Paul M. rather gingerly asks whether there should be debates — but frames the issue as who most benefits — and who would bear the most risk… in any such debate. He mentions “many decades” of debates being the norm. [For a nearly-equal number of decades, tax return disclosures… have also been the norm. More on that, and these unusual times, in a minute.]

But first — let’s be clear: I think Joe Biden would trounce Trump.

Even so, Biden should not offer to do so (with even the minimal risk that Trump’s inveterate lying sways… some weak-minded rubes Trump’s way), given that the universal norm — one that Trump has affirmatively lied about — and one he has violated, for over four years, now — is his… failure to disclose his tax returns.

Trump flat-out promised he would release them after the 2016 election. He obviously hasn’t — and has litigated ferociously, to prevent anyone from getting access to them, even for law enforcement purposes. [This is not how an innocent man, even a private man, behaves. He promised the electorate we would see them before the next election. We won’t — so… NO DEBATES.]

As the clear front runner, Biden has the luxury of… not needing any debate wins. Why bother?

Finally, Paul speciously argues that a “no debate” outcome robs Trump of an important opportunity to showcase his qualifications for some re-election notion.

Well… methinks the lady doth protest too greatly, there: Trump is on TV nearly every night, without an opponent — plainly demonstrating his manifest inability / refusal to master any of the facts needed… to hold the office. So again — that’s specious.

No debate — the old bon mot: “don’t wrestle a pig” comes to mind — you’ll both get muddy — and the pig… well, he will just kind of… enjoy that.

No debates.