Which things in Debate #1 hurt Trump the most?

[Alcon]

He should have been on the attack more. He did well when he tied his taxes to Clinton's emails, but seemed to back down in every argument after that.

So, according to you, his only fault was not attacking Clinton more. Not anything listed by the OP. Well, I guess that tells everyone here enough about yourself.

All of those gaffes arose because he allowed Clinton to frame the debate, when he ought to have brushed off her attacks and focused on issues of substance, on which she is consistently incompetent. It is asinine that the moderator focused on whether or not a private citizen was sincere in his prescient opposition to the invasion of Iraq, rather than asking the individual who authorized the attack and continued to shill for it for a subsequent ten years. Given even a modicum of preparation Trump ought to have been able to flip all of these attacks against his opponent, but fell into the trap of being on the defensive.

That's such a weird way of framing that.  You're phrasing that like this "private citizen" isn't one of two major-party Presidential candidates, and that it's some sort of irrelevant personal opinion, as opposed to an issue that candidate has used to draw a contrast on judgment.  Trump, not Clinton, is using that as an argument.  Asking Trump this question is having him clarify the logic of his argument (something he hasn't really done to my knowledge); asking Clinton your proposed question would basically be "tell us again how you were wrong" (something she has done, even if you think it was done inadequately).

[Alcon]

He should have been on the attack more. He did well when he tied his taxes to Clinton's emails, but seemed to back down in every argument after that.

So, according to you, his only fault was not attacking Clinton more. Not anything listed by the OP. Well, I guess that tells everyone here enough about yourself.

All of those gaffes arose because he allowed Clinton to frame the debate, when he ought to have brushed off her attacks and focused on issues of substance, on which she is consistently incompetent. It is asinine that the moderator focused on whether or not a private citizen was sincere in his prescient opposition to the invasion of Iraq, rather than asking the individual who authorized the attack and continued to shill for it for a subsequent ten years. Given even a modicum of preparation Trump ought to have been able to flip all of these attacks against his opponent, but fell into the trap of being on the defensive.

That's such a weird way of framing that.  You're phrasing that like this "private citizen" isn't one of two major-party Presidential candidates, and that it's some sort of irrelevant personal opinion, as opposed to an issue that candidate has used to draw a contrast on judgment.  Trump, not Clinton, is using that as an argument.  Asking Trump this question is having him clarify the logic of his argument (something he hasn't really done to my knowledge); asking Clinton your proposed question would basically be "tell us again how you were wrong" (something she has done, even if you think it was done inadequately).

And besides that, accepting mencken's framing implicitly accepts that Trump did oppose the war in Iraq "presciently", and the best evidence he can mount for that is that Sean Hannity will totally tell you that they had phone calls a couple of times about it.

Or, you know, the moderator could have done his homework.

1. That really doesn't address the points I made.

2. This appears to be a video of Trump where the main argument Trump is presenting is that Bush should make a decision.  I don't see Trump expressing personal ambivalence, let alone opposition.  The only "ambivalence" seems to be him stating "maybe Bush shouldn't do it yet" when discussing his deference to Bush's decision-making process.  This doesn't contradict his "yes I guess" response to an Iraq War question.  It's consistent with him supporting the War (somewhat apathetically perhaps), but saying that he respects Bush's decision-making process.  I don't see what in Holt's question is unreasonable considering these facts taken together.