IDK, I actually do think it was a slam dunk, mainly because Hayden only brings anecdotal data.
I mean, because of the same secrecy the intelligence apparatus claims as essential, there is no way to objectively know if what he said is objectively true or merely what he understands to be true.
(I wont' get into why I don't trust what he said and how his words can easily be interpreted more than one way, instead I'll just say that when a debater utters the words "trust me" to prove a point, he basically just threw in the towel.)
Sure, some people might still be persuaded by him, but at least they heard both sides make their case.
Hayden only makes the case that he's to be trusted. He didn't even try to make the case that its useful, only that he believes it could be useful, while Dershowitz makes the case that whats in place right now is inadequate, but, that it will get better.
Two very tortured points. And let me be clear, I did not hear them argue the facts as they stand, they argued for a platonic version of surveillance, (Which would include targeting the wrong people, just with good reason)
Greenwald makes the case that it hasn't been useful and that it should be targeted, with facts within everyone's reach.
Ohanian argued that it was counter to security. (I think he was a bit timid in driving the point home though, but still, a crucial point)
Seems like a slam dunk to me.