Undergraduate Student Government presidential and vice presidential candidates added plugging their resumes to personally attacking each other and the election itself at the third and final USG debate last night.

Whether they were ready, representative, passionate or genuine, almost every candidate used their opening and closing statements and crossfire questions to directly or indirectly insult each other on increasingly personal levels, while announcing they were the best ticket.

"I think the debates have gotten more candid," said Debates and Publicity Commissioner Tracy Greca, who added all the candidates have done a tremendous amount of work throughout the campaigns.

The audience questions, posed mostly by student leaders and campaign workers, briefly returned the candidates to issues such as administrative relations, academic problems and communication with the State College Borough Council.

For the most part, Wesley Bowser addressed the issues and his willingness to learn more about the ones with which he is not as familiar.

"We came out and presented ourselves to the student body. I hope we did it honestly," Bowser said. "If you choose to vote for us, great. But at least choose to vote."

However, Jason Covener, who attacked and was attacked by almost every candidate, expressed his dissatisfaction with USG and the administration.

"There's a difference between a proven leader and a proven maniac. Far be it for me to insult another candidate," Covener said. "The Loccarini ticket is a commitment to Loccarini."

John Yolk, Jaime Desmond's running mate, predicted the tone of the debate and asked students to stick to the issues and the candidates' experience.

"Tonight many questions will be asked. Some of these questions are not about the issues," Polk said. "Some of these questions are going to he attacks on other tickets."

Only some of those direct attacks came from Thane Fake, who focused much of his energy emphasizing the need to rebuild USG.

"People don't get behind the cause if they haven't been involved from the (beginning)," Fake said.

Michael Landsberg and Brent Barbe spent the debate defending themselves as legitimate candidates.

"If every student on campus voted, we'd win this by a landslide. The other candidates know that and they're scared to death of that," Landsberg said.

The reason why David Lubkemann decided to run as a write-in campaign, dissatisfaction with the other candidates' platforms, became apparent as he engaged in his own attacks.

"I'm really tired of these debates. I'm really tired of this campaign," Lubkemann said. "I think a lot of these issues are last in the rhetorical bullshit."

Although he continued to push his dedication to borough issues regardless of the results, Hank Saur bantered with the other candidates more than he attacked.

"Win, lose or draw, I am still going to be working for the students," Saur said.

After enduring and providing much criticism on the platforms, Kendra Ciesla, Blame Rummel's running mate, questioned the validity of many of the candidates and their research. "We've seen more mudslinging in today's debate then at any other point in this campaign," Ciesla said.

Darin Loccarini and Christopher Pirrotta said he did not attend the debate because the debates are unproductive and The Daily Collegian's endorsement of Landsberg and Barbe trivialized the election.