What's The Point of a Debate?

After the republican debate, the tv station airing the debates said some analysis would follow. Their "analysis" consisted of asserting who "won" or "lost" the debate (with little to no reference to the content of the debate), and employed extensive use of sports and boxing metaphors. They might as well have been saying: "Did all those issues confuse you? Let us tell you what to think about the candidates."

What I would prefer the media do is the following:
1). Re-cap the major logical flow of the debate (since that can be unclear in the moment)
2). Try to identify what are the right questions to ask from here.

For example, the commentators summarized the argument between Obama and Clinton with the phrase "experience vs. change" (which itself arguably confuses and obfuscates more than it clarifies). Then they proceeded to discuss how "strong" or "weak" each candidate's performance was (not even how strong or weak their positions were). What I wish the commentators had said was something like this:

"Clinton said she stands on her experience. Her position seems to be that experience is necessary to convert words and ideas into useful action. Edwards, on the other hand, seemed to be suggesting that too much experience could hinder a president's ability to make real change, because they'd be too entrenched in the system. The next step in this debate is for both candidates to explain exactly what kinds of experience are important to a presidency and why. What, exactly, does a president need to do to get support for their program? What can cause their efforts to fail? What personal qualities, or expertise is required for them to succeed?"

Without this focus on what the candidates are actually saying it is, as one commentator approvingly described the event, "pure theater."