While the world waits anxiously for the nationwide presidential debates and election, the Biola undergraduate community is experiencing its own version of the phenomenon. Last night Biola's Associated Students (AS) held its first AS presidential debate, one of several changes that have been instituted this year.

Traditionally, the presidential and vice presidential candidates have participated in a question and answer session one night during campaign week. The session has shown poor attendance over the past couple of years, and the current administration felt it was time to try something new that would allow the candidates to set themselves apart. This method also called for only the presidential candidates to speak to the audience.

"Our overall purpose for the debate is to give the candidates an opportunity to clearly differentiate themselves from the others, and of course we want it to be cordial and respectful, but it is okay to say 'No, I think you're wrong, and I think I'm right, and here's why,' and I think it's good for us to be able to see very clear differences in each of the candidates because we hope that it's not four of the same candidate," said Jared Gibo, current AS president. "We hope they have some differences, and we hope to highlight those differences and talk about them."

Gibo reiterated these intentions to the audience on Wednesday night before turning the microphone over to senior Jeremy Mann, director of religious and academic relations, who served as the evening's moderator. The format for the debate gave each candidate an opportunity to explain his or her own viewpoints, as well as to comment on or question the positions of his or her opponents. Mann directed individual questions toward the candidates, based on prepared research of each of their campaign positions, but balanced this with time for open discussion and debate. The middle of the debate consisted of a "lightning round" that poised three specifically crafted questions to each of the candidates for brief responses. Toward the end of the debate, notecards that had been distributed to each audience member as they entered the auditorium were collected and questions from these were selected and read.

Since the campaign visions of the candidates had already been outlined in their speeches delivered in Election Chapel on Monday, it seemed that a large part of the evening was devoted to further dissecting some of the rougher details of said visions, specifically during the "lightning round." Mann played portions of candidates Eric Weaver and Ronald Toth's speeches and invited them to elaborate on parts of their ideas that were controversial. Similarly, Daniel Chacon was queried on his proposal to raise club funding, and Emily Johnson was questioned about her goal to empower students for ministry through AS, a role already filled by Student Ministries.

The intense questioning didn't come solely from the moderator and audience, as the candidates themselves came prepared with questions for each other.

The most intense debates were spurred by the ideas of student ministry and racial reconciliation. Johnson and Weaver shared similar hopes that Biola would continue to reach out to the community at large, expanding on ways in which AS can encourage students to get involved in off campus ministry. Chacon and Toth took a differing view. Chacon echoed his campaign view that AS money should be spent on the student body, not the outside community, and that he didn't want to see students forced to participate in any ministry that they didn't wholeheartedly want to be a part of. Toth commented on how you can't force people to be spiritual.

Racial reconciliation was another hot point of discussion. Chacon was the clear champion of reconciliation here, citing his diverse experience at Biola as an eye-opener to its importance for the campus. The debate here, however, became a little muddled with Gibo having to interrupt at one point to ask the candidates to give a clear definition of what they meant by racial reconciliation (none could come up with a quick response.) The scope of racial reconciliation, combined with the deeply seeded passion and attitudes the subject often brings with it caused the candidates to shy away from directness. Chacon, the presidential candidate with the most diverse racial background, was also the most direct in his reconciliation ideas. Toth admitted that reconciliation wasn't at the forefront of his campaign vision, saying "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it."

Toth was also called out by Stewart Sen. Dave Martina on Toth's elaborate meal plans for the cafe next year, including a fourth meal at midnight and a breakfast that would both extend hours and close the cafe during chapel to prevent slide-and-gliding. Martina tried to speak up when the subject was brought up in the debate, but was asked to hold his thought until a later time. When asked to comment, he said he was unhappy with Toth's lack of attribution for his ideas.

"I felt like at the time Mr. Toth was taking credit for ideas that he was making part of his campaign to reform the cafe and the meal plan situation," said Martina. "Those ideas were brought up in a cafeteria meeting that happened tonight that I spearheaded as the head of the cafeteria committee, and I feel that it was inappropriate to make it part of his platform."

Although the debate still somewhat resembled a question and answer session, the "debate" part of the evening took place largely in the open discussion periods. The candidates picked parts of the other candidates' previous responses to question and also asked previously prepared questions of each other. The debate was considered a success by the current administration.

"I thought it was great. It was phenomenal," said Gibo after the debate. "I was blown away by all four candidates and their ability to explain their platform. It helped to express their differences in a very cordial way."