Mad magazine used to have this featurette called Scenes Wed 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 Id 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. Theyve hardly been thoughtful. Theyve hardly even been debates. Theyve been so much closer to laughable that theyve 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. Its 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.

Theres 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 speakers 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.

Its a good start, but its not enough. Here are some other rules Id like to see:

Accountability. A structural feature that assures the candidates are held accountable for what they say. We dont 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 dont 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. Its also something Trump does regularly, not because hes mastered the practice but because hes 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 wont be helping voters if theyre not.

Moderators with guts. Jake Tapper and Dana Bash will helm next months debate. They should be fearless, unafraid to stop a candidate flat out when he utters a falsehood. Nope, sorry but thats false. More like Thats a lie. And the moderators should be well prepared to show how such a statement is false. They ought to know that; theyre the ones asking the questions and dont feel the need to be nice about it. These candidates are applying for a job. Dont 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 doesnt work without a proper setup and follow-up because those are more important than the question itself.

You begin with a proviso: Gentlemen, this question requires no more than a two-word answer. Two words. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then the question: Who won the 2020 election?

Bidens answer: I did.

When Trump rambles on about a stolen election, you follow up with a series of questions: How do you explain the failure of more than 60 lawsuits to prove the claim you just made?

How is it that Republican candidates won their races in every state where you claim the Democrats cheated? Not a single Republican who won objected to their victories on the same day, on the same ballots, using the same election systems. Can you explain that?

Can you explain why every state and federal investigation found no evidence of such voter election theft?

Do you understand that when you called Georgias secretary of state and asked him to find you 11,000 more votes it sounded like the person trying to steal the election was you? Do we have to play that sound bite?

And while were at it, can you tell me why all the fake electors that have been indicted in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are all Republicans ?

He wont be able to answer, and, Mr. Trump, you havent provided a single effective answer to any of those questions. How can you continue to claim the election was stolen in the face of such immutable evidence you are unable to refute?

If Trump then responds with one of his standard childish retorts, like, Ya know what? Youre a nasty person, be prepared.

I dont care if you dont like me, Mr. Trump. I only care that you answer the question and then defend your answer. Youve done neither. Over to you, Mr. Biden

Brutal? No, vital. If we insist on having presidential debates, we need moderators who not only ask questions but relentlessly ask follow-ups consisting of (A) What do you mean by that, (B) How will you do that? and (C) You didnt answer my question.

Real-Time Fact Checkers: Why arent we doing this? News outlets routinely fact-check debates on their websites as they happen. We ought to have it for viewers: a panel of offstage fact-checkers quickly passing along verifications and corrections that moderators can readily see on computers they have before them. This would prevent candidates from offering spin, misinformation and outright lying. Imagine candidates being told beforehand that theyll be fact-checked in real time. You want to see drama, some theatrics or a gotcha moment that so many viewers seem to crave? See how the candidates handle the pressure of knowing theyll get called out on their crap. Dont voters deserve an unvarnished look rather than gauzy obfuscation? Voters deserve politicians who dont lie, and when they do, we deserve to see how they handle it when theyre called out for lying. Hell, Id like to see which candidate rejects the idea of fact-checkers as a condition of the debates. Whats the matter? What are you afraid of?

More depth: Enough with the time limits. Let the candidates finish their thoughts rather than cut them off because time has elapsed. Frankly, insisting on 90-second solutions to the economy, Ukraine or the Middle East demeans the entire process of self-government and makes an absurdity out of running for office. Is it really so hard to have an honest adult conversation? Two candidates, moderators effectively refereeing, and everyone chats. But its Trump, you say. If he rambles or gets into schoolyard insults, remember the rules of your follow-up and take it a step further: What do you mean by that? Why did you resort to childish insults? Youre rambling. How about: Do you remember the question I asked?

Take a seat: Instead of standing, the candidates should be sitting down, roundtable-style. Not in deference to age but because its more conducive to an actual conversation. Perhaps the most substantive debate Ive seen in modern times was that between then-Vice President Dick Cheney and his Democratic opponent, John Edwards, in 2004. No one complained about the idea of sitting down, which Cheney requested. Maybe no one cared since no one seems to care about vice presidential debates. But it was formal without being stuffy, civil with no memorable headline-grabbing moments and staid rather than staged. You had to listen to what they said rather than be distracted by how they looked.

Turn up the heat: Instead of a relaxed atmosphere or making the candidates look good, which is what each party wants, make them uncomfortable. These debates should be pressure cookers, like putting candidates on a witness stand, except with the caveat that theyre guilty until proved innocent. Candidates should be grilled like an intense cross-examination to ensure they can square their campaign rhetoric with facts, be called out when their answers contradict the facts and stopped cold when theyre not answering the question. Uncomfortable for the candidates while comforting for us. Of course, the campaigns would never go for that. They wouldnt dream of letting the media make fools out of their candidates (even though most of them are fools).

No doubt the upcoming debate will still have moments both viewers and the media seek: the gotcha line, the impertinent Trumpian boorishness, a Biden memory lapse misconstrued for dementia. We already have a level of theatrical anticipation or maybe anxiety built into the telecast: How many will tune in just to see whether Biden looks old and feeble? You cant tell me viewers didnt tune in to the State of the Union address with that question in mind (much to the relief of his supporters and much to the disappointment of Trump acolytes).

I try to assess political debates for what they are: dog and pony shows that do little more than leave a general impression. Thats how theyre treated; thats how the candidates are prepped; thats how voters respond to them. Unless theres a dramatic moment or a major gaffe, the result is the same: Your candidate won. Thats true regardless of whom youre talking to, whether Republican or Democrat. People always tend to think their candidate won, largely because bias tends to override critical thinking, especially in politics, which is the one place where we need bias the least.

Maybe the improvements will help. I wont be holding my breath.