On Oct. 26, the College Republicans and California University of Pennsylvania Campaign Consultants met in the Eberly Technology and Science Center to discuss a variety of topics that the candidates for president are posed with.

The debate was focused around issues dealing with the economy, foreign policy, immigration, and education. With both sides having an opening case, along with a rebuttal from the opposition, it emulated the televised debates perfectly. Within the more broad topics, moderators Mari Boyle and Josh Wood directed questions to the representatives that put topics, such as ISIS, under the microscope.

With both sides having different speakers for each topic, the switching of opinions and information helped to break up the views and benefited audience members, to allow them to muster up questions. The most debatable topics by far were those that hit on ISIS, Syrian refugees (sanctuary cities), and the education system. There was arguing from both sides, similar to how the televised debates, but these discussions were limited and informational.

Thinking that I made my decision when it comes to who I will vote for, listening to both sides presenting their topics in a unique way allowed for some questions to be answered. I believe that this debate had a large impact on undecided voters, being that the questions asked from the audience sparked a lot more discussion than the original question. One question about the education system, focused on STEM schools, opened debate even more and how the U.S. is limiting the capabilities of students.

All-in-all, I believe that this debate showed, and proved the fact that discussions such as these are necessary to the health of politics. Having young opinions and getting both sides from a topic is going to pay off later on, as those students who took part in the debate grow as politicians.