>>>>There are no unbiased media outlets so following your logics every public debate set by media is a meeting of fools. It is regretful. Imho, having different opinion but still showing willingness to debate, or just discourse, with people of different mind is quite far from 'fool' label, especially if applied to mainstream politics.
>>>
>>>Traditionally, the main candidates' debates in this country have been sponsored by the League of Women Voters, which has a long history of non-partisan participation in the process.
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>I don't quite see how it relates to my point. I would appreciate if you provide more specifics to your position on boycotting debates.
>
>I think it's reasonable for candidates to expect debates sponsored by sources as unbiased as possible, like the LWV.
>

What makes you think LMV is unbias?