Kamala Harris emerged victorious in the recent debate, holding her composure despite Donald Trump's bombastic outbursts. 

 But did the ABC moderators play fair? Should we question their fact-checking methods? What would have happened if Trump had been given more space to articulate his views? Would Harris' smirks and glares have detracted from her otherwise strong defense? 

 The debate raised more questions than it answered. On one hand, Harris' experience and knowledge of the topics were evident, and she tackled Trump's attacks with confidence. On the other hand, Trump's shouting matches and personal attacks against Harris and her family left a bad taste. 

 The real question is: did the ABC moderators do enough to keep the debate civil and focused? Harris, while not immune to criticism, stuck to the issues and presented her positions clearly. It's also worth noting that Trump's inability to stay on topic and his fixation on tangential issues like fracking and student loans made the debate feel disjointed. 

 In the end, it's up to readers to decide who had the better night. Did Harris' poise and knowledge win over Trump's antics? Or did the ABC moderators' lack of firmness allow Trump to dominate the conversation? 

 Regardless, the debate has sparked important conversations about the role of moderators, the importance of staying on topic, and the need for thoughtful and respectful dialogue in politics.

Debate Review: Trump's Tantrum vs Harris' Poise

Actions