Typically a two-person debate with panelists asking questions has a rotating format of each question going to Candidate A, Candidate B, Candidate A, Candidate B. Or, a shortened version is Candidate A, Candidate B, Candidate A, with each candidate getting equal numbers of double-responses.
Last night's "debate" between Johnson and Feingold had a ridiculous format that was more like a candidate forum, where both candidates simply answered the same question. This enabled pull-string-response Johnson to simply turn to whatever issue was at hand, pull the string, and recite one of his canned nine answers that most closely resembled the question asked.
Which brings me to my second point-- the "debate" might have been better if the questions weren't so ridiculously basic and vague. Most of these questions allowed pull-string-Johnson to simply plug in his vague, talk radio talking points that we've all heard a thousand times. Feingold tried to smoke him out by saying that he wasn't answering the question or he wasn't being specific, but it was simply onto the next question.
However even with a non-debate format and pretty lame questions, Feingold clearly won the debate.