The most important takeaway from presidential debates? It’s time to end them.

A debate! You’re telling me the country is all atwitter over an archaic, made-for-TV production that didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know — that one candidate is an old man and the other is an old liar?

If anything, President Joe Biden’s pitifully poor performance in Atlanta last week was just the latest evidence that televised political debates are practically useless as a valid measure of anyone’s ability to head not just our national government but any state or local government, for that matter.

Even so, revered newspapers such as the New York Times and Atlanta Journal-Constitution have decided Biden’s stumbling and mumbling were grounds for him to quit his bid for reelection. If he doesn’t, will they endorse former President Donald Trump in the general election, or tell voters in November to forget what they said in June?

What we should be talking about is discarding the presidential debates altogether. In their current form, debates may help TV networks and streaming services gain viewers and sell more ads while the politicians are performing, but they offer little additional insight into the candidates’ presidential abilities.

We already knew Biden is old and forgetful and that Trump will lie whenever he’s given the opportunity. By one count, Trump either outright lied or stretched the truth more than 30 times during the debate. Should Trump be declared the winner because he never strayed from a carefully tailored message to his MAGA disciples?

These dog and pony shows shouldn’t even be called debates. They bear little resemblance to their hallowed progenitor, the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas took part in seven three-hour debates in their Illinois race for U.S. senator. Douglas was reelected, but Lincoln showed he had the acumen to serve in a higher office.

In a real debate, opponents score points based on how well they make an argument based on facts. By that measure, Biden handily won. He made a fact-based, albeit clumsy, case for continuing the progress he has made since succeeding Trump. In contrast, Trump provided absolutely no evidence that he is any more capable of solving any of the problems left in the wake of his past presidency.

What is presented to Americans as presidential debates are more akin to the beauty pageants of yesteryear; when how well a contestant twirled a baton meant slightly more than how much they wanted world peace.

That low bar was set in the 1960 debate between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy, when the young, energetic senator from Massachusetts came across on TV screens as much more appealing than the perspiring vice president who looked like he needed a shave. No one who was around back then remembers much about what either man said, but plenty has been written about how each one looked.

Ronald Reagan was 73 years old when he was considered the winner of a 1984 debate against Walter Mondale, age 63, solely because he deftly rebuffed a question about his age by quipping, “I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth, and inexperience.” That’s entertainment! And Reagan was a masterful showman. But he was no great debater and not that great of a president.

There was ample evidence to implicate Reagan in the 1980s Iran-Contra affair, in which the U.S. sold missiles to Iran for its help in freeing seven American hostages being held by terrorists in Lebanon. Either “The Gipper” really didn’t know what was going on in his White House, which can’t be dismissed as a possibility given his Alzheimer’s diagnosis five years after leaving office, or Reagan knew what was up and lied.

Unless the Commission on Presidential Debates can produce a better debate format to help voters, let’s retire it permanently.

That a seemingly offhand remark by Reagan is the most memorable moment from his joust with Mondale just shows presidential debates serve little value. So, why not end them? The Biden and Trump campaigns bypassed the Commission on Presidential Debates to stage their two scheduled debates before the November election. Unless the commission, which has existed since 1988, can produce a better debate format to help voters, let’s retire it permanently.

The political parties should also stop holding debates so early in the primary and caucus process that too many candidates are on a stage jockeying for a chance to speak. Even after the Republican Party set more stringent campaign contribution and poll number thresholds for participation, there were eight candidates in its first presidential debate last year. Knowing that was too many for any one person to challenge him, Trump skipped that event and every other GOP debate.

If presidential debates are to continue, let’s make them true debates with impartial judges issuing points based on the salient arguments made by each participant. The format for the Lincoln-Douglas debates was an hour for the first debater to present his case on an issue, 90 minutes for the second debater to respond, and 30 minutes for the initial debater to address points the second debater made. That may not make a good TV show, but Americans would learn a lot more about each candidate’s ability to do the job they seek.

Voters, meanwhile, need to remember they’re not electing a president; they’re choosing a presidency. Consider not just the candidate but who will be helping them deal with taxing situations. Age matters, but with Trump and Biden only three years apart, their age difference doesn’t mean much. Trump has been caught on video numerous times in recent weeks looking and sounding like he’s having a senior moment. If it happens in the next debate, will he, too, be asked to step aside?

Harold Jackson, a winner of the Pulitzer Prize, is a former editorial page editor at The Inquirer.