From a rhetorical poit of view, I saw Merz clearly forced into a corner and outclassed (then again, it was 1:3). Beckmann, Geißler and Schumann brought up almost all the important points and talking points on the issue. As you say, the framing is on the move when moderators talk stuff like Left Party leaders in parliament and Merz has to nod in agreement.

On the other hand, all three tried to get Merz on speaking up about the structural problems earlier -- but couldn't really nail him. But this is important: had Merz realised the gravity of the problem, it wouldn't have been something for a book or drawn-out Basel-II negotiations, but loud proclamations to the media that something must be done, now.

On a more general level, what lacked was a real confrontation: in the end, Merz's posture was "but I want those things, too, don't put things in my mouth!". I had liked if at least Beckmann had actually read Merz's book and confronted him with a selection of his own theses, in addition to burning general neolib talking points and scoring minor points like Rubin being of Goldman Sachs too.

Finally, a small detail: in the beginning, there was a semantical debate cut short by Beckmann about the word "Neoliberal". In fact the same debate I recall having with Martin when he was fresh on ET: Merz reminded people that half a century ago, just the inventors of social market liberalism called themselves "Neoliberal". Curiously, despite his age, Geißler was obviously unaware of this (e.g. Beckmann saved him from embarrassment), and couldn't answer that "Neo"-anything descriptors are repeatedly re-used for the newest versions of whatever even if totally unrelated.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}