It was a 3 vs 1 for a lot of it, but Carney held his own. In typical debate criteria, sure you can say Poilievre was able to talk the loudest and most able to make his case uninterrupted, so saying he "won" is a plausible interpretation of events. But credit to Carney, from a zoomed out Macro view, it was one soft-spoken reasonable guy vs. 3 career politicians.

I don't know how anyone doesn't see Trump-mini when they hear Poilievre speak. But nonetheless...

Singh was give and take with Carney, kept a narrow focus on a subset of issues, acted as the "attack dog" for Carney against Poilievre.

Blanchet laid out a reasonable case for Quebec, definitely fell somewhat short of being able to convince the people that are putting Quebec separatism aside for national unity at this current moment.

Carney, went with a strategy to never punch down and hardly wavered from that, drawing a huge contrast to Poilievre. The question is whether voters will take anything away from that debate.