Three nights ago, eleven candidates for U.S. president took to a stage festooned with a decommissioned Air Force One, in an effort to convince us they should be more than just candidates.

Except, after over three hours of grandstanding, pandering, ranting, raving, and schoolyard taunting, we are no closer to determining who ought to be president. Under closer examination, it’s clear what transpired in California wasn’t truly a debate at all.

Switching on the supposed debate well after start time, I was greeted by moderator Jake Tapper formulating a question for Carly Fiorina. It began like this: “In an interview last week in Rolling Stone magazine, Donald Trump said the following about you. Quote, ‘Look at that face. Would anyone vote for — ’”.

Tapper did not complete his question, though, as at that point the screen had gone black. My patience for this farce lasted less than five seconds. This election is a contest to determine who will be our country’s most powerful elected leader for four years, and yet, here was a journalist affording it the same dignity befitting a campaign for homecoming queen.

I never did tune back into the carnival, but I did read a complete transcript of the night’s proceedings. By my count, of the more than fifty questions posed to the candidates, at least ten of them qualify as tabloid fodder, asking candidates to defend themselves from personal attacks leveled against their character, their competence, even their physical appearance.* That is an unacceptable percentage.

Far too many questions took the form of “Candidate X, in recent comments, Candidate Y said this shitty thing about you. Please respond.” Far too many questions were framed to be as inflammatory as possible rather than probing a candidate’s position on policy. The moderators schemed at every turn to instigate fights and elicit slander. They were just begging for the shit flinging to begin.

Character is important, no question. We should ferret out the liars and the cheats, the corrupt and the callous. But to give so much undue attention to every salacious detail of a candidate’s personal life, to harp on style over substance, to have the program revolve around the personalities on stage and not the ideas in their minds or the logic in their arguments turns the whole campaign into a popularity contest.

A debate should be an open forum, where candidates for office identify where they stand on the issues of the day, what policies they will pursue if elected, and what ideological principles guide their decision making. They can point to their past records, when appropriate, to support their claims. A debate should not be a gladiatorial arena for them to defame their opponents’ characters, spout platitudes, or appeal to primeval tribal nature.

To that end, every question should boil down to this: what should we do and why should we do it. A necessary corollary is, of course, how could it be feasibly achieved. No other lines of questioning need apply. When Jake Tapper turns the debate into a pissing contest by explicitly asking candidates to extol their own experience and demean their opponents, when he urges forward assaults on character, when he exacerbates and amplifies feuds taking place off-stage, he renders the event useless for its one true purpose: aiding the community — here the American electorate — in choosing its elected leaders. Asking Carly Fiorina to respond to Donald Trump’s disparaging comments regarding her appearance does nothing to help further our understanding of whether or not she should be president. But it does make for good TV, and that’s really what Jake Tapper’s bosses are after, so that’s what we are served.

Let’s take one example and see if we can do a better job than Jake Tapper and his cohorts. Somewhere past the debate’s midpoint, Donald Trump was asked this question:

Mr. Trump, Senator Rubio said it was, quote, “very concerning to him” that in a recent interview you didn’t seem to know the details about some of the enemies the U.S. faces. Rubio said, if you don’t know the answers to those questions, you will not be able to serve as commander-in-chief. Please respond to Senator Rubio.

This question could be translated thusly: Mr. Trump, Senator Rubio thinks you’re an uneducated dimwit who doesn’t know shit about foreign policy. Please, look at Senator Rubio and explain to him, and us, why you are not an uneducated dimwit who doesn’t know shit about foreign policy.

This is not an appropriate debate question. Even if this assessment of Trump’s foreign policy knowledge was spot-on, it does nothing to help us, as voters, judge his candidacy. This, however, would be a useful question:

Mr. Trump, if elected president, would you continue the fight against ISIS? If so, how would you propose we carry out that fight and please state why this would be the best course of action.

What should we do — should we confront ISIS, and if so, how should we confront them — and why should we do it. This question helps to judge Trump as a candidate. It gives us information on his plan regarding a concrete issue and asks him to back up his reasoning. If over the course of his answer, Trump reveals his alleged lack of knowledge, that is for those of us in the audience to take into account. But for that characteristic to provide the principal aim of a question is insulting to the process, the candidates, and everyone watching the debate.

Granted, not every question was as egregious as our hand-picked example, and there were a number of thoughtful, policy-driven questions delivered to the candidates. But, to waste any debate time with semi-sophisticated internet comment thread rhetoric does a disservice to our republic and hampers our ability as citizens in our efforts to maintain it.

One candidate did tire of the Kardashian atmosphere early on. Less than twenty minutes in, John Kasich, incumbent Governor of Ohio and the only person on stage possessing a modicum of decency or sense of good governance, cut off Tapper and addressed the room:

Listen, you know, I — if I were sitting at home and watching this back and forth, I would be inclined to turn it off. I mean, people at home want to know across this country, they want to know what we’re going to do to fix this place, how we’ll balance a budget, how we’re going to create more economic growth, how we’ll pay down the debt. What we’re going to do to strengthen the military. So, we just spent 10 minutes here…It’s a lot of ad hominem. Now, I know that it may be buzzing out there, but I think it’s important we get to the issues, because that’s what people want, and they don’t want all this fighting.

The crowd applauded. Not another candidate chimed in. Tapper, for his part, ignored Kasich’s appeal, plunged ahead with his original segue, and implicitly asked Chris Christie if he is a liar.