If you’ve been following this year’s presidential election at all, then you’ve probably seen how both candidates have been criticized.

Donald Trump, many say, is a misogynist who sexually assaults women, then deems them too unattractive for his harassment. He’s also a bigot whose propensity for bullying extends to the disabled, as we’ve seen in his mockery of a reporter with arthrogryposis. And that isn’t to mention his lack of empathy for a Gold Star family — one that tore asunder his campaign at the Democratic National Convention.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is accused of being a self-interested robot of a politician whose carefully crafted persona functions to disguise the lies she’s told. She alleges to take “full responsibility” for her private email server, but then continues to make excuses for herself, saying that other Secretaries of State have done the same. And her failure to protect the Americans who were assigned to Benghazi — including our very own Ambassador to Libya — resulted in four preventable and untimely deaths.

So we understand if you find the characters of these candidates deplorable under common standards of human decency. However, this doesn’t mean that we can use pure character evidence to discredit their plans as potential presidents of our country. Accusing them of how they’ve gone about campaigning speaks only to the means of their presentation, but not its actual content.

To focus on character and character only in this election would be ad hominem at its most deadly. It’s an attack not on what a person is saying, but rather on their personal attributes — like their character. And it’s a fallacy that caters to the impulsive and emotional, and obfuscates the practical and factual.

It’s true that this election does test the ethical standards of American citizens. With all of the mud that’s been slung so far, our moral compasses have certainly been challenged.

Moreover, character is certainly something we should consider. It has a noticeable effect on the decisions a person makes, the opinions he maintains and the relationships he creates. But if we allow it to consume our entire argument against a certain candidate, we’re ignoring a lot of other things that could either make or break our country.

Because in our nation, we have far more than good or bad character at stake. In times like these, we simply cannot afford to disqualify candidates without at least some careful consideration of their policies. Say what you want about personality; these candidates’ plans for the future still warrant our inspection.

In the past four years of American politics, we’ve faced complete and utter deadlock in Congress. We’ve walked the fine line between personal liberty and national security. We’ve witnessed bullets exchanged between our law enforcement officers and civilians of a racial minority.

And amid all of this intranational conflict, we’ve also had to respond to international crises. We’ve observed a crazed dictator lobbing missiles into the Sea of Japan. We’ve looked on as individuals fleeing from a civil war sought refuge all around the world. And eventually, we’ve involved ourselves in the situation, offering homes to thousands per year and assisting them with food, shelter and healthcare.

It’s clear that these aren’t easy times. And so we must act accordingly by choosing the candidate whose political principles — not merely whose character — is most likely to alleviate and not exacerbate our current troubles.

We must choose the candidate who would oppose beginning an international incident or escalating an existing one. We must choose the candidate who will equalize opportunities for all Americans, providing for each and every one of us the means to fulfill our pursuits and chase our American Dreams. And we must choose the candidate who will protect our personal liberty, but not at the sacrifice of our personal safety.

It’s a difficult decision, no doubt. But that’s why we don’t have the luxury of disqualifying candidates without further thought, especially in this polarizing media landscape. The discussion so far has dissolved into an echo chamber filled to the brim with talk about character traits. And while character can be indicative of success, focusing too much on simply one factor in the equation is dangerously nearsighted.

Right now, we are less than two weeks away from the election on Nov. 8. So as these candidates campaign harder and harder, and political tensions pile higher and higher, don’t be swept up by the cheap temptation of ad hominem. The future of our country depends not merely on the way these candidates conduct themselves, but rather, on the benefits — and consequences — of the decisions they plan to make.