Conversations about whether candidates should debate or not are on the rise.

            Political wisdom (if there is such a thing) says that if a candidate is far enough ahead in the polls you should not debate.  There is always the risk that a debate will expose a weakness and affect your poll numbers.

            Campaign managers seem to feel that the transparent, open exchange of ideas, where candidates must answer questions and respond to their opponents in a live format, is just too risky for their candidates.

            Debates can sometimes be a threat to well-funded campaigns that can outspend their opponents.  Kill the debates and you can keep your candidate and the opposing one from public view and avoid potentially unflattering comparisons.  This gives a financial advantage to the wealthy to control the scripted environments of radio, TV and online media.

            A debate could also damage a candidate's carefully constructed image. The format doesn't just highlight the range of issues, it also reveals character under pressure. Candidates have to express and defend their beliefs in a live, unscripted environment without the support of a teleprompter or staff. They can easily make mistakes, forget facts, go off-script, or react emotionally.  It could be a nightmare for any party official as well as the candidate.

            Maybe TV stations that sponsor debates should continue to hold them and ensure absentee candidates are highlighted by an empty chair with a "will not debate" sign printed beside their name. Those candidates that attend can have an exchange with a fair moderator instead of losing the opportunity to reach people because of another campaign's refusal to debate.

            Many political pundits suggest that debates are nothing but political theater and it comes down to the risk versus the reward ratio.  What can a candidate win or lose by debating in front of a public audience?  They claim that voters won't select their candidate based on whether they're willing to debate or not.

            Others argue that what makes debates dangerous for campaigns is exactly what makes them great for democracy.  They argue that debates remain the most direct ways that politicians can hold each other accountable for spreading dubious campaign rhetoric in real time, before an audience of potential voters.  

            The debate about debates keeps reminding me of the old saying, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."

            What do you think?