Recap: Freshmen Go Head to Head at the Annual GUCD/GUCR Debate
NATALIE GUARINO: Last Thursday night, members of the Georgetown University College Democrats (GUCD) and Georgetown University College Republicans (GUCR) packed into a White Gravenor classroom to alternately laugh, snap fingers, and trade incredulous faces. Six business-formal clad freshmen inspired these reactions from the ideas, arguments, and banter they exchanged with each other throughout the night. This event, the annual freshman debate, was held on October 17th between members of GUCD and GUCR and was moderated by TJ Mukundan and Lauren Dailey, the President and Vice President of the Georgetown Bipartisan Coalition. Jordan Westendorf, Sam Hoag, and Dominic DeRamo represented GUCD and Grace Xu, Jacob Adams and Bora Balcay appeared for GUCR.
The debate touched on issues in foreign policy, the economy, and social movements. Although civil and respectful throughout, the debate was at times lively and contentious. The moderators asked each side various questions, allowing time for responses and rebuttals between debaters. Towards the end, the debaters fielded audience questions and a final question from the Bipartisan Coalition.
Climate change and the United States’ exit from Syria were the main topics of debate.
The two sides found common ground on the subject of climate change, with all agreeing it is an urgent issue necessitating action, although differing on the approach. Balcay advocated for the need for “pragmatic solutions over the radical ones Democrats are proposing… these idealistic plans would hurt the economy and discriminate against poorer people.”
Arguments on U.S. involvement (or the lack thereof) in Syria centered on which international groups the U.S. should be supporting, with the debate at one point diverging into discussions of past U.S. support of terrorists and imperialism.
Towards the end of the debate, audience tension mounted with social policy questions. For example, both sides took radically different approaches to the documented gender pay gap in the workforce. Xu characterized the issue as a difference between gender equality and gender equity, arguing that the self-selecting nature of different industries meant that inherent inequalities did not necessarily correlate with inequity. Westendorf countered this fiercely and immediately, asserting that “the inherent inequalities the Republicans are referencing are having children.” She went on to stress the need for paid family leave for parents.
Adams, who viewed the debate as an “enjoyable” experience, said he was heartened by his Republican colleagues’ expertise in foreign policy issues and hoped that his arguments made an impact on others. In a statement during the debate Adams said the following:
“I hope the proponents of single-payer healthcare came away from the debate realizing that Senator Sanders is actually honest about the middle class paying for his version of Medicare for all as opposed to Senator Warren who refuses to admit that her tax proposals would not come close to paying for her plan.”
Democratic debaters saw the issue a bit differently, and focused on the fact that although they do not support any particular Democratic 2020 presidential candidate, those candidates at least are putting forward plans for healthcare. DeRamo argued: “At least we have a plan, Republicans don’t. They said ‘repeal and replace’ (the Affordable Care Act) but they never replaced.”
The last question posed by the Bipartisan Coalition asked the debaters how bipartisan cooperation and action can be possible in the future. DeRamo ended the debate on a positive note, saying that despite differences between the parties, “we have the same goal of doing the most good for the most people.”
Xu, who agreed with DeRamo’s assertion, saw the debate as an avenue to “engage members of GUCD and GUCR in constructive, thought-provoking dialogue on issues that are at the forefront of national politics.”