Political debates really serve little purpose. They do, sometimes, distort the vote depending on who performs best. It all started with Kennedy v Nixon, which arguably won the 1960 Presidential election for JFK (though some would credit Mayor Daley of Chicago and his team of vote-riggers). But look at America now. The "presidential" debates have gotten way out of control. We've had squllions of debates with squillions of Republican and Democrat hopefuls this year, the year before the presidential election.

In Australia, we've only had them since 1984, when Bob the Hawke's winning margin was dented by a flat performance against Andrew the Peacock. The issue is raised, as usual, in 2007. As usual, little Johnny wants one debate, under his rules, and as early as possible.

Kevin Rudd wants three, including one on Youtube, and he wants the infamous "worm" running along the bottom of the screen. Noble tilt at transparency Kev, but we'll all be bored shirtless by three debates over the next five weeks. And anyway, Youtube is still a niche medium, and to some extent, elitist.

It's absurd to have the one and only debate five weeks out from polling day. But it's organised, and Rudd says he hasn't made up his mind yet whether he will go. But to put it simply, he has to take part in Sunday night's "debate". It would look far too petulant for him not to. Nothing to stop him offering (and being refused) two more debates in the coming weeks.

Debates don't do much for me. I'm happy enough to see the two of them get equal time and equal questions on consecutive nights. More to the point, however, I'd love to see some of the portfolio reps go head to head: Costello v Swan, Turnbull v Garrett, Downer v a wet paper bag (no disrespect to Robert McLelland - my point being that I would put my money on the bag).