The U.S. vice presidential debate offers business communication lessons in reporting, delivery style, evidence, and answering questions.

A large, top-of-page Wall Street Journal heading claims victory for J.D. Vance and highlights delivery skills: “Vance Confident, Walz Uneven in Debate Heavy on Policy.” Students might discuss how “confident” and “uneven” are assessed. What makes Vance sound “confident”? Does “uneven” refer only to Walz’s delivery style or to his overall performance?

The beginning of the debate (before I fell asleep) offers obvious examples of delivery. Tim Walz, the first to respond to a question, spoke slowly and hesitated during the first few sentences, repeated words (said “fundamental” four times in four consecutive sentences), and said “Iran” instead of “Israel.” Vance came out strong. Before answering the first question, he gave a mini-bio, including his difficult upbringing—relating to voters who also find themselves in difficult life circumstances.

Unlike the right-leaning WSJ, the left-leaning New York Times homepage requires scrolling past five articles about the war in the Middle East on the left-hand side before we see the headline: “Takeaways From the Vance-Walz Debate: Civility and Then a Clash Over Jan. 6.” If I recall correctly, the placement on each publisher’s webpage was about opposite for the presidential debate, which analysts reported as a victory for Kamala Harris.

Students can analyze CBS News’s fact-checking, presented in a video. The video allows for clips from the debate and nuance. We see a slider—not a yes/no—assessment of four points. The first, about opioid deaths, receives a “partially true” rating with an explanation of when data started to be collected and the percentage claimed. We don’t hear the sources of the claimed or the fact-checked data, and students might question the source of the fact-checking itself. Like any source, CBS News demonstrates bias, if not in the analysis, then in the selection of issues to check. Another news source would choose different “facts” to check. Regardless, the video—only 8 minutes to fact check the entire debate—could make for good class viewing.

Another relevant topic is how the candidates responded to questions. Three examples might be interesting to explore with students. First, Vance’s responses to the question about immigrants in Springfield, OH, which caused his mic to be turned off. Second, Walz’s response to his claim of being in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests. And third, that last question from Walz: “Did Trump lose the 2020 election?” For this question, Vance chose the classic communication strategy of deflecting the question, saying he wanted to stay “focused on the future,” and then transitioning to, “Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 Covid situation?" Of course, that is also is the past. Walz called his response a “damning non-answer.” Students might analyze what “damning” means in this case. Damning for what or whom?

Otherwise, the debate was more civil than many, with candidates pointing out areas of agreement throughout. This is worth students’ attention as well.