After conquering a mountain of homework Wednesday night, I tossed a bag of popcorn into the microwave and tuned into YouTube’s broadcast of the first presidential debate of 2012.

In hopes of learning something I did not already know, I grabbed my yellow notepad and a red pen. Two hours later, the pad was still blank and my brain ached.

This is not to say that I was uninterested or indifferent. I already knew which candidate would cater to my views and values, and that is the person for whom I will vote.

I simply hoped for more substance and less media-malleable material, including Internet memes, etc.

To spare you the gory details, I will refrain from giving a play-by-play. Instead, if you would like to watch the debate in its entirety, go to www.youtube.com/politics.

I predicted the course of the debate before it began: two politicians, each with a microphone (a dangerous combination), vying for our approval while debunking each other’s claims.

I figured that fingers would be pointed in the usual directions — either at past presidents’ failures or impending failures of the future president.

Frankly, I was not expecting to feel especially empowered by either candidate. Then again, I am not one who believes that government officials are responsible for changing the course of our country.

I feel ignorant placing my hopes and dreams into a human being, who is just as capable of making mistakes as I.

Thinking this way allows me to see outside of my box, which is a cozy and comfortable place to live.

If I take a candidate’s plans and promises with a grain of salt (or sand — whichever is smaller), I am less likely to get caught up in the wave of hatred or negativity that so commonly follows these debates.

Facebook is a telling example of this. According to half of my friends list, Obama won the debate. The other half rejoiced in Romney’s camp. How do people choose a winner when there was no goal declared in the first place?

A friend of mine and fellow Bulldog, Christopher Moss, made a statement on Facebook that not only made me laugh, but rang true in my mind:

“Most Romney supporters believe Romney won the debate. Most Obama supporters believe Obama won the debate. A moderator lost control very quickly, they both reiterated what we already knew and absolutely zero people changed their minds about who they will vote for.”

Hilariously accurate. How many conservatives’ minds were changed when Obama spoke, and vice versa for liberals and Romney? Why do we bother watching the debates if only to become bitter toward the other side?

Debates have become the center of candidates’ humiliation — a race to see who speaks eloquently and makes eye contact and promises change for the American people.

The process should exist for those who have yet to cast a vote, not for those of us who know who we are rooting for, and why.

As a supporter of small government and capitalism, I have to vote for the candidate who stands for these ideals. The same goes for those who believe in big government and values collectivism.

My values and beliefs leave me with no other option than to vote for Romney. This does not mean I am particularly happy with the selection. I admit that I am choosing what I believe is the “lesser of two evils.”

What choice does America have when it is presented with two staunchly different politicians who stand for opposing ideals? In the end, we can only choose one, and both candidates danced their way around several important issues.

According to The Guardian, a daily newspaper printed in the U.K., the economy accounted for most of Wednesday’s debate. The issues involving the role of government, governing and health care took a backseat for the evening.

Economics stretched into the second half of the discussion and well over its programmed time and my short attention span.

These are the issues I wish Romney and Obama would take the time to clarify. The role and interference of government is the foundation of most of our issues.

We cannot fix a damaged economy if we do not take time to check and balance the government that created it.

Instead, we ignore its unconstitutional over-involvement, resulting in the agency that is stepping over its founding lines. This should have been on the top of Romney’s list, considering his party affiliation. And Obama should have given his supporters (and potential supporters) examples of how big government might work.

Let us hope that the next three debates will carry more substance and passion.

Heck, our politicians would make more progress with brutal bluntness toward each other — anything to end the flowery idea that politicians have to smooth their edges and wear bleached smiles.

Maybe that is what America needs: a cross between the debate skills of John Stewart and Bill O’Reilly. Rough around the edges and not afraid to make their opponent cry — now that would be interesting.