The first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton this past Monday was entertaining mostly for the wrong reasons. Aside from the niceties exchanged early on, the debate felt something like a real-time Twitter war with no moderator in sight. Despite the informality and lax enforcement of rules and policy in how the debate was conducted, if there were scores assigned at the end of the debate, Clinton would have won by a fair margin. This shouldn't be surprising.

For those scrolling through their timelines or perusing conservative media outlets and wondering how any one could think Trump won that debate, it is important to understand the transformation of presidential debates which is but one example of our transformation of (political) discourse from text to visuals. Ever since the first televised presidential debate in 1960 between Kennedy and Nixon, the appearance, charisma, and stamina have been more highly perceived, analyzed, scrutinized, and ultimately, regarded, than the content and substance of the material that one of the nominees presents. That fateful debate illustrated the wildly different contrast in perception of who the audience felt won. Where viewers watching the debate on tv saw a handsome, colorful Kennedy dismantle a sweating, dull, reticent Nixon, people who listened on the radio heard a well-spoken, thought-provoking Nixon triumph over an empty, rhetoric-driven Kennedy. Unfortunately the shallow visuals stand out more than anything else in America as we see this phenomenon continue to express itself. With this in mind, it is no surprise that some people may think Trump held a strong debate. Let's dissect this debate from beginning to end.

So much attention was directed to what Clinton might have worn. This stems from the “historical” and “traditional” attire that we have seen so long and grown used to during a presidential debate. Because for so long it has only been men and men wear suits and ties. The debate begins and she emerges, stage left, in a bright red pantsuit, which is not all that surprising, and Trump emerges, stage right, in a blue tie, also not all that surprising. These colors shouldn't be too surprising because politicians wear their opposing party's colors when they want to subtly influence especially to undecided or swing voters that they are in fact bi-partisan and open minded.

Lester Holt's only shining moment in moderating began at the beginning and also ended there when he let the two presidential nominees open their mouths. Holt belied the audience at the debate and the ones watching or listening when he promised that each debater would have their time to talk or rebut, and that the audience should only clap at the beginning when they entered and at the closing of the event. This was such a farce. Trump blurted at least half a dozen moronic sounding “Wrong!”'s when Clinton was speaking. Both debaters were at fault for interrupting and not listening to Holt who was reminding them that their time was up or that it was time to move on to another question. The schedule that Holt was desperately trying to salvage could have been put to better use and given to Trump as a napkin so he would stop his incessant sniffling. Maybe that is why he was so peeved when Clinton repeatedly criticized him.

Regardless, Trump should not be allowed to do whatever he pleases. This "bed of nails" phenomenon is getting out of hand. This social principle is desensitizing individuals to begin to accept the outlandish Trump-isms as status-quo. Trump may do as he pleases without repercussions because he is not only a white-privilege-wielding man, but one who is bolstered with confidence and continuously assaulting our discourse with no reprise from the media.

As for the debate itself I wasn't expecting anything more or anything less from Trump. He began pleasant but quickly reverted to his typical belligerent, pathological lying norm. Before the mudslinging started, Trump was asked what he would do as President as far as jobs in America. Trump announced he would introduce one of the biggest tax cuts for big business since Reagan. Clinton was excellent to pounce on this calling it “Trumped-up trickle-down”, referring to Reaganomics which Trump was calling for. Once Clinton began criticizing Trump's views and plans, Trump started his tirade against Clinton's career and agenda. Clinton replied rather poignantly that Trump lives in his own reality which is a rational conclusion one arrives at when analyzing an irrational being.

I was sad that the live fact-checking promise Clinton mentioned at one point during the debate didn't exactly live up to my expectations. I quickly opened a new tab while watching the debate and went to her website but was promptly and firstly asked to send her campaign a donation and I didn't see anyway around the donation page to actually see the real-time fact checker. Despite that disappointment, it was clear as day of all the fallacies and untruths that Trump was spewing like a firehouse on full throttle with no one aiming or controlling it.

The number of lies, white or otherwise, that Trump made during the debate would be longer than the average American's attention span but some highlights that Clinton made sure to address and that stood out were: Trump not releasing his financial statements and records despite the fact that he can simultaneously do so while he's being audited (he claims that his lawyers told him not to while he's being audited – wrong!), many of his business plans have fallen through (I.e Trump Vodka, airlines, University, steaks) and they are just rust painted over with gold, the birther lie about President Obama that Trump started, Trump being soft on Putin and endorsing Russian hackers against Americans, the formation of ISIS was because of Obama and Hillary Clinton, that he didn't support the war in Iraq, that global warming is a hoax made up by China.

All Clinton had to attest to were the deleted emails. She admitted guilt and agreed it was a mistake. However, Trump tried, like a child throwing a tantrum in a shopping aisle, to eradicate any and all of these claims against him.

The important thing to ask yourself is: what would America's response be if Clinton shared a slice of the scandals of Trump, a portion of the lies he's been proven to have said, a smidgen of the inappropriate things he's done, like making fun of the handicapped, or had no experience entering politics; Trump. America would be getting the pitchforks and torches ready and screaming witch. We've come far as a nation but we are still shedding our ugly, racist, misogynistic coils. If you want proof that America is treating Clinton worse than Trump, look at our country's history. Women have been second since our inception. As racist as this country is, it still values a black man over any woman; the right to vote, the acceptance from the “liberal” party of who to nominate as a presidential candidate (2007-2008), and now the right to be treated as an equal opponent running for the highest office in the land against a white, male, protestant, land-owner.