Who said the rules of evidence were only useful in courts of law? From George Wallace of A Fool in the Forest comes a proposal to incorporate the rules of evidence into presidential debates:
Objections based on ideology will not be allowed; the only permissible objections will be those that could be raised under the rules of evidence. If a timely objection is made, the responding candidate would not be permitted to make statements of fact of which he has no personal knowledge, nor to rely on hearsay -- subject, of course, to the admissibility of admissions or prior inconsistent statements by the opposing candidate.
The objections are to be raised by each participant's "Candidate Advocate"; each side will also get one "Bag Carrier," who will transport a briefcase full of notes.
From the tone of George's post, I suspect he isn't holding out any hope that he'll win over the presidential candidates with his proposal. But he's won me over: I truly like the rules of evidence. In addition to presidential debates, I'd also like to see them incorporated into a few debates of my own, namely, all debates with my mother, father, wife, siblings and children--or at least the debates I'm losing, which means most of them.