A Presidential Debate

The last presidential election is told to have the largest percentage of voter turnout since 1960, with about 40% of people not voting. In order to express the importance of voting Mr.Milbrandt organizes a presidential debate where a candidate can be from any of his senior classes. The two parties must run a campaign and vote, this year the presidential debate took place in the BCA between Rosalia Velasquez and Darish Zamiri on May, 18th. Darish Zamiri won the debate because of his easy-to-understand arguments and passion for the country. 

The debate included a wide range of topics relevant to today, including gun control, abortion, and education. There were about 8 topics. Zamiris’s style of argument was very concise and well thought out, as he used analogies to help simplify complicated topics. A very notable analogy he used to describe the importance of country safety was having a home without a door, how one needs to have some protection from who can come in and out of their home or they could be putting themselves into danger. Velasquez’s style of argument was detailed and heavier on facts. Both parties decided to keep their arguments moderate. “I voted for Darish because he seemed well-prepared and I liked the analogies, being moderate helped”, William Kamiama (12). Many others shared this thought process which led them to cast the same vote. Both candidates’ arguments were similar with identical values, however, the solutions differed. For this reason, students who voted did not vote with a heavy emphasis on the argument but on how to put together the argument and their level of understanding. “They were too moderate, I would have liked to hear some extreme views, playing it too safe.”, James Colorado (12). With both candidates attempting to be the middle man a few people felt as if they played it too safe and could have used a more risky argument. The argument between two middlemen proved the impossibility of pleasing everyone and setting policies that will benefit all.

Although most of the focus was on the presidential debate there were also commentators, a commentator for each debater. After the big debate, they remarked on what aspects they enjoyed about the debate and who they think did better. Each attempted to poke holes in the opposing party’s argument while claiming that their party is more patriotic. The Republican commentator was Luna and the Democratic commentator was Isabella Trejos. Each supported their party and pointed out the holes in the other side’s style of argument.

The debate allowed all students to take an interest in voting and politics. The debate was short and simple, allowing anyone to understand and participate in the vote.