Well now, I suppose you are intentionally impugning the Lincoln-Douglas debates now as well?
I'm going to take a wild guess that you have no clue about the actual Lincoln-Douglas debates.
In the Lincoln-Douglass "debates", there were just the two candidates, with no moderator, nobody asking questions.
At each debate, one candidate spoke for a full hour. The second candidate then got to respond and also speak for 90 minutes. Finally, the first candidate made a 30-minute response.
So this event was NOT a Lincoln-Douglass-style debate. But was it a "debate"?
In a real debate, one side takes a position on an issue, and then the other side argues against that position, using facts and rhetoric to dissuade the audience, while the first person uses facts and rhetoric to bolster his position. Of course, political debates are rarely like this, and we actually get upset when candidates address each other. And debates in primaries are often odd because the candidates agree about many things, and would really like to attack the opposition.
But this event tonight had none of the signatures of either a classical debate, or a political debate. It was a side-by-side press conference. Occasionally, Cain or Gingrich would address something the other said, but mostly they stuck with their own points in answer to the questions.
There were a couple of times they got close to "debating", like on Social Security, but they never really did it in a way that sounded like "I disagree with your plan, and here is why" that would be a "debate" style.
So, to answer your ignorant question -- my comment was JUST A COMMENT. Tonight was very interesting, it wasn't a debate. My comment had NOTHING to do with the L-D debate, of which this was NOT an example. And the very idea that some random comment could "impugn" a debate series from the past is laughable.
Snarky comments rarely work when you have no idea what you are talking about. You should study some.