Debates: “No more debates,” says Republican front-runner Donald Trump. Huh? With four months to go to the Republican convention and the field narrowing, debates have never been more crucial — both for the party and the nation.

“I think we had enough debates,” Trump said last Friday, a day after a CNN debate moderated by Jake Tapper. “How many times do you have to give the same answer to the same question?” Not long after that, he bowed out of a Fox News debate  scheduled for next Wednesday night in Salt Lake City, citing a prior speaking engagement at a policy conference held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. John Kasich, who increasingly seems to be running for vice president, also withdrew.

Immediately, presidential candidate Ted Cruz put the needle to Trump. “His excuse is silliness, and reflects his assumption that he thinks the voters can’t figure out that he’s not telling the truth,” Cruz told Fox News host Megyn Kelly, adding, “he’s scared to debate.”

We fully understand why Trump doesn’t want to debate. To put it gently, it’s not his forte, and he has a strong lead and a near-certain glide-path to the nomination. So why risk it? Especially since the remaining serious candidate, Cruz, is a champion debater and would likely crush Trump and Kasich in either a one-on-one or a one-on-two format.

But there’s more at stake here. This is a pivotal election in modern American history. At stake is not only the presidency, but quite possibly the fate of  the 162-year-old Republican Party.

Trump would do well to remember: He may go into the Republican Convention without the 1,237 delegates required to win the nomination. If so, after a first-ballot vote, most of the delegates will be released from having to vote for the candidate who won their state, and go to someone else.

If Trump fails to win on the first ballot, will delegates turn around and vote for him if he refuses head-to-head debates with the one person who might be able to beat him? Trump has been all over the place during his campaign, contradicting himself on nearly every topic — immigration, defense,  foreign policy, taxes, trade, you name it. A debate format on a stage not populated with half a dozen candidates who don’t stand a chance but, rather, one determined, focused conservative — Cruz, not Kasich — would be edifying for average Americans watching.

No candidate should be able to slouch towards the nomination without any kind of formal challenge from his competitor. Certainly not one who’s never served in elective office in his life. It’s fundamentally undemocratic. Trump would also face a feisty and aggressive Hillary Clinton in face-to-face debates. Liberal media are already licking their chops at the prospect: “How Hillary Should Debate Donald,” ran a headline in Slate last week.

Americans deserve to know what Trump’s real beliefs are, what principles if any he holds dear and how he would comport himself as both our head of state and commander in chief. Will he be a constitutionalist? Tight with the federal purse? A regulation-cutter?

We don’t know. That’s why more debates are needed. Imagine, if you will, the 1860 election if Stephen A. Douglas had refused to debate Abraham Lincoln. At any rate, Trump’s new rope-a-dope strategy, flying hither and yon to make wisecracks to adoring followers without serious intellectual challenge, doesn’t befit a future president of the United States.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/no-mr-trump-we-havent-had-enough-gop-debates/