What Makes a Great Debate?

The first presidential debate happened last night.  I've recently uncomfortably found myself to be a political junkie and have been catching up on it, reading the news about it, and in general enjoying the excitement.  There is one thing I'm noticing during all the hubbub; the current debate format isn't good.

I read one analysis that said the debate seemed undisciplined, and seemed to bemoan with Mr. Lehrer the loss of the final section for discussion.  This doesn't really bother me.  Perhaps it's because the nebulous sounding topic "governance" seems a little less interesting than the rest of the debate topics, but I feel it's because the discussion seemed fruitful and intelligent.  Cutting off the speakers to cram in some extra talking points would have diminished what the audience was able to glean.  The article I read also said the debate was too specific, with things like Simpson-Bowles plans and Dodd-Frank bills, but I disagree.  This disagreement actually has a very fundamental basis.

Politics often seems watered down to triviality these days.  Our "sound-byte society," short attention spans, and internet meme making abstracts out deeper understanding of complex issues, and issues like the role of government, economics, and law are deeply complex.  I'm glad the candidates got plenty of time to go back and forth in explaining their ideas, getting into details and nuances that usually get lost in "let's move on to the next topic."

The Lincoln-Douglas debates were three hours a piece, each candidate getting a total of 90 minutes (split into 60 and 30 minute periods for whoever went first).  Now, candidates typically have 2 minutes going back and forth until the moderator wants to move on to the next topic.  You can say a lot in two minutes, but I don't think you should have to.  There are many things which require some time to explain the nuance (and I've now used the word twice within as many paragraphs, but I just find it so appropriate that I'm OK with this generally inadvisable writing practice).

Perhaps I'm informed by a scientific background, how many scientific theories would have ever gotten off the ground if some theoretical Einstein Bohr debates had only allowed the scientists to speak for a few minutes at a time? None of the important mathematical formulations could have been presented, the evidence and experimental methods of testing would be reduced to barely challengeable data tossed into the fray, and ultimately the question of how our world works would be answered not by who had the most complete and consistent ideas but who was more pithy and charismatic.  I worry that's what's happening in how a great and powerful nation is being led.