Presidential debates are always frustrating. There is no settling a presidential debate; it seems like it is almost always a tie. This is, of course, because no one really proves anything. Though McCain and Obama performed well, they both engaged in maneuvers a good student debater could never try to get away with.

First, candidates rarely give what debaters call "warrants;" they do not prove their claims. Partisans may favor one position or another, but there is really little opportunity to assess their strength as candidates fire contradictory assertions back and forth.

For example, McCain might make a claim "we will buy up all the bad mortgages and cut taxes." Obama will rebut, saying something like: "My plan will give breaks to the middle class." On what level are we meant to compare these policies? Each candidate seems to claim that his policy will benefit small business and protect the middle class, but rarely rises above the level of mere assertion.

Some facts, in place of patriotic buzzwords, might provide a basis to determine which claim is the stronger.

Dodging questions, getting rhetorical

At times the debate did become substantive. Obama's explanation of the link between the financial crisis and deregulation was clear and persuasive. McCain directly compared his policy on Iran with Obama's, and an advantage was delineated.

Nevertheless, tenuous argumentation prevailed. McCain explained that we would emerge from the financial crisis because "Americans are the best workers in the world." His explanation for why we did not need to prioritize between health care and energy was an emphatic "We are Americans." It takes more than patriotic appeals to win a debate round. Though the time constraints of the debate prohibit too deep a discussion of the issues, a more factual and less rhetorical approach would facilitate discussion.

Though both candidates dodged questions, Obama was particularly practiced in this maneuver. After being cut off on a discussion about taxes, he craftily shifted the focus of a question about entitlement programs back to his chosen topic, arguing that we could not even examine the question of entitlements before understanding the tax background.

No surprise moves

When Obama used it as an excuse to rattle off his stump speech, McCain had a golden opportunity to shine in comparison by actually addressing the question. But "no president knows what is going to happen" didn't really suffice. Asked what sacrifices he would call on Americans to make, he spoke of eliminating corruption in the Defense Department - a transparently nonresponsive answer.

Ultimately, a warranted, topical debate might not have been in either candidate's interest. By playing defense, pursuing a general perceptual agenda (Obama as an untested elitist, McCain as hotheaded or out of touch), and avoiding the risk of spontaneity, both candidates cut their losses. If both perform adequately, there is no risk. Absent a true substantive clash on the issues, no one can lose. On the other hand, no one can really win either.