Presidential Debate I

Did you catch the first Presidential debate last night?

The general consensus seems to be that Mitt Romney won. If you're judging it based upon style, I would tend to agree that Romney had the edge, he seemed more prepared, he controlled the tone and direction, he did a better job of laying out his plans and he just looked more comfortable on stage.  President Obama on the other hand seemed to take a more conservative approach, he seemed a bit aloof, he rambled a bit, he wasn't making eye contact and most importantly he wasn't nearly aggressive enough in calling out Mitt Romney's on his plans or his inconsistencies.  It was kind of like watching a football team going into a prevent defense. 

Here's my question though, does the above make someone the winner of a debate?  Shouldn't substance also matter?  Romney made some very misleading statements, he walked back many of his stated positions, he continued to avoid specifics.  The fact checkers seem to be having a field day with many of Romney's comments.  Shouldn't those things also be weighed when deciding a debate winner?  It seems to me that perhaps people were, like they are apt to do, making a premature judgement on the winner.  I'm guessing that in retrospect many people will remember this debate more for the lies that Mitt Romney told rather than for his supposed great performance.