Well, what a debate that was. Don’t believe me? Check Twitter. From 7-9:15 pm on October 11^th, twitter hit over 500,000 tweets. That’s more than all four debates combined in 2008.

So what was all the hype about? Current Vice President Joseph Biden and Congressmen Paul Ryan,were incredibly impressive; they were well-researched and both came in ready for a rumble. This debate was consistently enthralling, and at a surprisingly higher level than the presidential debate.

But, when there isa lot of excitement revolving around a debate, there’s always the risk that a candidate’s confidence will spill over into arrogance.

So let’s grade the VP hopefuls for conduct.  Ryan: B, Biden:D. Although Ryan interrupted and rolled his eyes, nothing parallels Biden’s disrespectful -- and almost insulting -- laughter and smiles. Ryan definitely won when it came to presidential demeanor.

In fact, the only one who gets an A in conduct is, moderator Martha Raddatz. She was superb in her composure and commanded respect in a manner that, frankly, puts Jim Lehrer to shame. 

Now, on to the content

What was remarkable about this debate was how much time was spent discussing foreign policy. I’m certain Biden wanted to play this up as much as possible, with all his experience in the area, but I must say that Ryan held his own.

He never faltered when Biden was on the attack and although there were different policies – and each candidate had some issues giving an answer that suited the question they were asked – Ryan presented his as aptly as Biden did. But there were a few grievances I had with certain disregards for fact checking.

First off, as much as Romney likes to criticize the president’s intelligence in dealing with the attack to the American Embassy in Benghazi,the same criticism could be made for September 11^th.

Prior September 11^thAl Qaeda orchestrated attacks on two US embassies, detonated a car bomb in the World Trade center in 1993, and attacked a US Navy bomber. It could be argued that under both Clinton and Bush’s administrations there were also “massive intelligence failure[s]” on their part. So every time there is an attack on American’s we’re supposed to wage a full out war against that country, or else not enough is being done? 

There is no doubt that what happened in Libya to the Ambassador, and the four other souls that died in that attack, was a tragedy.  And,intelligence in dealing with the situation probably should’ve been better.However, if Ryan tries to get off saying that we needed greater embassy security when he is not entirely consistent on his views on military funding,then he is wrongfully mistaken.

"[Paul Ryan] here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for," Biden said in the debate. "So much for the embassy security piece."

This is true. Ryan voted to cut 300 million dollars from embassy security. However, when the Democrats moved the bill forward, it then received bipartisan support.

The other issue to be had is the same one I’ve had for quite some time with Ryan. He criticized Obama for making the 716 billion dollar cuts to Medicare.

First off, these cuts are not made from the amount insurance people are receiving. These cuts are made from wasteful spending in hospitals and prescription drug providers.Secondly, Congressmen Ryan supported these cuts in his initial health care plan.

He did this at the RNC and he’s doing it again. It is dismaying to hear blatant lies be said with such candor.

That brings us to the other hot button issue: Health care. Why focus so much time on how Medicare will go bankrupt and personal anecdotes on grandparents? Well, because in the swingstates seniors are reliable and engaged voters – especially in Florida.Therefore, whoever wins the Medicare debate will win a lit of votes, and possibly the election, in the process.

I believe both running mates did their candidate for president a service in the manner they presented their arguments; but, I happen to believe that Seniors will realize that Ryan’s plan is detrimental to their Medicare, no matter how prettily you dress it up. 

Now I’m not going to say that this debate swayed independents that were on the fence, because it probably didn’t. What it really did was polarize the voters on both sides.

Following the debate I could see the parties were so sure that their candidate had won.

However, I must agree with Samantha Cardet, a fellow student and tweeter, on her analysis on the affects of Thursday night’s debate.

“This debate may not sway the independents, but it may encourage some of those disillusioned Democrats to get out there and vote,” tweeted Ms. Cardet, after the debate.

This time it was clear that, on Twitter and on the news networks, that the Democrats felt that Biden had pumped some much needed energy back into this race and created a level of excitement to go out and vote.

Although the structure of race is not fundamentally changed, this debate buys Obama time before fervency for his re-election deflates any more than it already had after last week’s debate, which was disappointing to say the least.

Overall this debate was very beneficial to both parties because of how eloquently both running mates presented their arguments.

There was something refreshing about these two running mates going at it – not only because both of them came prepared this time. On Thursday night,there may have been some disrespect between the two running mates, but in the end it was about an exchange of ideas that people could really take something from. 

 “Often I'm embarrassed about American democracy. But this was our political system at its best. An illuminating exchange!” tweeted Nicholas Kristof, at the close of the debate.