No fact checking rewards the candidate who tells the biggest lie

During the debate between Vice President Kam Harris and Donald Trump, host ABC News corrected a handful of Donald Trump’s worst lies. The result was a debate where Harris was able to explain her positions, and an increasingly desperate Trump spun claims of humans eating cats.

But for the vice presidential debate, CBS News has said it will not be conducting any fact checking. CBS is clearly afraid of being portrayed as favoring Gov. Tim Walz if it did address any lies, but not fact checking is not a level playing field.

When a news organization says it won’t fact check statements by candidates, a huge advantage immediately falls to the one willing to tell the most blatant, egregious, and harmful lies. The uglier the lie, the bigger the edge.

Here’s why.

When one candidate tells a lie, the other candidate often has a limited opportunity to respond. Every moment spent making a correction takes away from the time the candidate has to give the information they want to disseminate. The non-liar is left trying to both address the lie and explain their own position, all in a short period

Because of this candidates may allow some lies to go past unchallenged — the liar is well aware of this. Use enough lies, and many will go unaddressed. Which makes it seem that the non-liar agrees.

However, if a lie is dangerous or destructive enough, the second candidate has to respond.

This gives the liar two advantages: the argument is taking place on territory the liar defined, and the issue is now framed as a partisan, rather than a factual dispute. In an unchecked debate, a liar can always seize control by deploying a lie so awful it must be checked.

A debate without fact checking isn’t a level ground. It’s a morality test.

One where the most immoral wins.