It has been a while since I read that debate, but something to keep in mind is that Olavo is a sincere Catholic with traditionalist leanings (highly critical of JPII, for instance) and an impeccable personal history, while Dugin is a politically ambitious 'Russian Orthodox' Nietzschean with a spotted past of involvement in occult initiations. Their differences become plain during the debate; Olavo mentions Fatima and the need for Russia's consecration, for instance. As for who has the more accurate understanding of world politics, I'm not in a position to judge. I find Olavo more convincing.

It should be noted that Olavo supports the state of Israel and does not believe the American Revolution was truly revolutionary. Those positions may send up red flags with traditionalists.

I posted about this debate on FE a few months ago.

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=3448645.0

It's an excellent debate though, and Olavo is so insightful at some points that everyone should read it.

He is truly insightful in many points, and,  people who for example is getting information from Brother Nathanael and RT News should not avoid in getting the information that he provide in that debate.
Although when it comes to the point to talk about  Jєωs, Israel, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and catholic traditionalism he is quite often very, very evasive. One should not forget that he had strong relation with perennialism people like Frithjof Schoun (http://www.sophia-perennis.com/index_english.htm) which  now he claims that he has no more ties to those people.
It is very hard to catch him in direct contradiction but I do feel that something is fish in there. Anyways,  between him and Dugin it is clear for me that he wins the debate in all its aspect.