Jim Tankersley of the Toledo Blade writes:

Republican Mike DeWine and Democrat Sherrod Brown argued, interrupted, name-called, and late-hit their way onto the national stage yesterday morning, in the kickoff debate of a U.S. Senate race that now appears as uncivil as it is competitive.

Stephen Koff of the Cleveland Plain Dealer began with a similar take:

When the Democrat says his opponent "should be ashamed of himself" and the Republican says his foe is on the political fringe and has a "very, very slim" record, you just know they won't get along.

In a separate piece, Koff concludes that the debate produced little new ground:

The two said little that's new. Asked if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should have been replaced for his handling of the war, DeWine reasserted earlier statements that he lacks confidence in Rumsfeld. But pressed on whether Rumsfeld should go, DeWine said that's Bush's decision to make, "and I'm not going to tell the president what to do in this regard."

Jack Torry and Jonathan Riskind spin things similarly in the Columbus Dispatch

Pointing fingers and talking over each other until Meet the Press moderator Tim Russert pleaded for a "timeout," Sen. Mike DeWine and challenger Rep. Sherrod Brown engaged yesterday in a contentious debate over the war in Iraq, who would better protect the nation from terrorists and tax cuts.

Jessica Wehrman of the Dayton Daily News had a more nuanced insight into the pre-debate strategies of the campaigns:

Sen. Mike DeWine and Rep. Sherrod Brown spent the first of their four scheduled debates trying to paint themselves in stereotypes they've been trying to create throughout the campaign: DeWine as a bipartisan consensus builder and Brown as a scrappy fighter for the middle class. . . .

But each also spent the more than 30-minute session knocking down the other's self-described image, and what resulted was a contentious, interruption-filled sparring session punctuated with finger-wags and scoldings.

Meanwhile, Steve Hammer of the Associated Press described Russert as more of a mediator than a moderator:

Similar exchanges plagued the rest of the debate. Moderator Tim Russert had to shout "time out" several times to stop the candidates.

The question for readers are several fold:

Should debate coaches coach their candidates to "point fingers" and "talk over" each other?

Do debates run counter to "civil" discourse?

Does spin of debates undermine the salience of the arguments?

Is it possible to have a debate and have nothing new happen?  If so, what is the moderator's responsibility for ensuring that the debate actually makes news?