Following last month’s Republican presidential debate, America’s commentariat resoundingly anointed one clear winner: the organizer, Fox News. The network’s Brett Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace were lionized for asking candidates uncomfortable questions and limiting them to short answers, resulting in a fast-paced, contentious debate.

Kudos came from such unlikely Fox supporters as the New York Times’ Frank Bruni (“It was great television, and even better politics”[1]), the Huffington Post’s Daniel Marans (“Fox’s moderators dictated the tone and themes of the debate”[2]), and the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen (“It conducted a bang-up debate”[3]).

So credit Fox for a lively event. But if viewers wanted to identify the candidates with the best understanding of the issues and the most thoughtful policy ideas—that is, if they were trying to figure out who would be a good president—it was mostly useless. The debate’s very design, in which candidates were given no more than 60 seconds to answer questions they had not seen beforehand, without notes or presentation aids, allowed for little more than simplistic, rhetorical responses.

Someone might say that such answers reveal what candidates really think, what their values are and how they would govern. That’s nonsense—at least, for good candidates.

The foreign and domestic problems facing the United States are complex and difficult. There are no obvious “all-win, no-lose” policies to fix any of them; if there were, they would have been implemented with bipartisan support long ago. Rather, policy responses to the nation’s toughest issues involve trading off different sets of costs and benefits.

That doesn’t mean that one policy is no better than another, but it does mean that good decision makers—even ones who faithfully follow strong political philosophies—must work through careful analysis and draw on different values (that often conflict with each other) when making their policy choices.

Good candidates understand this and have been thinking through these issues for years. But how can good candidates show that thoughtfulness and really explain their ideas to the American people in off-the-cuff comments of 60 seconds or less?

Consider that the best segment of the debate—and the only segment in which the Fox moderators momentarily lost control—was the exchange between New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul over homeland security. The two have very different ideas of what tradeoffs are acceptable between domestic surveillance and personal privacy, and their ideas are rooted in meaningful values of public safety and individual liberty.

Their opposing views are sincere, deeply held, and well considered. As the United States continues to face the threat of 21^st century terrorism and the fallout of questionable policies adopted following the 2001 terrorist attacks, this is one of the nation’s most important issues. And yet, just as the two candidates’ discussion got interesting, the Fox moderators cut it off.

So what did viewers really get from the debate? For the most part, sloganeering intended to stir emotions rather than persuade minds. That’s a disservice to good candidates and voters. But, in 60 seconds or less, what else could the candidates do?

It thus shouldn’t be surprising that the political winner of the debate—at least according to opinion polls[4]—is the candidate whose campaign is largely just bravado: Donald Trump. In the past few weeks, his lead over the other Republicans has grown, even though he displayed little understanding of important issues in the debate and offered few policy ideas beyond vague promises to “do deals” that will magically solve America’s problems.

Trump is precisely the sort of candidate who prospers in forums like Fox’s debate. And given the cheers that the network has received, expect the organizers of upcoming debates to copy the network’s formula.

In 1858, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas crisscrossed Illinois engaging in a series of debates in which the first would speak for an hour, the second would respond for 90 minutes, and the first would then have 30 minutes to conclude. Despite the three hours of oratory, thousands attended the debates, eagerly cheering and booing what they heard, and transcripts of Lincoln’s and Douglas’s remarks were printed and circulated nationwide.[5]

I’m not saying that today’s candidates should each be given 90 minutes of debate time to argue their points. But advance notice of the questions, sufficient speaking time to develop a clear argument and the freedom to use a PowerPoint slide or two don’t seem like too much to ask. That’s especially true in an election as important as 2016’s.