Why is the first question after a political debate about who won (“Who won the debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz? 5 takeaways,” Oct. 2)? Shouldn’t we ask instead who elucidated the issues best? Who made the most sense? Who demonstrated competence? Who demonstrated character consistent with the political office at stake?
For that matter, why have a debate at all? Holding office does not require debating skills. It requires mastery of the issues, negotiation skills, leadership and courage. Why not have a public conversation instead of a debate, dialogue instead of combat?
— Michael Friedman, Baltimore
Add your voice: Respond to this piece or other Sun content by submitting your own letter.
