On Tuesday, Sept. 10, 67 million Americans tuned in to the second debate of the 2024 Presidential Election between Former President Donald Trump and Vice President
Kamala Harris. Five of those viewers were the Upper School’s own Speech and Debate Team Co-Captains Haley Hicks, Sophia Stafford, Presley Jacobson (all ’25), Tia Reddy, and Salar Sekhavat (both ’26). As experienced debaters themselves, they shared their observations.
The presidential debate was unlike a typical BB&N-style debate
Presley: In a presidential debate, politicians have to both appeal to what they think people might want to hear and do a lot more of emotional appeal because they’re speaking to literally the entire population of America, all coming from different education backgrounds and different opinions.
Salar: You’ll notice in the presidential debate there’s a lot
of ad hominem attacks on people’s character, which I think in some ways that’s kind of a part of it, because you want to break down the other person and lift yourself up as like the candidate of choice. But in terms of BB&N debate, a judge would never let that fly.
Tia: For the presidential debate, it was predominantly limited in the questions they were asked, and I think they also had a lot of time and help to prepare for it. It was higher stakes. But for our debates, you really can see any array of topics; there’s a whole bunch. And you don’t have months to prepare. You have 10 minutes.
Sophia: We have one resolution, and everything we say is very focused on that specific question. Versus in a presidential debate, although it’s never explicitly said, the main resolution is: Who is the better presidential candidate?
Both candidates knew their strengths
Haley: What I would say is most effective from any candidates is, can they undermine their opponent and get their opponent worked up? Then, from that emotion, can they hit and have their opponent say something that they probably shouldn’t have said?
Tia: I think both sides did a pretty good job of coming back to their specific talking points, which I feel they wanted to deliver. Sometimes, that was a bad thing because they were not answering the question being asked. At the same time, I think we understood where their party’s lines were, and the candidates brought everything back to their base’s beliefs. That being said, I am not sure if they swayed the voters based on policies.
Sophia: Both people obviously understand human psychology very well. Trump was an actor. I think that’s something a lot of people forget, but he’s kind of a master at being able to rally his side, and so I think Harris’ big challenge was to assert herself as someone who was very professional and able to show him in the worst light possible
It highlighted a pattern of increased polarization
Sophia: I don’t feel like I really learned a lot about each of the candidates from this very long debate. Twenty years ago, debates were focused on policy. These more modern debates are more focused on optics, which is a little disappointing.
Tia: In past debates, you saw some respect and decorum on both sides. Before, there was kind of some sense that both candidates were fighting for all American people.
Haley: Do we keep pushing to the extremes, polarization and character and fighting for your side,
your group, or do we backtrack and start fighting for the American people? And I don’t even know if that’s possible.
The moderators played a role
Presley: The moderators did a great job of fact-checking, which was important in holding the candidates accountable. In our own debates, the judges are instructed to pick a winner depending on accurate evidence. However, in real elections, there are no such rules for voters. The fact-checking from the moderators ensured that when voters make their decisions, they only do so based on fact.
Salar: I am glad the moderators didn’t put the onus on Kamala to rebut those points, because I feel like for her, she spent the whole debate trying to not even bring it back to level ground but rather just keep it on Earth.
Debate is a valuable form of expression, whether in a school classroom or
on the presidential stage
Haley: Debate is important because nowadays we can argue
so quickly. We can argue not only with our family, our peers, our communities, but we can argue between communities, right? We can share ideas on a broader platform. And I think learning how to debate and learning what matters is important when you’re trying to convince someone of something they might not believe.
Tia: Debate in a classroom and an election helps, if you are open- minded, to realize that you’re going to meet people in your life who aren’t going to believe or agree with what you say and aren’t going to want to be on your side. You can’t argue with them, and that’s fine. Debate really teaches you to get curious and try to understand the other side and where they are coming from.
Salar: There’s value in being challenged. And it’s a very different ballgame to see candidates in a debate where they can put forth ideas and have them get shot down or changed, whereas in a rally or speech, all their words are protected and completely planned.
Presley: Debate is also about learning to have a discussion and articulate what you believe and why. You need to have a reason to back what you’re saying. I think it forces you to understand not just the other speech, but also your own side better because you’re having to communicate it to someone.
