on two debate dates: June 27 and Sept. 10. The June debate will take place at 9 p.m. EDT in Atlanta. The Sept. 10 debate is still being decided.

It’s a good start, but it’s not enough. Here are some other rules I’d like to see:

Accountability. A structural feature that assures the candidates are held accountable for what they say. We don’t have that and we still need that for these debates to matter. Debates should not only inform voters of what candidates know, they should also tell us what candidates don’t know. What safeguard is in place when the candidate veers off into a Wackyland word salad or avoids the question so he can force-feed a well-rehearsed talking point? Lawmakers have made this a common practice only because journalists always allow them to get away with it. It’s also something Trump does regularly, not because he’s mastered the practice but because he’s incapable of articulating direct, informative answers. Reporters have let him get away with that for far too long. Forums like a debate are where this should be stopped dead in its tracks. Are the moderators up to that task? They won’t be helping voters if they’re not.

Moderators with guts. Jake Tapper and Dana Bash will helm next month’s debate. They should be fearless, unafraid to stop a candidate flat out when he utters a falsehood. “Nope, sorry but that’s false.” More like “That’s a lie.” And the moderators should be well prepared to show how such a statement is false. They ought to know that; they’re the ones asking the questions and don’t feel the need to be nice about it. These candidates are applying for a job. Don’t let them snow the viewers. Be the gatekeepers against falsehoods and spin. If we have to have a gotcha moment, let it be from a moderator who puts a candidate in his place for blurting out a long-debunked falsehood.

George Stephanopoulos had the right idea about what the first question should be. But it doesn’t work without a proper setup and follow-up........

© HuffPost