> Is there a need to state the obvious?

There is a need to state the obvious when you are talking about record industry executives who are stating that they disagree with what you or I consider to be obvious.

If it was that obvious, there wouldn't be any debate, would there?

There is no debate. Copyright infringement is not theft. Copyright infringement is also not murder, arson, or vandalism. Words mean something. That's why we have different words for different things. When someone says "Copyright infringement is theft", they're making a rhetorical point by conflating two different things, just like when someone says "All property is theft." This does not mean there is any debate that "property" and "theft" are the same thing.

> There is no debate

Well, I guess you automatically "win" whatever discussion you are having when you open with those four words. I presume the logical next step is for us to switch into Monty Python skit mode:

"There is no debate."

"Yes there is."

"No there isn't."

"Yes there is."

"No there isn't."

"Well the RIAA is debating you, so yes there is."

"No they aren't. They can't simply make a rhetorical point conflating two different things and call that a debate. They have to make something that I agree is a valid debating point."

"No they don't."

"Yes they do..."