I am curious why the presidential debates actually matter at this day and time?  Information on both candidates, and their records, are there.  So, why do the debates matter?  Mitt Romney has been running for president like 8 years now,and Obama has been president for 4 years.  Both have had large number of debates and repeatedly under the microscope.  So, in light of this, why do these debates matter?  Like, I am perplexed at someone who said we all should just shut up, watch the debates, and then make a decision based on the debates.  As opposed to the other material?

Sure, Romney and Obama have been making their respective cases at exhaustive length for months and years now, but it's one thing to be able to sit there and make claims and distort your opponent's positions when he can't really respond directly. It's another thing entirely to try and do it to his face. Obama, for instance, is considered very good with prepared remarks. He's very poised whenever he merely has to repeat something he has practiced saying or read it off a teleprompter. But in a less controlled debate environment, he simply melted. That indicates a lack of fluency in the issues of the day, and it's kind of an important thing.

I guess it is, because people wants to see who owns who, in a live "conversation" :D

Of course it's important! Voting based off internet fact sheets is ridiculous when instead you could actually hear the candidate saying his policies. For example online it would say "Romney will cut PBS funding" making everyone think "oh that's bad". In the debate however we get a broader picture saying Romney loves PBS but it isn't worth crippling our future generations to pay for. At the same time debates show how passionate the candidates are on each issue. Again online it might say Obama wants to support clean energy but in a debate you can learn this is a key issue to him, not just one of hundreds.

It's a lot more difficult to lie about your opponent when he's standing a few metres away from you. See it as a way of clearing up misconceptions you hold about both candidates.

I'd think it would be insane if two men ran for president and never met face to face to discuss the merits of their policy. Why is it that everyone else can have a debate on the issues, but not the two men running? I think it matters. I wish it mattered more, honestly. All we get is 6 hours of discussion between the two most powerful men in the world. I'd think that it should mean more.

What is worth borrowing money from China for is a question worth asking here.  Is the U.S global empire worth it?  What exactly is worth it?

PBS is 0.012% of the Federal Budget. It's like saying "I need to clean out my hard-drive" and deleting one .txt file

A LOT of people do not research candidates online. All they know is what the pundits tell them on FOX or CNN, or with some people, they know nothing past their own party-based preconceptions until they see the debate.

There are also a significant number of people who don't really follow much of what is being said, but rather base much of their opinion on their perception of the candidate's character. I remember a woman telling me that she voted for W. Bush because he seemed trustworthy and genuine. Older people, especially, seemed to be influenced by persona, and some believe many women are, as well.

I think this is shown by how many people cite the way the candidates acted, such as being nervous or grouchy, when they decide who "won".

About 99% of the job of a modern president is making a solid argument for their policies to sway the opinion of other elected officials and the electorate ...

While this will rarely/never be done in a debate format, and there are other ways to accomplish this outside of direct argument, debates can demonstrate many of the same skills.