top of page
Mikayla Boyd

The first Harris-Trump debate: Recap and Opinions

By: Mikayla Boyd, Assistant Opinion Editor


On Tuesday, Sept. 9, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump faced off for their first presidential debate. If you’re like me, you look forward to these nights every four years. But since not everyone is as enthusiastic about American politics, let me catch you up on what you missed and offer you some thoughts to consider before you hit the polls this year. 


Harris and Trump are currently polling very closely. Harris has had a successful summer since Joe Biden dropped out of the presidential race; she has gained donors, led rallies and become one of the most prominent faces of the “brat summer” social media trend – which her marketing team embraced with open arms. Trump has had an eventful summer as well: surviving an assassination attempt, leading rallies and introducing his vice president pick, JD Vance, to his loyal base. 


The debate covered topics ranging from the economy to women’s health. Trump maintained his position that placing tariffs on imported goods would improve the economy, reassuring Americans that they would not face the brunt of tariffs – merely foreign nations would be affected, despite economists predicting otherwise. On women’s health, Trump applauded “the genius and heart and strength of six supreme court justices” who overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), the landmark decision that guaranteed the right to abortion for half a decade until its demise with the opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022). Three of those six aforementioned justices were appointed by Trump. Harris stressed the effects of the Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, placing emphasis on the women who are being denied life-saving care as a result. A closing statement from Harris focused on her presenting herself as the candidate for the future, her tenure as a public servant and her commitment to all Americans. Trump used his final remarks to criticize Harris for her work on immigration, characterizing our country as a failing nation and predicting a third World War. 


Instead of proposing his concrete plans – which he has ‘concepts of’ – former president Trump makes sure to use buzzwords and even straight lies to incite fear in his supporters; phrases like ‘illegals’ and ‘after birth abortions’ are no-fail appeals to emotion. While a great argument focuses on logos, ethos and pathos, Donald Trump relies on heightened pathos alone to woo over his voters. When mentioning how Trump killed the bipartisan border bill, Harris proclaimed that Trump would “rather run on a problem instead of fixing a problem–” and that couldn't characterize it better. As long as there are Americans in fear, there are voters willing to check the box next to his name.


Moreover, there are even flaws in the reporting of the recent debate. Many news outlets claim that Harris was ‘baiting’ Trump, thus portraying her dominance of the conversation in a negative light. Why should a candidate being in control of their conversation and having a grasp on the question be considered ‘baiting?’ And why is Trump’s constant return to his crowd sizes and spewing false information about immigration not portrayed as his downfall, instead of Harris’s? 


Nonetheless, I believe that having a wide array of opinions to hear from is necessary for making informed decisions. To gauge our community’s response, I asked some students of HON 102: Honors Philosophy for their thoughts on the debate, how their study of philosophy impacted their debate viewing and any logical critiques they have of the candidates. Of the 20 students I talked to in small groups of five, many characterized Harris as the ‘winner’ of the debate. Her performance, albeit, was not flawless; they observed that both parties relied on personal attacks –  known to philosophers as an ad hominem flaw – rather than sound arguments. Students characterized many of Trump’s responses as diversion from the question to matters of, most often, border security. They said Harris also had moments where she focused on personal characteristics, most blatantly when she brought up Trump’s crowd sizes (which she most likely was aware would elicit a strong emotional response from him). Overall, the voters and philosophers of HON 102 found that knowing logical fallacies and philosophical concepts associated with arguments made them more mindful, aware and cautious of the tactics both candidates use to appeal to voters. They wished to hear more actual policy rather than personal attacks and stressed the importance of voters being confident in their choice.


Ultimately, before you vote this November, I challenge you to get out of your comfort zone and challenge the political beliefs you hold. Whether you agree with me wholeheartedly or vehemently disagree, I hope you reflect on the thoughts I have shared with you today. If you believe in something strongly, question yourself just as strongly. Holding yourself accountable as a voter and member of American society is an important task. Once you’ve done so, make your voice heard and vote responsibly. 


Election Day is Tuesday, Nov. 5. Find more information at www.vote.gov.

31 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Notes from the Underground 10/04

Breaking News: Sports Editor Colin Richey read this column for the first time ever last week. That is all.  The Underground would like to...

Comentarios


bottom of page