How is commenting on the facts "victory for the proposer, Bruce Schneier, looks certain. The vast majority of voters have agreed with him" in anyway editorializing?
I would hate it hn was reduced to "let's not offend anyone, groupthink" titles. Like "link to article."
People submit articles, they get to and should add their personality to the title. Otherwise why even have them, just suck title from page.
In order to see who was convinced, you'd need those polled to have given their opinion before the debate and after, to calculate any change in opinion.
EDIT: I wanted to clarify a bit more the distinction I mean to draw between 'factual' and 'true'. "Schneier hands former TSA boss his ass" is (for a reasonable definition of the terms) 'true', but so, presumably, is "Former TSA boss attempts to spread message in an unsympathetic forum". I would call both versions true but editorial ('editorialistic'?); whereas I would call something like "87% of people polled disagree with former TSA boss on security measures" factual.