The UGBC and the Student Programs Office sponsored the Political Awareness Debate between the College Republicans and the College Democrats this week. The presidents of the respective clubs, Michael Reer and Rachel Lamorte, participated in the heated debate.  The discussion covered several timely issues, including the environment, the war in Afghanistan, education, and healthcare.  The entire debated ranged about an hour and a half, and entertained a large turnout.  Elizabeth Ellerhorst, director of publicity for the College Republicans, and Kristoffer Munden, vice president of the College Democrats, moderated the discussion.

Eight questions, two per issue, became the crux of the discussion.  A two-minute primary answer and one-minute thirty second rebuttal were allowed of each of the debaters.   After these questions had been exhausted, the moderators collected questions from the audience, written on index cards.  Four audience questions were chosen.

The first question posed by the moderators involved ways to better reconcile economic growth and protecting the environment.  Debaters were asked to comment on the Waxman-Markey Bill and their thoughts on how the bill might accomplish this goal.  The Waxman-Markey Bill was passed by the House of Representatives and includes emission cuts and the institution of a cap-and-trade system.

Lamorte answered positively, stating that some economic fallout from a bill of this magnitude is to be expected, but the problem of not capping-and-trading is far worse.  Reer was more critical of the bill, citing the high number of job losses, estimated to be in the millions, which will occur as companies leave the US and relocate to countries with fewer environmental restrictions.  Reer felt it was still possible to reduce taxes, ease the economic burden, and still protect the environment irrespective of the bill.

The debaters then tackled the issue of education in the United States.  The moderators questioned how the debaters viewed the state of American schools, and what role value-based education, such as sex education, should play in government-funded schools. Lamorte was in favor of sex education, arguing that abstinence-only education fails.  She cited the rise in teenage pregnancy under the Bush Administration in correlation which its abstinence-only policy. Reer answered that value-based education should take a back-seat to focusing on the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic, much more pressing issues in American schools.  Reer felt that federal school vouchers are a good way to better educate children who are being failed by failing schools.  The debaters then had a heated exchange: Lamorte objected to Reer’s answer, saying she did not address the issue of abstinence-only education; Reer rebutted that the question was not about abstinence.

The third set of questions focused on the state of the healthcare debate in the United States, and the debater’s views on the healthcare reform bill passed by the House. Lamorte felt that the plan, including a public option, would be largely beneficial, especially to women, who are the largest group of uninsured people in the country.  Reer had two main problems with the public option: the federal government would be in competition with private companies, inevitably driving the private interests into bankruptcy, and the public option would increase costs for the government, increasing the rate of entry for everyone.  Lamorte cited France, England, and Canada as countries with single payer systems, acknowledged they had problems, but stated that the US had a “lot to learn” from how these countries handled universal healthcare. Reer scoffed at the idea of emulating these countries in any way regarding healthcare, and argued that there is still a lack of equality in those countries, because wealthier people simply employ doctors outside of the government system.

The fourth and final set of questions focused on U.S. involvement in the War on Terror in Afghanistan and whether/how Obama should proceed with this involvement. Lamorte began by praising Obama for the time he has devoted to thinking about the issue, and hoped he would shift American aid given to Afghanistan in a more humanitarian direction, rather than give more military aid.  Reer countered that Obama has met with General Stanley McChrystal, Commander of the U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, for thirty minutes on a plane, and has spent more time with Oprah.  He has been in office for over a year, repeatedly ignoring the General’s requests for more troops.  Reer felt it was imperative that the U.S. “either to play to win in Afghanistan, or go home.”

The audience contributed questions involving U.S. foreign aid to third world countries, the US relationship with China, whether government-run healthcare is a constitutional right, and the limits to government involvement in the banking industry.

Annie Orlowsky, a sophomore, felt the debate was engaging, but was critical of Lamorte’s answers.  She felt that Lamorte “should have focused on the present more, instead of mistakes made in the past, which can’t be changed.”  Describing herself as a political moderate, she “had problems with things both debaters were saying, but on the whole, felt they each had good points.”

Generally, the debater’s answers were characterized by considerate disagreement; Reer even conceded a bonus rebuttal he won because Lamorte spoke out of turn.

Related Articles:

1. Voter ID Initiatives Spark Debate This year, many state representatives will vote...
2. Observer’s Catholic Issues Editor Interns at Hedge Fund   New Catholic Issues Editor Alex Deriso...