The first question the vice-presidential candidates were asked in their debate was, frankly speaking, bonkers: “Would you support or oppose a pre-emptive strike by Israel on Iran?” The vast majority of the globe is waiting for the United States to exercise real global leadership and bring, at a bare minimum, temporary calm to the eastern Mediterranean region. But CBS apparently felt it wiser to ask the candidates whether they supported escalating the war now or escalating the war later.

The candidates slung arrows of blame at each other before settling on essentially the same answer. And that was basically the leitmotif of this rather odd debate: we, two diametrically opposed candidates standing before you, actually agree on a lot, including how completely different we are.

This debate will likely be recorded as a mostly civil encounter with no overwhelming winner. Over the course of the contest, Republican JD Vance was as slick as a CEO’s lawyer, emitting almost snake-oil salesman energy, while Democrat Tim Walz was predictably folksy, exuding an overly talkative teddy bear vibe. But on substance, both men tended to agree on a number of points ranging from the need to fortify our border crossings (at the expense of legitimate asylum seekers) to promoting affordable housing to protecting the Affordable Care Act.

Significant differences nevertheless did emerge, the most important of which was about reproductive health. While Walz spoke powerfully about the need to protect the right to abortion, Vance found ways to quietly blame immigrants for gun violence, border insecurity and the housing shortage.

But the debate will be forgotten by next week, if only because the world is currently a powder keg, and no one seems ready to challenge these two candidates about finding a real path to peace, justice and security for all.

Moustafa Bayoumi is a Guardian US columnist

Vice-presidential debates rarely affect the election or move voters. Even by those standards, this one was a non-event. Vance and Walz seemed to be competing with each other regarding how friendly and agreeable they could be, and each avoided taking shots where they could have obviously landed. Vance was nimble, if smarmy, showing his background as a debater and a lawyer. Walz was nervous at the start but settled in once the questions got to areas he focuses on as governor, like housing and agriculture.

One of the most notable aspects of the debate was the framing by the moderators, accepted dutifully by the candidates. It was taken as a given that Israel’s wars on Gaza and Lebanon and its expansionist ambitions are morally just. It was taken as a given that the United States should have a bellicose foreign policy in the Middle East. It was taken as a given that immigrants are hurting the........

© The Guardian