A single debate won’t win or lose an election, but it can place, at last, the proper frame over the argument. Instead of the seemingly endless loop of small-ball thrust and parry, potential voters were treated Wednesday night to an intense, detailed examination of the fundamental differences between President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.

In our view, this accrued to Romney’s benefit. Choosing a debate winner, or loser, is extraordinarily subjective, although on this one last week from the University of Denver, there appears to be little disagreement.

Viewed another way, the real winner was data. This newspaper has not been alone in insisting that the candidates get specific about their visions for the nation at such a critical time. We’ve longed for a true issues-oriented debate for months, going on years. Wednesday night, we actually got it, and it elevated the level of this vital election contest.

Pressed repeatedly for specifics, a confident and prepared Romney generally offered them — on tax policy, entitlement reform, debt and deficit, and economic growth. Slightly less specific but heartening nonetheless was Romney’s pledge on deficit spending: “I will eliminate all programs by this test, if they don’t pass it: Is the program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I’ll get rid of it.” Easier said than done, of course, but still worth saying.

Obama could not avoid a critique of his administration’s economic performance but responded all night with an oddly subdued and halting defensiveness that worried even his most ardent supporters.

A telling exchange came, unsurprisingly, on health care. The president, in defending Obamacare — a term he says he now embraces — used the example of the Cleveland Clinic and compared its approach to the Independent Payment Advisory Board, designed as a key governmental cost-containment vehicle. Romney, as he did repeatedly, pushed Obama off his talking points by pointing out that the respected Cleveland Clinic typifies the kind of private innovation that he favors over “trickle-down government.”

Or, as Romney put it, “In my experience, government is not effective at bringing down the cost on anything.”

His point here, as on any number of other issues, focused on the defining choice: government first or private industry first.

To be fair, Romney had to have benefited from more than two dozen debates against GOP rivals over the past 18 months, while Obama had trouble shaking off the rust of four years. Still ahead are the vice presidential debate and two more presidential debates.

Aesthetics helped Romney clear one hurdle with undecided voters: appearing presidential. The ideas he used to get there, obviously, will prove more important. How he prosecutes his campaign over these final few weeks will determine the next president — and a determined, data-driven push for fiscal responsibility is the way home.