Well said. I for one will not be watching. Because I actually care about policy so why should I waste my time?

But of course there is an even more pressing reason, in this particular case, not to watch. Namely, why should anyone want to hear what a twice-impeached, guilty of sexual assault, business fraudster, convicted felon has to say? As I remarked elsewhere here on Medium, when someone asked if I was going to watch the debate, I replied "Hell no! I'd rather have Tabasco sauce poured in my eyes!"

However, since presidential debates are now the politics version of the Super Bowl, I will probably watch some of the Pre-Game show and the Post-Game show while munching popcorn.

It is what it is... and that is primarily a source of material for comedians. So, yeah, calling it a "debate" is beyond ridiculous. But I think you are too generous to call it a "stump speech." At this point... I would call it two elderly men doing a reenactment of the Holyfield v Tyson fight... and we know who the ear-biter is. *sigh*