Sorry if you're going to tell me that having a debate between the two candidates who are still in the election in any way hurts the democratic process I have to believe you have anterior motives behind your comment. No one with a basic understanding of democracy could logically come to that conclusion.

The primary reason is that if these democratic voters want to win in the general election, they should start to unify behind the candidate who has, for all intents and purposes, won the primary. Hosting another debate would work against this and support the false narrative that the race is still up in the air.

What the hell are you talking about? If the Democratic voters want to win the election, they should unite behind the candidate who, for all intents and purposes, has the greatest chance of winning the election.

Would you have a debate if Bernie had dropped out? No. Would you have a debate if she had already mathematically secured the nomination? No.

If she has secured the nomination, why isn't she the nominee? According to you, continuing the primary is bad for her, the voters, and the Democratic process, so why are tens of thousands of people working for and millions of dollars continuing to be poured in to the ongoing primary primary process? She is not the nominee and she hasn't secured anything. She is currently under investigation by the FBI while running for president. why is that just thrown out the window as if it's irrelevant. What kind of idiotic, irresponsible party would not conintinue the primary while the candidate in the lead has rapidly dropping poll numbers, a federal investigation, and openly breaks promises she has made to the American public?

Would you have a debate if her odds of winning the primary were over 99% with only a few states remaining (which is the case)?

Of course I would have a debate if she was the least likely to win in the general election! What kind of fucked up logic comes to the conclusion that likelihood of winning the general is irrelevant to the primary?