The crowd that gathered in DeNeve Auditorium on Wednesday night
arranged itself to mirror the political polarization of the United
States. Democrats sat to the left, Republicans to the right and
centrists in the middle.
Regardless of where they sat, the audience was there to attend
the quarterly debate between the Bruin Democrats and Bruin
Republicans.
“The theme of tonight’s debate is a “˜Get Out
the Vote’ effort to remind students of the election next
week,” said Kyle Kleckner, a third-year political science
student and member of Bruin Democrats who moderated the debate.
The main topics of the debate were Proposition 87, Proposition
85 and the governor’s race.
The format of the debate consisted of an opening statement from
both sides, a conversational back-and-forth debate, audience
questions and closing statements.
Bruin Republicans chairman Gregory Moeck said all the debaters
were well-qualified, as representatives from both sides had to go
through a rigorous merit-based process to present to the
audience.
“The quarterly debate is one of the integral parts of the
political discussion on campus,” Moeck said.
Some students said they used the debate as a way to learn how to
vote on Election Day.
“I came to the debate to be sure I knew what I was doing
on Election Day,” said Kirsten Eckert, a first-year
neuroscience student. “The differing opinions help me (make
this decision).”
Kathleen Garner, a second-year economics student, said she
thinks attending the debate might even encourage some people to
vote who might otherwise have not.
“(The pace) of the debate both helps clarify the issues at
all angles and interests people who otherwise would not
vote,” Garner said.
The audience of the debate also consisted of a few
non-students.
Michael Harrington, a former UCLA political science lecturer,
said he came to observe how the younger generation views
politics.
“I am curious about how campus politics has developed in
the red-blue state era,” Harrington said.
The debate began with discussion on Proposition 87, which
proposes raising oil taxes to fund alternative fuel sources.
The Bruin Democrats spoke in favor of the proposition.
“(Proposition 87) is an unprecedented opportunity that
will give us alternative energy and break our dependence on foreign
oil,” said Navid Pour-Ghasemi, a second-year German
student.
The Bruin Republicans shifted the issue to economics, with
second-year political science student Rajan Trehan warning that the
proposition would unfairly tax California businesses.
The next issue speakers addressed was Proposition 85, which
would require parental notification before a minor can get an
abortion.
The Bruin Republicans speaker, third-year political science
student Shauna Peterson, spoke in favor of the proposition.
Peterson relayed a story about a girl who became handicapped
from an abortion. Quoting Hillary Clinton, she said that abortions
should be “safe, legal and rare.”
But Jesse Melgar from the Bruin Democrats responded by calling
Proposition 85 “another attempt by the right wing to ban
abortion.”
After the debate, first-year undeclared student Lisa Chow said
she found the arguments effective and the speakers
well-informed.
“I’m glad they had the debate because it brought
together involved students,” Chow said.
“Both sides had their strong and weak points, so in a
sense both sides won equally. But the real winner is the audience,
who leave with new information and insight,” Chow said.