So – assuming you sat through the whole strangely compelling event, as I did – who did you think won?
Chances are that depends on which party you already favoured before the whole shiny process began. On whose outlook you most agreed with – and who you most agreed with already.
So the Daily Telegraph reported: “Miliband flops as outsiders shine.” While the Guardian claimed: “Labour buoyed as Miliband edges Cameron.” In the Mirror it was: “Cam hit for six.” While the Express had: “Cool Cameron on top.”
All of which tells you very little except which papers favour which parties. And you knew that already if you’ve been looking any time in the past several decades.
Oddly, it was the Daily Star that came closest to what you might call the truth, admitting: “No clue who’s won it.”
That paper, though, is throwing all its weight behind the UK Independence Party – and however you rated Nigel Farage’s performance in the great game-show, he’s not on his way to Downing Street.
Neither is Nicola Sturgeon – though she could well have a major part to play in the post-election shake-up if the Scottish National Party does as well north of the border as is generally predicted.
If there was any clear debate winner, it was Sturgeon, who showed a clearer command of the issues than any of her rivals. If I were in Scotland, she’d have my vote (she would have had already – see above). And I won’t mind if, a month from now, she gets to play the role of kingmaker at Westminster.
There may be a certain irony in that prospect. A party whose stated aim is to dismantle the United Kingdom virtually getting to pick its prime minister. But as long as the kingdom remains united, why not?
The Scots, after all, might justifiably complain that they have suffered long enough under rule from London.
And there are plenty of people south of the border who will agree with her assessment that austerity is damaging Britain, not helping it.
That the economy should serve the people, not the other way around.
And that pouring billions of pounds into renewing a nuclear weapons programme that is outdated, dangerous and of zero use in today’s world is plum crazy.
There is just one party in England – at least among those deemed important enough to feature in the debate – which agrees with Sturgeon’s analysis of all those points. Whether or not you agree with them too will determine what you thought of Natalie Bennett’s contribution to the evening.
The Green Party leader was also clear and straightforward, making her points with none of the waffle produced by all four of the men on show. Her succinct put-down of Farage's nonsense about keeping the National Health Service national - simply pointing out the simple fact that the NHS couldn't function at all without its immigrant workers - was a sharp needle to pop an overblown hot-air balloon.
Bennett alone seemed to want to take a longer view than the next five years. And, heaven knows, the short-termism of five-years-at-a-time politics is a major reason why our leaders never seem to grasp the things that really, really matter: pollution, climate change, the wholesale destruction of our global habitat.
I’m hardly the first to remark on what a refreshing change it made to have three women among the line-up of party leaders. And I don’t suppose I’m alone in feeling that all three performed better than any of the men – though Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru unashamedly addressed all her remarks purely to her Welsh constituents.
It’s a strange fact that the only two realistic contenders for a residency at No 10 were the least impressive performers of the lot. At least, that’s how I saw it – an exit poll quoted by most of the national papers put David Cameron third and Ed Miliband fourth. Which hardly justified the headlines writing Miliband off.
In one interesting – and depressing – way the winner, even before the game began, was Farage.
Why else, in a format which allowed for only four questions to be addressed, was one of those questions about immigration?
Perhaps next time we’ll hear more about things that really matter – like education, social housing, energy and transport policy. And yes, climate change, rising sea levels and the rest of it.
Except there won’t be a next time. Not for another five years, anyway. By which time one or more of these seven samurai will have moved the agenda on somewhat.
And maybe – just maybe – someone out there will have realised that this isn’t actually a game. That winning or losing the vote on May 7 matters more than winning or losing at Britain’s Got Talent. Even if it is just a short-term gain.