• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Video

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

Photo

The Bruin Democrats and Bruin Republicans held their quarterly debate Wednesday night in the DeNe

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.