One is about as likely to have a successful argument with Batgirl about Morphy, as they are to play as well as Paul did in his less than two years of serious play. 
Young, aspiring players should study the games he played from his simultaneous exhibitions where his emphasis on development and his technic of increasing and exploiting his lead in development.
What are your goals when you give your students this exercise? Are you hoping they learn ideas like how to develop and how to attack when they have a lead in development, or are you actually hoping they will guess a fair percentage of his moves? Morphy and Anderssen played some seriously deep tactics.
I feel I must disagree with a lot that's been mentioned here.
"That is why he refrained from accepting gambits."
Except for twice when he employed the Falbeer against Schulten, I don't know of any KGs, Bishops Gambit, Kieseritzky Gambit or Evans Gambit that Morphy ever declined.
He declined some Queen's Gambits, but they really aren't true gambits in the same sense.
The positional element of Morphy's play might be overstated. It's true you don't see the fireworks as often when he played the masters, but it seems that's more to their credit than to any change in Morphy's style. He might have employed some postional considerations, but over all he was a combinative player, regardless his opponent.
"He would try to avoid getting embroiled in combinational-situations."
I can't imagine Morphy ever avoiding combinational situations. Morphy's entire definition of a chess genius, a class where he himself considered he belonged, was that such a person created the positions from which combinations flowed. He had absolutely no patience for the "endless shifting of pawns" and considered combinations the highest art in chess.
"It was said that the two good noblemen made Morphy sit with his back to the stage because they would not allow him to watch the show.They wanted him to concentrate on the game as they had paid him a substantial fee to play with them. In those days rich patrons were willing to pay a lot of money to famous masters just to play with them! Needless to say Morphy was very annoyed and decided to trounce them in double-quick time so that he could enjoy watching the rest of the opera! "
That's not true at all. First the Duke and the Count were social acquaintances of Morphy. They played individually and in different combinations of consultation at the salons and châteaus of Princess Murat, Duchess de la Trémoille and Mme. D'Angely. They also frequently played at the Opera.
Morphy would no sooner accept money to play chess than he would slit his own throat. Nor is it likely that someone like the Duke or the Count would make such a social blunder as to offer him money.
Now we don't really know any of the particulars that took place on that Novemer evening at the Opera, but rather surmised what likely happened from a passage by Fred Egde in his book on Morphy where he describes one of their encounters on a different night. We know it's a different night because the Opera on this October evening at the Théâtre-Italien was Bellini's Norma, and not Rossini's Il barbiere di Siviglia.
Edge wrote:
H. R. H. the Duke of Brunswick is a thorough devotee to Caïssa; we never saw him but the was playing chess with someone or other. We were frequent visitors to his box at the Italian Opera; he had got a chess-board even there, and played throughout the performance. The Duke's box is right on the stage; so close, indeed, that you might kiss the prima donna without any trouble. Morphy say with his back to the stage, and the Duke and Count Isouard facing him. Now it must not be supposed that he was comfortable. Decidedly other wise; for I have already state that he is passionately fond of music, and, under the circumstances, wished chess at Pluto.
And that.... is all we know.