The first televised debate of the U.S. presidential election has been successfully concluded, which lasted an hour and a half, marking the first face-to-face confrontation between Trump and Biden this year.
Although the two men have already faced each other in the last presidential election, they are both familiar and experienced.
However, this year's debate environment is different from previous ones, mainly due to the reversal of roles between the two sides.
In the last election, Biden challenged then-President Trump as the Democratic nominee, but this time it was Trump who made a comeback as the Republican candidate.
The change in roles represents a major change in the strategy and style of play of both sides, adding a new perspective to the debate.
The debate was set up quite simply, there was no audience, and candidates were not allowed to prepare their speeches. They only have a pen and paper, a drinking glass and a microphone in front of them, which undoubtedly puts forward higher requirements for the candidate's adaptability.
In such an environment, candidates need to rely on their intellect and eloquence to win the recognition and support of the audience.
There are many such televised debates before the election, but the importance of the first debate cannot be overstated. It is not only a stage for candidates to show their talents and abilities, but also a key step for them to compete for the hearts and minds of the people and seize the opportunity.
Whoever can seize the opportunity in front of the national audience, leaving the opponent speechless or even confused, will win the election opportunity.
Trump's strategy is to start by mentioning China and showing his tough stance in order to attract the attention of the audience and raise his image.
However, the focus of the televised debate was not on the dry exposition of Trump and Biden on domestic affairs, but on their mutual attacks and debating skills.
In this debate, the rhythm of attack and defense is very fast, and the candidates are not given much time to think. They need to react in a limited amount of time and attack by taking advantage of their opponent's weaknesses.
This way of debating not only tests the candidates' resilience and eloquence, but also allows the audience to see their true side.
In a debate, rigor and authenticity are not the primary considerations, but more important is the candidate's mental state and ability to respond on the spot.
The audience is more concerned about the candidate's reaction in the face of attack, their verbal skills and self-confidence. These factors can often determine how well the audience perceives and supports a candidate.
However, there is a general consensus within the Democratic Party that Biden's performance is not satisfactory, and some even describe it as "bad". Despite Biden's meticulous preparations ahead of the debate, including a week of closed training and mock debates, these efforts have had limited results in the face of results.
He occasionally wandered in the debate and answered questions other than he asked during the question-and-answer session, and was almost attacked by Trump.
Such a performance worries within the Democratic Party, which is beginning to question whether Biden has the ability to defeat Trump in the next election.
Compared to Trump, Biden's performance in the debate really looks inferior. Whether speaking or closing the microphone, Trump was able to capture the attention of his audience with rich facial expressions and trademark hand movements.
His language is aggressive and he is able to hit the pain points of his opponents directly. Biden, on the other hand, appears relatively dull and lacks enough passion and energy.
His language is also not fluent enough, and there are sometimes slips of the tongue and repetition. Such a performance greatly reduced the audience's impression of him.
The White House later defended Biden by saying he was "not in good shape" due to a cold, but such clarification could backfire, raising public concerns about Biden's health, which in turn could affect the voting propensity of centrist voters.
After all, in elections, the health of candidates is also one of the important factors considered by voters.
If Biden can't prove that he is physically fit enough to handle the heavy job of a president, his electoral prospects will be severely affected.
In the debate, the two men debated from the country's domestic and foreign policies to private life issues, and mentioned China many times during the period.
Biden has emphasized that his foreign policy can handle relations with China and Russia more effectively, while Trump continues to focus on "America First" and advertise himself as tougher on China. This also reflects the different positions and views of the two men on foreign policy.
Biden pays more attention to cooperation and communication with the international community, while Trump emphasizes more on the interests and status of the United States.
However, Biden has dug himself a hole in the issue of tariff policy. Instead of lifting Trump-era tariffs on China, he has imposed more.
Such an approach has kept Mr. Trump clinging to the success of his tariff policy and putting Mr. Biden in an awkward position. It also exposed Biden's contradictions and uncertainties in tariff policy, making his election prospects even bleaker.
Of course, the personal assault was probably the biggest attraction of the televised debate.
Whether it is China, Russia, or other geopolitical hotspots, it appears less important at this stage. The offensive and defensive performances of both sides at this stage are often the key factors in pulling apart the support rate.
Both Trump and Biden mercilessly attacked each other's weaknesses and mistakes, trying to establish their own image and status in the minds of their audiences.
Such attacks, while somewhat brutal, are an integral part of the election.
During the debate, Biden directly called Trump a "felon," and Trump countered mentioning Biden's son's conviction.
At this point, the debate has turned into a "fight", with both sides trying to outwit their opponents with words. However, such a quarrel is not conducive to the resolution of the problem and the conduct of the elections.
It only wears out and bores voters and lowers their trust and support for candidates.
In order to avoid the scene getting out of control, the organizers took precautions.
When one person speaks, the other side is silenced to prevent anyone from deliberately interrupting. Such measures have ensured the smooth flow of the debate to a certain extent, but they have also limited the performance of the candidates.
After all, in a real election environment, candidates need to face all kinds of contingencies and distractions, and the microphone closure measures deprive them of the opportunity to exercise and adapt.
According to the statistics of the American media, Trump's speech lasted about 40 minutes in total, while Biden only had 35 minutes. This five-minute gap is often a reflection of a candidate's ability to control the topic of the debate.
Trump is usually able to express his views in full during these 40 minutes, and he has shown great offensive power and defensive ability.
Biden, on the other hand, is relatively inferior, his language organization skills are not strong enough, and sometimes there are slips of the tongue and repetition. Such a performance greatly diminished the audience's impression of him and made his election prospects even more bleak.