Former President Donald Trump and current Vice President Kamala Harris faced off in their first and only presidential debate of the election season on September 10. The debate generated significant uncertainty, with expectations for Harris tempered by President Joe Biden’s unsuccessful performance in the previous June debate. According to CNN, public opinion was evenly split before the debate, with no clear front-runner.
This report takes two different approaches to the debate written by students with opposing perspectives. The first point of view being Harris won and the second point of view being Trump won. Read more to see both sides.
Harris won:
Written by Meadow Stewart
Early in the debate, it quickly became clear that Vice President Kamala Harris was gaining the upper hand. On the topic of economics, Harris shared a poignant reflection on her middle-class upbringing and support for small businesses, contrasting sharply with former President Donald Trump’s dismissal of her ability to support the middle class.
When the discussion shifted to abortion, Harris resonated deeply with many American women by addressing the real issues surrounding the topic. Trump, on the other hand, praised the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade as “courageous” and ignored Harris’s point that he had selected these justices specifically to overturn the landmark decision. Trump also falsely claimed that Democrats support full-term abortions and “execute” babies after birth, a claim both Harris and the moderator debunked.
Trump struggled when questioned about his role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, repeating debunked claims about a stolen 2020 election. He denied involvement, despite having urging his supporters to march to the Capitol promising to join them. He also dismissed recent reports acknowledging his narrow loss as “sarcasm.”
At one point, Trump falsely accused Harris of supporting police defunding and absurdly claimed “she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens in prison”, statements that were both untrue and inappropriate for the debate. He also falsely accused Harris of wanting to confiscate guns, despite her and her running mate being gun owners.
Harris remained composed and focused throughout, emphasizing a clear choice between fear-driven politics and a hopeful, progressive vision. She invited viewers to attend one of Trump’s rallies, which prompted Trump to make bizarre claims about Springfield, Ohio. Trump stated that “in Springfield they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating — they’re eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what’s happening in our country.” When Moderator David Muir fact-checked Trump’s unfounded allegations, saying that the city manager declared that “there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community”, Trump’s only source was that “[he has] seen people on television”, which is not credible information. David Muir made it clear that he wasn’t taking this from television, he was taking it from the city manager.
Trump won:
Written by Eva Gerstner
This article is not meant to worship Trump and every word that comes out of his mouth. This is not to defend how well he did on Tuesday night’s debate. This is not to argue that he “won,” frankly I don’t think he performed well in Tuesday night’s debate. This is to show the political decay in our country because of the absence of objectivity in the media and the long term damage that can cause.
The purpose of a debate is to exchange ideas, challenge assumptions and positions, and establish your value as a candidate. To do this, the debate must be moderated objectively, kept on topic, and each participant must be treated with the same respect as the other. This is not what we saw Tuesday night.
Let’s begin with the moderators. Were they moderating the debate or were they participating? These debates should be moderated by professional, objective individuals with the intent of getting to the heart of the issues. The moderator should not have a dog in the fight. The moderators never had control of this debate and never had an inkling of impartiality. They fact checked, in real time which is a bold move in a live debate, Trump over five times, while not once fact checking Harris and her false statements about issues such as Project 2025, abortion, IVF, border security, etc. It’s clear the moderators are owned by the DNC, and were put in place to make Trump look foolish while guiding Harris with soft questions and not asking for clarification.
Considering that we just had the 23rd anniversary of the terrorist attacks on 09/11 I was shocked by the hubris and hyperbole of Harris to claim that Trump is the biggest threat to democracy since the Civil War. This woman is incapable of telling the truth. She wants us to believe she and Walz are suddenly pro gun, pro business, and pro wall. We have been paying attention the last 4 years, they have not. How can we, as regular Americans, be convinced that they have changed? The moderators, had they done their job, could have pressed Harris on these statements to clarify what exactly has changed, but they failed in this as they did in every other aspect of their job on the night.
It’s difficult to trust what she says. No one is currently in or has been in a better position to affect the change she is evangelizing than her over the last 4 years. But what has she done? Nothing. I have no trust in her as a leader and no interest in what she wants us to believe that she believes in. She is a morally bankrupt, radical marxist, paper-bag of a candidate who cannot point to one accomplishment in her political career, but now promises will be different.
For any undecided voters who tuned into the debate, you were left as disappointed as I was. Watching that the only take away that we have is that Trump is petty, and Harris was the calm, collected alternative. To me, it’s all so clear, so calculated. The questions they asked were to get Trump emotional and prevent him from speaking clearly on his policy platform. While the questions the asked Harris allowed her to make vague, flowery statements about nothing. We know less about Harris after Tuesday than we did before. After watching that debacle, it’s not hard to see why America has lost all trust in the media. I wonder why they don’t see it?
These debates are no longer held to discuss policy; We learned that in 2016. It’s to nitpick the other candidates, and Trump took the bait. The media knows Harris cannot win on merit, so they are doing everything they can to attack Trump to make her look like the better bad option. Harris is merely a progressive prop. They are replacing Biden with a woman of color, knowing progressives will eat that up. The media knows we would all fall for it because they have us in their clutches. We applaud when they say applaud, we inject when they say inject, we submit when they say submit. (@houseinhabit) This is no longer democracy, it’s a poor production. There is no “winner” of this debate, because this election is no longer between Trump and Harris. It’s the mainstream media vs. America. And we don’t have a shot.
E. Bradford • Sep 30, 2024 at 4:56 PM
It was very enlightening reading the two sides of this debate and your opinions on them. There is definitely some visible biases but it was very well written. I don’t believe that either of them should be our president but I’m not sure who the better bad is. I would like to see more on this topic but with less slamming on the other side. What did they each do well? Not what did the other side do bad. For those who are saying that Harris got the questions beforehand- stop it with the rumors. She should have been well educated on those topics as a political leader and she did probably practice with the most asked questions. Eva, your opinion is so strong it actually almost swayed me, but alas, the lack of evidence for Trump isn’t looking to good. All I see is judgment towards Harris and the moderator. I definitely agree with Trump’s side but the way he states and argues is very distracting. (eating cats and dogs- really?) I would stop assuming the worst about the other side and start paying attention to who you want to vote for not who you don’t want to vote for.
Great job Meadow and Eva!
D. Rugh • Sep 26, 2024 at 11:20 AM
Yeah, America isn’t doomed though. I understand your view, Eva, but would you rather vote for a convict who says immigrants are eating cats and dogs with zero evidence? Cause I wouldn’t…
Tim Shumway • Sep 14, 2024 at 3:50 PM
Def a 3 versus 1. But Trump could have performed better still.
Nick Gerstner • Sep 14, 2024 at 6:10 PM
Totally agree
Tara • Sep 13, 2024 at 5:26 PM
Well said, Eva. The debate was horrific. Clearly 3 against 1, Kamala was very rehearsed and Trump did not have a great night. It’s hard to with everything and everyone against you at that debate.
Trump would turn our economy around, our border would be secure, the US would be safe again, we would regain our spot as top country and respected by world leaders. Don’t let the deceit of that debate away you.
Great job, Eva!
Ellie Lyons • Sep 13, 2024 at 2:50 PM
Meadow stated her side very well!
Ginny Robison • Sep 13, 2024 at 2:10 PM
Very well researched Meadow!
Marianne Folsom Anderson • Sep 13, 2024 at 7:00 AM
Well stated Eva.
nick gerstner • Sep 12, 2024 at 6:43 PM
EVA ATE THIS UP
Also, let’s not forget that Kamala was VERY rehearsed. Almost too rehearsed. Almost like she received the questions in advance. Everytime Trump went over the time limit, the moderators were quick to cut him off, while they were lax with the time Kamala spent talking.
Eva Gerstner • Sep 12, 2024 at 7:11 PM
Shocker! Who could’ve seen that coming🫠
Rowan Luke • Sep 13, 2024 at 1:11 PM
I would recommend spending more time watching the debate and really trying to set personal biases aside. They questioned Harris on her inconsistencies. She dodged the question. Why would that have happened had the moderators been on her side? If changing opinions are bad, what is to be sad about JD Vance and RFK Jr changing their previously negative views on Trump in favor of working for him? Trump was once a registered Democrat. Does that make his current views wrong? Untrustworthy? If you really time how long they speak for you’d find it’s pretty even across the board. It’s saddening to see that in an article that begins focused on respect and objectivity, it turns so quickly to insults and labels against the other candidacy. You talk about the tragedy of debates not discussing policy, and then spend your time ragging on the other candidate, a practice you denounce in the same article. You say the debate should be moderated objectively, and kept on topic, and yet when facts are checked and off topic interruptions are cut short, you call it bias. It saddens me to see that this debate was approached by so many people without objectivity and instead, bias. I really encourage you to go back, watch the video and the transcript side by side, and take notes. Track the times speaking. Track the amount of cut offs. Track how many questions are against one candidate or the other. I think you may find that the debate went differently than it felt on your first watch.
Giulia da Silva • Sep 13, 2024 at 2:45 PM
Did you watch the debate? I was hoping to read some information about Trump’s policies and what he did right in this but instead all I saw was an attack on Harris. I would appreciate more objectivity in your reports, even if you clearly disagree with Harris you can show respect.
hey • Sep 15, 2024 at 11:58 PM
“almost like she received the questions in advance”
‘almost like’ this is an incredibly important debate, which Harris recognizes. and ‘almost if’ the questions asked were on important political issues any good candidate should be very educated on.