Can Okar

The format has been outlined in slight detail by moderator İsmail Küçükkaya. He will not ask the same questions to each candidate and there will be a countdown on answers. Hopefully, the candidates will be allowed to talk with one another and actually clash.

To be clear, this is a massive political event. It’s being shown live on 24 different TV channels and Turkey has basically stopped to watch two men battle it out after Ekrem İmamoğlu took Istanbul from the AKP for the first time in 25 years on 31 March.

I’ll try to be as analytical as possible from a debate perspective. Many moons ago, I competitively debated around the world and then Chief Adjudicated both the World and European Championships. And so, let the games begin – let’s hope it’s not a damp squib.

And to get us kicked off, the event is delayed. Great start lads, great start. The banner on Fox News is selling this as a "historic meeting". The stakes are high with Istanbul set to hold its re-run election next Sunday.

And it begins. The moderator notes how this is the first time in many years and thanks the two candidates for their bravery and confidence in agreeing to the debate. It's a two-screen split - they're small talking about father's day.

Ekrem İmamoğlu throws the first small punch, saying, "I'd rather we could have done this before 31 March but this will have to do." I'm loving that he just used the word "münazara" - for that is what we hope this will be: a real DEBATE!

Moderator lays out the terms of the debate (which were agreed with party reps). It will last 2 hours with a 10 minute break, 3 minute answers with no interruptions but right of response after answers.

First question to Yıldırım: "Why are we even having this second election?" Answer: some weird things happened, there was cheating. We didn't want a new election but the CHP stopped a proper recount so an election was the only option.

He argues that it's not his job to say who cheated or stole votes. That is the role of the YSK. Importantly, the YSK never identified anyone who actually cheated so that leaves the question unanswered.

Over to İmamoğlu: "Completely wrong to say CHP tried to stop a recount." And we have our first prop - a picture of TV news declaring an AKP lead on the night of the election and noting that the AA stopped delivering election data with Yıldırım declaring he'd won.

İmamoğlu is on his third prop. He's come very prepared but his future props will need to be much simpler to understand. So far, Yıldırım has displayed his laidback, some would say low energy. İmamoğlu has come out of the traps with more volume and more energy.

A very technical minute from İmamoğlu on how the vote recount worked - now he's onto his strong suit of how only one election out of four got cancelled. He's using the example of a 20 TL note and claiming only 5 TL of it is fake. Angry at AKP saying "it was stolen".

Yıldırım is really doubling down on the narrative of the lead falling from 29k to 14k and that this shows how the election would have been won by AKP if the votes could have been recounted for longer. Yıldırım also has his first prop by the way.

Answer from Yıldırım on the 4 elections in the same envelope: "But the elections are counted separately." But the question was about how the same people counted all of them. I have to say, that answer was not particularly persuasive.

Yıldırım: "We only wanted what was best for Istanbul and for any suspicion of cheating and lawlessness to be laid to rest. We didn't want a re-election." My sense is polling is saying that a lot of voters are angry that this election is even happening.

So far, this has not really been a debate. Both candidates are pushing their own narratives but there is very limited clash or ability to clash. I hope that changes when we get onto positive material rather than the retrospective on the rationale for the re-run.

Moderator asks how İmamoğlu would persuade people who voted for Yıldırım first time round. He starts by continuing with his earlier theme of 31 March being a debacle for democracy. He really should answer the question at some point soon.

Now pivots to why people should vote for him. "This is a fight for democracy, a fight for Istanbul, a fight for normalisation and a fight against waste." Good line. I really hope the moderator allows them to start clashing more because this is not working so far.

Yıldırım not happy with İmamoğlu using "kul hakkı" and "kibir", roughly translated as "what is rightfully yours" and arrogance. Shows a bit more energy and tells İmamoğlu not to lie. İmamoğlu just smiles and takes a note. I think he sees an opportunity here.

Yıldırım not happy with the moderation but for a different reason. He doesn't want to talk about 31 March or 6 May. I happen to agree with him because it makes for a terrible debate but I don't think it's a good tactic for him to try to move it on.

Yıldırım needed to practice using his props because it's a bit messy. He's talking about how much the AKP has done over 25 years in response to a question about why AKP hasn't already done what it is now promising to change. Talking about water and travel.

The biggest danger Yıldırım had in this debate was being very low energy. He's so far been really slow and is now also getting a bit angry with the moderator again. He will need to calm down but speed up if he is to get into this.

İmamoğlu now gets to respond to that comment about how he shouldn't lie. Keeps cool but basically slams Yıldırım as hard as his demeanour allows. The second hour of this could get quite tasty if they're allowed to talk to one another.

Yıldırım really wants to ask questions directly but the moderator isn't allowing it. İmamoğlu discusses what he achieved in 18 days but that most of the AKP's promises now are actually the CHP's manifesto.

Now the debate takes an interesting turn. Moderator allows each candidate to ask one question to the other, whatever they want. İmamoğlu first: "What does the AA's decision to cut election data mean to you? Who put up posters declaring you'd won. And who actually stole votes?"

Answer 1: "Not my responsibility." Not great. Answer 2: "We won 24 of the Istanbul municipalities so the posters were for them." Then why was Yıldırım's photo on those posters? Answer 3: No answer yet. İmamoğlu wins that round by a mile. Over to Yıldırım - curious what he asks.

Yıldırım asks: "Why did you give an order to copy all of the Istanbul data the moment you arrived? Did you not realise that this breaks laws on personal data or did your lawyers mislead you?" If that is the shock question, Yıldırım doesn't have the big surprise some expected.

İmamoğlu: "We were just making backups of data. We were worried data would be compromised. This is no big deal." And now it's about to kick off. Yıldırım wants to ask again, İmamoğlu says if it's going to be a debate, the moderator should just leave and they can fight it out.

We go to a 10 minute break. My fingers are pretty much burning off from all the typing and simultaneous translation mixed with analysis. I'm going to take a break too but my score at this point: İmamoğlu winning fairly easily but the second half will get angry I reckon.

I'm back and so are the candidates. Viewed as a pure debate, you can tell Turkey hasn't had a debate for decades. The quality is poor, from both debaters but Yıldırım's low energy and spiking anger are currently harming him. İmamoğlu needs to move to positive material.