The difference between the two debates was clear. September’s presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump kicked off its 90 minutes with a reluctant handshake between candidates, followed by a barrage of assaults on the other’s policy and character. They discussed various topics, but the words “I agree with you” seemingly had no place on that stage.

By contrast, Tim Walz and JD Vance started their vice presidential debate with a firm handshake, openly agreed with one another on certain issues, and when they disagreed, they did so politely.

The opposing running mates exemplified the leadership that should be valued when discussing politics. Political discussions, especially presidential debates, should be respectful and constructive. It should be a way to solve the country’s most serious issues, not an ego trip.

The topics at hand affect the lives of the American people, and our leaders need to discuss them with a certain degree of respect to set an example for those watching—an example we should follow at the high school.

Political polarization creates a challenging atmosphere for discussion at the highest levels of debate. As students, we too watch this play out in our everyday lives. At the high school, firm distinctions between ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ or ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ exist in the back of everyone’s minds. This limits our ability to have civil, productive discussions, and makes it difficult to stray from the examples that the people in power are setting for us.

At the moment, the (admittedly few) political conversations taking place at the high school mirror those of the presidential debate. Differing opinions are categorized so rigidly that people of opposing political viewpoints rarely acknowledge overlapping areas of agreement. Students constantly attack the holder of the ‘other’ perspective, just as the presidential candidates did in their debate.

Furthermore, students struggle to confront disagreements with amiable intentions—intentions of maintaining any sort of relationship with the person they are arguing against. With this, any hope of humanizing those with different political beliefs is lost.
This all contributes to self-perpetuating cycles of argument in which no party feels heard and nobody listens to others. It makes it difficult to confront political issues at the high school.

Our culture is one where many students seek conversations in which they are confident others will agree with them—rather than challenging themselves and their peers with different ideas. We have noticed that in a liberal town like Brookline, many conservative students seem to feel uncomfortable sharing their ideas. We rarely hear conservative opinions. Our newspaper lacks conservative contributors. This fosters an echo chamber of constantly reaffirming opinions that create a void of contrasting perspectives. Regarding the election, when we limit our discussions to those who share the same political views as us, we close the door to productive debate.

As a community, we must reevaluate how we respond to differing opinions and reconsider our arguments without destroying or canceling those who go against our views. At a time of tension leading up to Election Day, it is essential to strive for rational discussions that look for the best in people rather than tearing each other down.