Fact, I guess is less open to interpretation. Fair enough. Regardless, why does one side exagerate the "shortcoming" of the other when the "facts" are enough to stand on their own? It's a rhetorical question. It would be refreshing to see in one of these post debate analyses that the commentator had nothing to correct.
For that to happen, aside from the obvious lack of "facts" in debates, you would have to find a commentator who had not already chosen sides.