Debating the GOP Debates

This year's GOP presidential primary has been interesting for many reasons, but one of the most striking is the large number of presidential debates. With 20 debates to date, this primary has already surpassed the 14 debates held in the 2008 GOP primary and is on pace to outnumber the 23 debates in that year's Democratic primary (which lasted until June). In addition to controversies raised within the debates, their sheer number has itself generated controversy. Supporters argue that maximizing the number of debates is ideal in order to fully inform voters about the different candidates; opponents complain that an excessive number of debates runs the risk of creating "debate fatigue," undermining both the quality of the debates and their value to voters.
My initial impression has been that there are too many debates - I certainly don't have time to watch all of them, and can't really even keep up with the soundbites from key moments in each debate. As I've read more, though, I've been somewhat persuaded by the pro-debate arguments: even if individual voters aren't benefiting from each one of the extremely frequent debates, each debate creates the possibility that additional voters will tune in and become more informed about the election. South Carolina's rapid pivot in favor of Newt Gingrich in the week preceding its primary demonstrates the dramatic effect such new information can have on an election.
That said, I'm inclined to think that the debates will soon reach a point of diminishing returns. It seems unlikely that the candidates have much new to say at this point, and I'm not sure that anyone who's ignored the last 20 debates will suddenly take an interest around number 25. However, given the benefits of the debates for the TV stations that hold them, and the perceived opportunities for candidates like Gingrich, I doubt that the pace will slow any time soon.