[BikerNYC]

In other words...candidates shouldn't debate because its the right thing to do, they should only debate if there is an advantage for them?

[Quix]

Wasn't getting into the SHOULDS.

If one wants to talk about shoulds, probably, as in any situation needing to judge right from wrong; better or worse . . .

One FIRST NEEDS TO KNOW:

1) What's the priority relevant GOAL?
2) What's the criteria/standard of measure informing you of when you've reached the goal?
3) What's the context.

SHOULD Arnold have debated? From Arnold's perspective given all the data in politics of the last 100 years? NO. Nothing to gain, too much potentially to lose.

Should Arnold have debated to have satisfied YOUR notions of fair play or some such? Somehow I don't think that goal of YOURS in YOUR construction of reality etc. divorced from the the wholesale realities of the recall--I just don't think your goal merits that high a priority from the perspective of Arnold's advisors.

In terms of it being a better moral choice to debate Gray Sewerwater Davis?

Hogwash.

Don't wrestle with a skunk. Nothing to win. Lots of time lost in bathing in tomatoe juice.