Teo Choi ’27:
Both candidates were very civilized. They both respected each other, more than the presidential candidates. For example, when JD Vance gave Tim Walz his condolences for his son witnessing a shooting. However, I thought they both emphasized Kamala and Trump’s negative aspects. All in all, I thought it was more of a debate compared to an elementary quarrel like Kamala and Trump’s. I think both candidates addressed the audience pretty well in terms of what they wanted to change. However, Vance worked hard to cover for Trump while Walz made more efforts to attack Trump.
Nurul Izzah Khairunnisa ’25:
Both candidates held their stances very well. First of all, the fact that Vance was an attorney was very apparent [because] he was able to defend his arguments well. What impressed me the most was that he was able to attack the structure of Walz’s arguments. It was also apparent that Waltz had a lot of experience, due to his opinions and arguments. Arguments-wise, however, Vance covered more grounds.
Jackson Kayser ’24:
Both candidates were very respectful to each other, compared to the presidential debate, and they acted more presidential than either VP Harris or Mr. Trump during their debate. The [VP candidates] both presented their policies instead of arguing. I didn’t think either candidate had particular strengths or weaknesses, but I will say that they were both more clear on their objectives than either actual presidential candidate. I’d say both candidates understood voters’ concerns, maybe Gov. Walz a little more so.
Jacob Jones ’25:
I thought Governor Walz had more substance than style, especially compared to Senator Vance. Governor Walz had a weaker start but sounded more convincing and persuasive around voters’ concerns. I think he improved throughout the debate. On the other hand, Senator Vance seemed less consistent, and he didn’t back up his statements with much, so I thought he was less trustworthy.
