There is no need for debates to be white glove or to imitate the most rancid forms of parliamentarism – although even the most parliamentary parliament in the world, the House of Commons, preserves traditions and promotes the most naval attitudes. Even it is good to understand from the staging that TV is a show and that you have to stain a bit of mud, but I do believe that a certain tone should be maintained. Since the electoral debates are many bands, I can hardly distinguish them from a set of Save me, and I do not know if it is the candidates who promote this tabloid connotation or it is the format itself that directs them to it.
A bit of anger and some tone outputs are fine. There is no interesting discussion that does not warm up a bit, and overacting is also an acceptable rhetorical device among ladies and gentlemen. If everyone kept the forms and the distances it would mean that nobody said anything capable of hurting the sensitivity of the other, and if you can not scandalize your opponent, you are not an opponent for him. But when fallacies abound ad hominem (or ad feminam) and when threats of lawsuits fall, the debate has died. The brawl becomes personal and absolutely irrelevant to the viewer, who continues to watch for pure morbid (the pedants who read Derrida called this scopic drive).
A struggling moderator at Angel Christ's tamer school can control two contenders, but Tarzan himself could not bring order to a table of four or more. I pity those who have to shepherd those four Iberian males that are going to clash their horns on TVE. I recommend putting a lot of bromide in the catering and that the coffees are decaffeinated, or there will not be a single Spaniard who understands a shit.