Democratic nominee Joe Biden and Republican nominee Donald Trump faced off in the final presidential debate moderated by Kristen Welker in Nashville, Tenn., on Thursday, Oct. 22. Although BYU–Hawaii students shared they felt more policies were discussed this time, they said the debate didn’t change their minds on either candidate.
Clara Anderson, a freshman from Utah majoring in political science, expressed how she thought the debate had nowhere to go but up. “I expected it to be better than the first debate, and it was because of the new rules. You can really only go up from the dumpster fire of the first debate.”
According to a tally from the Washington Post, Trump interrupted Biden or CNN commentator and debate moderator Chris Wallace 71 times, while Biden interrupted 22 times during the first debate.
In Anderson’s view, the second debate’s circumstances changed slightly based on the first debate’s constant interruptions.
The New York Times explained how each candidate was given two minutes at a time to speak during each of the six 15-minute segments with his opponent’s microphone muted to prevent interruption.
For Chia Chun Hsu, a junior from Taiwan studying information systems and technology, said an audience’s ability to hear is one of the most important aspects of a successful debate. “I want to see if they will be better than last time so I can hear the moderator. I hope they can actually mute their mic if they are not stopping.”
In this debate, there was significantly less interrupting, according to Noah Shoaf, a senior from Indiana studying political science. “It was more civil than I expected. I think having the option to mute each candidate deterred some of the interrupting that the prior debate had. The debate definitely went more into policy, which I was pleasantly surprised about,” Shoaf said.
Zeph Mckee, a senior from California majoring in political science, said it is hostile moments that can cause the American people to tune in. “I was disappointed that both candidates wasted so much time criticizing one another instead of outlining how they would better lead the nation, but the debate was more entertaining to watch that way.”
Election Day is Nov. 3, and the presidential debates serve as a platform to educate voters about candidates and their policies. According to Shoaf and McKee, the presidential debates did not play a part in their voting decisions.
McKee said he went into the debate not expecting any of the candidate’s words to change his mind.
Shoaf mirrored this mentality, he explained, since he voted before the debate took place. “The debate did not affect my voting decisions. I filled out my absentee ballot a month ago to make sure it would get counted in time. I think this late in the election, the debate will have little effect. We are so polarized that no matter what policy a candidate proposes, it will not sway our vote.
“It is still important to watch the debates to form your own opinion on specific policies, but for this election, most of us watching already picked the debate winner before the first debate even started. I wish the election was not like this, but these are historic times we have never seen in modern politics,” Shoaf said.