All election week articles are published anonymously to protect our student journalists 

Debates have been an integral part of the electoral process for decades, but when does a debate devolve from an intellectual competition between two candidates to a pointless fight between bitter enemies? Which of these situations is beneficial to the American people? What is the beauty of it all? You, the voter, decide. 

Presidential debates in the American political scene have become synonymous with avoiding questions with vague, diplomatic responses. In recent years, we’ve seen debates that don’t only highlight this characteristic ambiguity, but we’ve also seen a shift towards intolerance for differing opinions. 

Debates have become more heated in recent years. Claims and rebuttals are often more related to the character and accomplishments of the opponents and not to the questions being asked by the moderators. 

Many have thrown harsh criticism at presidential candidates Donald Trump and Kamala Harris for their performance in the September 10 presidential debate. Both candidates avoided questions on policy. 

The debate was formatted so that neither candidate’s microphone was on while the other spoke. The debate lasted 90 minutes. 

Former President Donald Trump’s appearance wasn’t as vivacious as the way he presented himself just four years ago. The reason Trump stood out from the other Republican candidates in the primary debate was how he called out each candidate, the establishment parties, and the media viciously. This year’s presidential debate didn’t showcase that same Trump. This raises questions about Trump’s health and motivation.

 Left leaning news outlets were quick to call the debate a victory for Harris, but right wing outlets attributed much of Harris’s success to the “clearly biased” moderators who continually fact-checked the former president while generally avoiding the vice president with similar fact-checking. 

The Guardian, a generally left-leaning news outlet, was critical of Harris’s lack of clarity on agenda and policy.

“Harris didn’t sketch out much in the way of a governing agenda,” one Guardian writer remarked. “And the aspects she did expound on…were bad, politically and morally.” 

Media outlets on either side of the aisle have repeatedly butted heads on Harris’s performance; the right claims she avoided many questions and the left praises her clarity and fluency of speech. 

The single-handed most memorable moment from the evening was when former president Trump mentioned illegal immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, and the claim that they were eating the dogs and the cats of the people of Springfield. This moment was immediately memed across the internet and turned Trump into a bit of a laughing stock. 

Both Politico and the Daily Wire (left leaning and far right, respectively) were both very clear on one thing; whether or not she won, Harris didn’t gain any major advantages in the polls in the days following the debate. 

Overall, the debate between Trump and Harris appeared to be a minor victory for Kamala Harris. But while the front runners squabbled, their running mates may have out-performed them on multiple levels. 

Tuesday, October 1st, Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) and Governor Tim Walz (D-MN), running mates to Trump and Harris, squared off on the debate stage and, in this, impressed many. 

The VP debate appeared far more civil than the presidential debate. Many in the right wing media had painted Walz as a kook, a claim that we see isn’t rooted in reality. He spoke articulately and proved this to be an extreme exaggeration. Vance was likewise painted as “weird” by his opponents, but he proved to the American people that that statement, too, was a stretch. 

Both candidates dodged some questions but neither seem to do this far more than the other. Surprisingly, the candidates were quick to point out where the two of them agree.  

It was clear that Vance had some answers that were quicker and more well thought out. This is common from lawyers like him. Vance won the debate, but not by wide margins. Both candidates rekindled some hope from voters; maybe there’s hope for a near future where debates aren’t so divisive or uncivilized. 

Another memorable moment from the second debate was when Walz claimed to be friends with school shooters. This fumble was instantly memed across the internet. 

However this election season ends, just remember that we as Americans need to be able to disagree civilly. Don’t be a “knucklehead!”