Not movie night
I remember a behind-the-scenes discussion between an ichthyologist and an animator of a fish movie (right movie, different fish doctor). The specifics of the conversation revolved around an argument about fin movement and the tug-of-war between realism and storytelling, to which the animator responded about like this to 1:50.
One does not rely on a post-apocalyptic movie about a blind gunman to teach oneself about firearms; however, one can use information from those who worked behind the scenes in order to improve one's understanding. I tend to use these works of fiction to bookmark ideas, as demonstrations of what's possible within different situations, with the awareness of CGI and wires and take after take after reset. They're use cases to analyze, sandboxes to play in, and baselines from which to adapt, and that's why I'll keep them. (Thank you for teaching.)
Likewise, the more information, the better when it comes to evaluating those running for office. With both of these speakers, there's repetition of talking points without much elaboration on what they intend to do about the issues involved. The time limits in place have plenty to do with that, and the back-and-forth mudslinging take a chunk of the speakers' allotted time. One uses aggression and interruptions, the other has a tendency to overrun his allotment. (Am I supposed to applaud that there's less interrupting the opponent and more interrupting the moderators? On the part of the latter candidate.)
However, one of the two debaters has included more figures in his responses (if he's lying, those numbers can be fact-checked) and the other relies more heavily (so much more heavily) on repetition - I'd say to his detriment especially on the fracking question to 29:47, since he can't explain or elaborate on his change in position; and info on moratorium? Though I do have to ask about "I've been consistent" - what point was consistent? My best guess with that info is the position on job creation over that on fracking, but I'd want to confirm that guess. It could also be that 'no fracking pending results' does not equal 'no fracking at all.'
There, found the moratorium info. The point of 'no fracking pending results' was used in this article too, but it sounds like one candidate went further in his opposition to fracking with the "I never have" quote and support on that moratorium, and the other explained his change in view more clearly in this debate.
The choice between these two isn't mine to make, but I know which I'd choose if I could.
Adding these articles to wonder why, whether optimistic ('there, there, health impairments and a more well-spoken debate opponent doesn't make for a bad candidate') or pessimistic ("frothy rage" was unfit before the stroke), it seems like 45 is their only argument. (Seriously, he was in the tail end of the debate and the optimist has him up front and up top twice in that article; at least the other writer also compared candidate performance to social media pings.）
Ending with this for my own reasons.