Last Monday night marked the first presidential debate in the general election, where Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump finally met to square off one-on-one. It was a highly anticipated affair, and everyone I know seemed to tune in for it.

Anything related to the election can be rather frustrating, and debate coverage is no exception. However, there’s something particular that’s always bothered me that I hardly seem to hear people voice. After any presidential debate – whether in the primaries or the general election – I always see an immediate battle ensue: who won?

This frustrates me. I was always under the impression that presidential debates were created to allow the American public the chance to hear their two main candidates’ platforms voiced side by side, and to see how they respond to tough questions and adversary. While I think it is vital to compare the candidates’ performances, I was not under the impression that debates were competitions to be won or lost like football.

If you asked me who I thought the winner was, I could tell you that I thought Hillary Clinton “won” this first debate by a landslide. But that tells you essentially nothing besides the fact that I am a liberal or Hillary supporter. Some more constructive questions to ask me would be: “What do you think made her performance successful? What did she – or Donald – say that made you prefer her platform? What stood out to you about the debate, and what issues most hit home? Was there anything said in this debate that shifted the way you think about something?”

These are questions that I can answer, and that we can discuss. These have the potential to start a productive dialogue concerning the future of our country, as opposed to starting hashtags that present very little substance (prime example: #TrumpWon).

News pundits seem to always focus in post-debate converage on how the candidates’ performances will affect them in the polls, as opposed to focusing on what they actually had to say or engaging in their own political discussions for the country to watch and participate in. Journalists could spend the majority of their air-time fact-checking the candidates’ claims and analyzing their positions on various issues. While I do see this to an extent, most of the coverage I see directly after a debate is discussion on whether or not their performances will be effective in certain demographics, whether or not swing states will respond positively to their messages, and what this means for the future of their campaigns.

Obviously, post-debate polls have their value. It is interesting and important to see who the country responds to most positively, and whether or not the debates made any sort of impact on undecided voters. But I don’t believe that focusing solely on this type of information is our most productive course of action.

Message to the media: instead of speculating how voters will respond to presidential candidates, let them respond. Help them to respond. That is a large part of your job, after all – to help keep the American public informed enough to fulfill their civic duties responsibly.

So let me tell you my personal response: I thought that Hillary’s expertise and experience shined, while Trump’s inexperience became more blatant than ever. I was impressed and relieved to hear her support equal wages, gun control, and affordable college tuition, and to hear her call out the birther movement for its blatant racism. I was enraged by Donald’s inability to own up to facts or his mistakes, and to see him interrupt Hillary 51 times over the course of the evening (with what struck me as very little opposition from the moderator). I didn’t think Hillary was perfect – she seemed to have conveniently forgotten about her support of the Crime Bill and of TPP – but overall I thought that she held herself with dignity and class, despite having to stand next to a belligerent bully.

You may disagree with everything I just wrote. Great! Let’s talk about it. Let’s hash it out – responsibly, with facts and evidence in mind – to create the kind of dynamic back-and-forth that is necessary for our democracy to continue. Let’s challenge each other to ensure that each person who goes to the polls this November does so having thought each issue through thoroughly, and having considered many different perspectives.

It won’t be pretty. In fact, it may be downright infuriating. But no matter what, I think we can all agree that our conversations will be more productive than a two-worded hashtag.