While I can't defend Biden's debate performance, we can't understate the pitfalls of debating someone with no incentive to adhere to facts or decency. Reminds of why legitimate scientists usually won't debate creationists or climate denialists. The denialists play by different rules.
Scientists follow a systematic approach to building knowledge, and speak from empirical evidence. Denialists grab whatever argument supports their conclusion, regardless of relevance, accuracy, or whether the arguments are consistent with each other. That's Trump method.
I realize there were constraints, but Biden was the one who thought debating this criminal coup-leading bag of refuse was worth doing, *and* to do so in a serious manner as if he faced a legitimate opponent. There are severe downsides in doing so, even if Biden was at his best.
