Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Senator Flavio Bolsonaro exchanged personal attacks on Sunday in their first face-to-face debate of the presidential runoff, directing accusations at each other’s honesty and character. Lula invoked Bolsonaro’s alleged links to paramilitary groups in Rio de Janeiro, while Bolsonaro used a remark about a stolen wallet to attack the president. The exchanges brought questions of personal credibility into their direct confrontation ahead of the deciding vote.

Bolsonaro entered the runoff after leading the first-round election with 47 percent of the vote, compared with Lula’s 45 percent. Those results provide the electoral backdrop to the debate: the senator had finished ahead, but the presidency remained to be decided in the second round. For Lula, the confrontation offered an opportunity to challenge the candidate who had outpolled him; for Bolsonaro, it offered an opportunity to press his case directly against the incumbent president.

Lula called Bolsonaro “a habitual liar, a thug,” alluding to the senator’s alleged ties to Rio de Janeiro’s paramilitary groups. The language combined an attack on Bolsonaro’s truthfulness with a reference to allegations concerning his associations. Those alleged links should be distinguished from an established finding: Lula’s words were a political accusation made during the debate, not evidence in themselves. The distinction is important when assessing an exchange in which personal allegations carried much of the force.

Read more: Trump plans NIH women’s health research division after Melania Trump’s push

The president also widened his criticism beyond his opponent, saying: “Lying is ​the Bolsonaro family's strong suit.” That remark cast the accusation as a criticism of the family rather than solely of the senator standing against him. Alongside the reference to alleged paramilitary connections, it showed the personal terms in which Lula challenged Bolsonaro. Neither the breadth of the family accusation nor its emphatic wording, however, establishes the truth of the charge contained in it.

Bolsonaro’s attack took a different form. He said it was better to keep Lula at a distance “because my wallet could be stolen”. The comment insinuated dishonesty through a personal taunt rather than by setting out a specific allegation in the quoted words. It was an attack on Lula’s character, not a report of a theft. As with the president’s accusations, the distinction between campaign rhetoric and a demonstrated fact is necessary to understanding what was said.

The competing attacks therefore had a common focus on trust, despite differing in their references. Lula questioned Bolsonaro’s honesty and invoked alleged associations with paramilitary groups; Bolsonaro used the wallet remark to question Lula’s integrity. These were not equivalent allegations in their content, and neither should be treated as an answer to the other. Their shared feature was the effort to discredit the opposing candidate personally, leaving voters to assess the accusations separately from the force of their delivery.

Read more: New poll puts Trump approval at record low

The first-round figures offer a firmer basis for assessing the electoral position than the insults do. Bolsonaro’s 47 percent placed him ahead of Lula’s 45 percent in that vote. They do not measure the effect of Sunday’s debate, nor do they establish how voters will respond to the candidates’ accusations. Reading the exchange as a victory for either participant would go beyond those results: an earlier vote records electoral support at that stage, not a verdict on a subsequent confrontation.

The contrast between the candidates’ positions also matters to the encounter. Lula was debating as Brazil’s president, while Bolsonaro was challenging him as a senator who had led the opening ballot. The runoff brought those two positions into a direct contest. Yet incumbency and a first-round lead are different kinds of political standing, and neither resolves the question before voters. The debate gave both men a setting in which to dispute the other’s suitability for the presidency face to face.

The quoted exchanges shed more light on the candidates’ attacks than on how either would govern. Lula’s remarks concerned truthfulness, family and alleged connections; Bolsonaro’s concerned an insinuation about the president’s honesty. Those statements can be assessed as examples of their arguments against each other, but they provide no basis for comparing economic proposals or other governing plans. The personal confrontation should therefore not be mistaken for a full account of the choices presented by the runoff.

The next electoral test is the runoff itself, with Bolsonaro seeking to carry his first-round lead into the deciding vote and Lula seeking to overcome it. Sunday’s encounter established how directly each was prepared to challenge the other’s character. It did not settle the allegations they invoked or demonstrate whether those attacks would change support. The measurable starting point remains the first-round result; the political question is which candidate voters will choose when they face one another in the runoff.