The process of rational argument is hygienic. What we got instead was a televised fundraiser/gabfest. It was interesting for about 20 minutes.
Did you mean to say “not?” As in, “They should [not] have called this the Lincoln-Lincoln debates.” I can agree to that. I expected to hear a lot more of what they differed on (there were a few polite moments), so I don’t disagree that the name brought to mind something different than what we got.
However, I must say, that I don’t care to hear any bickering or arguments. This isn’t the 1700’s anymore. We have the internet. We can be informed on what is happening without a “Debate” at all. Here’s what we CAN’T do (well, can, but it hasn’t happened yet) and that is have a time set apart for a candidate (or candidates) to make their case for why they should be the next president, not why someone else SHOULDN’T. That is the EXACT problem with the two party system that is a failure, and which we were warned against. If you sit and criticize and bicker, and finally destroy one political candidate, there is always another one waiting in the wings, just as bad or worse. But, if you are a true patriot, and make that case, then I don’t care who else is put up against you, you’re going to win. And if you get several in one election, who cares! Then you get to have one of many good candidates. This was a real step in the direction of finding winners, not culling losers ‘till you get one loser in the end. And that, I am grateful for.