- Pronouns
- he / him / his

As a follow-up to our debate liveblog, some concluding thoughts are below. I drafted this article with support from Deputy ENN Editor Sopo, who provided contributions and signoff on the commentary and scores.
But, don't take our word for it! Please read the full debate in #p-and-vp-debates on our Discord server. If you don't agree, please argue in the comments to this post to gin up activity and advertising revenue for ENN. And remember to read all the platforms and VOTE.
UPC:
UPC must have entered this debate with the goal of never, absolutely never, being pushed onto the back foot. The dominant figure throughout the debate, and never afraid to get aggressive with his fellow candidates, UPC pushed and prodded his way through nearly two hours of spirted dialogue.
No question, he had to deal with a lot in the debate. Based on recent polling, there's no question that they are the frontrunner, and both Ellenburg and Vor focused their energies on him. It was a lot of incoming, but when given the choice to suavely parry an attack or charge full-forward, UPC was charging ahead. A particularly odd moment occurred during the question on war objectives, where UPC slammed Vor based on details from a private FA groupchat — invoking FA expert Kazaman in the process. Attacks like these occasionally felt gratuitous, and overshooting the rim of what was probably politically optimal. While UPC concluded the debate with kind words for his opponents, the energy I felt permeating throughout was almost a bemusement for having to entertain challengers at all.
That being said, in many replies, UPC gave extremely thorough and engaging answers. You can't help but feel, at certain stages, that UPC has forgotten more on a topic than many of us have ever known. He remained in command of the facts and details throughout the debate, and unlike other candidates, didn't really have any missed opportunities. He ended the debate with a pretty powerful attack on the recruitment records of his opponents, leaving onlookers with hard stats that demonstrate the commitment they and GK have made for our region.
Because I am a cringe millennial, I can't help but think about Jed Bartlet's debate in The West Wing, where President Bartlet's performance knocked his opponent to his back. An exchange between two characters discussing this debate comes to mind:
Will Bailey: I thought he was going to have to fall all over himself trying to be genial.
Sam Seaborn: So did we, but then we were convinced by polling that he was going to be seen as arrogant no matter what performance he gave in the debate, and then that morning at 3:10 my phone rings and it's Toby Ziegler. And he says 'Don't you get it? It's a gift that they're irreversibly convinced that he's arrogant, because now he can be.' If your guy is seen that way you might as well knock some bodies down with it.
Ultimately, it's up to the voters to judge President UPC and this debate. But any President needs to be confident, strong, knowledgable, and an effective communicator. Based on this debate, it would be hard to argue that President UPC isn't all of those things, and if you were looking for a reason to vote against him, you probably didn't find it. Both opponents are trying to defeat a successful, smart, incumbent. It's not going to be easy, and UPC probably did what he needed to with this debate — knocking over some bodies along the way.
Overall Score: B+
Ellenburg:
Ultimately, to me, this debate presents as a missed opportunity for Ellenburg.
Ellenburg kept his cool through a heated debate and looked for creative ways to prod his fellow candidates, but he always seemed a little on the backfoot, relying on vague answers or references to his platform to carry him through the debate. Sometimes he would try to inject himself in into deep policy exchanges between UPC and Vor with broader points or new topics and almost... get relegated to being an afterthought, openly saying "noted!" in response to UPC correcting him in between shooting verbal barbs back and forth with Vor. Multiple shoehorned references to work in other regions, while not a *bad* thing, seem like time that could've been better spent on different examples
One of Ellenburg's key platform tenants is the idea that the war against various Raider Unity regions is not being prosecuted to the greatest extent. But arguably, Ellenburg phoned in his weakest performance in the war and foreign policy questions. When pressed by UPC on what "going on the offensive" meant with regards to the war, Ellenburg even admitted that he might not have the answer currently and might need to work with allies to determine it once elected. This is a big miss, and might require a campaign course correction like rolling out some new policy ideas or giving an addendum speech of some kind.
Ellenburg did have some strong moments later on in the debate, particularly in the culture section and the later section on shepherding the next generation of leaders. In the later, having a concrete example of mentoring and getting someone integrated in a Ministry came off as strong, especially when juxtaposition with Vor's attacks on UPC for taking so long to develop new leaders. In fact, UPC's attack on Ellenburg in this section comes across as an overshoot — you would not put the same level of development expectations on a citizen or Minister as you would the President.
But...it all comes back to the lead sentence. This debate was an opportunity to demonstrate policy depth + ability to be quick on the feet in an increasingly fast-paced NS world. While Ellenburg presented as a thoughtful, competent leader who could certainly handle the Presidential logistics if elected ... I am not sure, based on this debate, he cleared that higher bar.
Overall Score: C-
Vor:
Vor delivered a compelling debate performance that was only slightly less consistent than UPC's — but perhaps offered with a slightly softer touch.
He started off a little slow, saying that his unique offering to the region was "fresh leadership" — three terms of UPC down, pretty much any member with a heartbeat could offer that. His next answer on the question of "why change" also presented as a lot waffle, and I described it in the debate liveblog as ChatGPT-esque.
But Vor was just warming up, and consistently was able to press the case with UPC in creative ways. He did not necessarily come up on top of every exchange (UPC had me convinced over Vor in the Raider Unity war question fwiw) but was consistently present and engaged. Vor also had an incredibly effective moment using humor to disarm UPC's odd groupchat//DM attack.
Vor effectively cornered UPC on why he has been unsuccessful in developing more leaders in the region until now (this is probably one question that UPC definitively lost in my view), and held his own on the foreign policy questions. When it came to culture, Vor openly conceded that UPC has been doing a great job and declined to press an offensive there, contrasting with much of UPC's take-no-prisoners debate approach.
Overall, I am not sure that Vor outperformed UPC in the debate simply based on brass tacks. But I do think that Vor passed a clear threshold and demonstrated his communication and policy chops. For voters who aren't sure about another term of UPC, Vor has proven himself to be an interesting and viable alternative.
Overall Score: B
Last edited: