The tone was probably more important than the content. There were no surprises in anything that was said. Here were two boxers touching gloves. Feisty Ken Maginnis came out of his corner fighting and, as expected, dwelt in some detail on Martin McGuinness's alleged links with the unparliamentary side of the republican movement. The Sinn Fein chief negotiator was, again as expected, low-key in his approach. It was not in his best interests to engage in a polemic against a senior unionist who had taken the huge risk of talking to him under studio lights.
Unionist sources were quite happy, even smug, about their man's performance. Ken Maginn is had posed questions to his republican opponent which few television or radio interviewers were bothering to put any more, but they were questions that still festered in the unionist mind.
The night before the debate Sinn Fein sources were predicting the UUP security spokesman would indeed take this line of attack. Their man's strategy, on the other hand, would be to talk over Ken Maginnis's head to the unionist community in general and encourage them to see that sitting down with Sinn Fein on September 15th was the right and proper thing to do.
Chairing the debate, Gavin Esler popped the obvious question to the UUP speaker: "You are here now, will you be at the table in September?" It may be significant that Mr Maginnis did not say aye or nay, but observed: "If they are coming with their guns and the threat of further violence, then of course there can be no progress."
There was the predictable quota of "what-aboutery". Ken Maginn is reeled off the misdeeds of the IRA and his differently-spelt namesake countered with the aberrations of the British army and the RUC.
The most important aspect of the encounter was that both speakers remained more or less calm throughout. Had equanimity been the first casualty, then we might as well never have switched on.
Once the catalogue and countercatalogue of atrocities had been recited, the debate began to get into some other interesting issues of substance. The chairman seemed more anxious to discuss the issue of decommissioning than the UUP spokesman.
Ken Maginnis appeared to place greater weight on the issue of consent. Asking a Sinn Fein leader to detail the party's thinking on consent is always going to be a futile exercise until all the parties are sitting around that now-famous table. This is one issue where republicans are keeping their cards very close to their chest. There is a widespread assumption that they are reconciled to a partitionist settlement, but that may be an incorrect estimation of their real position. They see themselves as reopening the whole partition settlement of the 1920s in a process where they will be the dynamic element. At the same time, it was interesting that Martin McGuinness did not take fright at the notion of a Northern Ireland assembly, saying that it should be considered along with everything else, including the Union with Britain, when the parties went to the table.
It was no small thing that the protagonists were at least polite to one another. After nearly 30 years of murder and mayhem, civility in Northern Ireland politics would be a major step forward. In this context, the fact that Ken Maginnis used the phrase "with the greatest respect" as he disagreed with a point his opponent had made could turn out to be the real achievement of the evening.