The only time I can seem to find anything worth listening to in a debate is when the non-top-tier candidates are the ones speaking. Tiering, in cased you missed it, is a new system that someone started in the US. The way it works is that the media, or someone, I'm not sure who exactly, tells Americans who the good candidates are. I guess it's sort of voted on by some sort of consensus. Tier means level essentially. Being top-tier may or may not be a good thing. For example this link suggests that top-tier makes you a good player in a fight simulator video game. Whereas this link points out that tier is a level of seating. Essentially, being top-tier at a football stadium is undesirable to most people. Some refer to top-tier seating in large stadiums as "nosebleed seats." In consideration of this meaning of this term, I'd much rather be bottom-most-tier. In this usage of the word, much as in the usage in popular media today, top tier does not mean top-tier, as in the fighting game, instead it means "one who looks spectacular while blathering, but says little of substance."
Well, to get to the point of things, in a presidential debate - the fewer top-tier candidates, the better. Such a debate ensures a high level of substance and hearfelt emotion in the discussion. To further narrow down the field to a debate that would get me to tune in and to watch over and over again - I would desperately like to see Ron Paul debate Mike Huckabee with no other candidate welcomed on that stage. There, I would see a debate on small friendly government v. limited government. This is a debate which I often have with myself and which the Republican party desperately needs to have with itself. Follow this link and you will see what I believe to be the best three minutes of the campaign cycle so far: Huck and Paul debating the Surge. - Allan