Some things may be harder than others to fact check, and some may be "grey areas".
But there were also plenty of slam dunk lies that were plain as day and should be noted. Case in point:
- US growth rate
- trade deficit #
- growth rate #
Just to take an example though, is the actual number of the trade deficit as important as the point being made about it?
Look Trump is wrong about the very concept of trade deficits but it doesn't really matter what the figure he says and what it actually is unless they're so insanely far apart for multiple years. And even then it's more about his refusal to admit if he's wrong. If he accepts the "correct" figures, it doesn't really change his argument.
I don't want Trump and Hillary getting a bunch of "false" thrown up just because one of them misstates the trade deficit and the other just goes with the number because it's tangential to the actual argument. And really I don't want them debating what the number is at all.
And even that's being decided by the "fact checker" choosing which source to use for the trade deficit. Maybe Hillary is using 2014 numbers because the 2015 ones weren't out yet when she prepped her talking points on it six months ago or whatever.
The actual number won't matter when they take office anyway because it will be different.
I think trying to real-time score these things or add components of actual debate scoring into what are not in any way real debates just makes them worse than the garbage they already are. That just encourages more controlled sound bite memorization.
Plus, Trump's an unique case, making rules based around him is a losers game I think.
For all the bad he brings to the table, Trump's refusal to stick to the debate rules, to ignore the moderators, etc. is more informative than if he acted like a good little Jeb! and said please and thank you and stuck to the time limits.