In the 60's, I used to watch The Firing Line on PBS, hosted by conservative William F. Buckley. I usually disagreed with Buckley's right-leaning position, but I enjoyed watching him craft his arguments. In most cases, he was neither more fair / logical / rational than his opponent, but he frequently made the better case or broke even.

I only saw two opponents get the better of Buckley: Truman Capote on the subject of capital punishment, and Stokely Carmichael on Black power (or some similar topic). Capote simply out-argued Buckley, armed with facts and logic. Carmichael didn't argue at all; he was pure rhetoric, poetry of a sort, never once accepting Buckley's givens. Buckley couldn't establish traction, much less an advantage.

Since then, I've seen a few episodes in which a liberal / radical didn't lose ground (particularly Noam Chomsky, who used facts / history to bolster his position).

I haven't seen anyone from the right (including the current editors and columnists at National Review) maintaining the standards of Buckley's discourse. Most so-called debaters today are more like the John Cleese character in the Monty Python "I've come here for an argument" skit.

Ah, the good old days.