Who Can Vote In Here?

On October 11, students, faculty, and staff alike rushed to find seats or places to stand in an increasingly packed Centennial Hall. Mr. Ledyard’s skeptical face characterized the perceived tension and excitement of the afternoon. What were they there for? The student debate between the Young Democrats and the Young Republicans. 

Moderated by Ben Schatz ‘25 and me, the debate gave a platform to Young Republicans Dylan Sopher ‘26 and Jackson Armacost ‘26, as well as Young Democrats James McLaughlin ‘26 and Charles Iliff ‘26. The students were asked questions on topics ranging from the economy to the importance of democracy. Their ability to provide thoughtful, well-reasoned arguments on these fields that are hardly touched on within their academic curriculum is a testament to their commitment to research and political engagement. 

Beginning with a discussion of the climate crisis through the lens of the hurricane, James of the Young Democrats quickly debunked Trump's claims that the Biden-Harris administration misallocated FEMA funding with tangible evidence. Trump’s uncalculated rhetoric proved to be a weakness in the Young Republicans’ positions for the remainder of the debate. 

As the conversation turned toward a broader discussion of managing climate change, Jackson of the Young Republicans succinctly laid out the party’s position, saying, “We are not at a point where we can completely go green.” The challenge of addressing climate change while remaining economically and globally successful is one that the Young Democrats did not directly address. Jackson’s position, while dissatisfying in its future implications, was effective in its practicality and rationale. 

On the following topic of immigration, the flaws in the short structure of the debate were first shown. James’s position suffered in its failure to address the bipartisan border bill that Republicans shot down or other tangible border policies. The Young Republicans then returned the favor with unproductive rhetoric on “a woman raped and murdered by an illegal immigrant” and “third-world countries.” I think that with more time both chapters would have been able to provide fuller, more interesting answers. 

The next topic of the economy was one that my co-host Ben and I worried would not be easily discussed in a debate between high school juniors. The economic discussion, while feeling a bit silly, as 85% of the room does not pay taxes or earn a wage, once again demonstrated the student debaters’ research and inquisitive ability. James did well to point out specific economic policies such as the Harris plan to “not raise taxes on anyone earning under $400,000 a year.” He also pointed out that Harris was the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which demonstrated both impressive research and a solid case for Harris’s economic ability and impact. The Young Republicans then did well in their response to call out specific quantitative spending habits of the Biden-Harris administration as well as direct economic comparisons between the two administrations. While the metrics and economic claims made by each chapter have more complex contexts and factors, within the parameters of the debate, both students did well. 

In the final section of the debate, students were asked questions about what many believe is the most important aspect of this year’s election: democracy. Following a Republican victory in Rock Paper Scissors, co-moderator Ben Schatz directly asked Dylan of the Young Republicans if the election was stolen. In an unconvincing response, Sopher claimed the election was partially stolen, citing Mark Zuckberg’s claims of censorship as evidence. James countered this claim by mentioning Republicans’ refusal to recognize Trump's loss. James concluded the debate with the powerful claim that “January 6th was an insurrection and a great attack on our democracy.”

Looking out on a packed room constituted of only a couple of eligible voters provides a great depiction of the Gilman communities’ drive to participate in and observe political discussion. The respect and quality of rhetoric displayed within the cross-club debate is an optimistic indicator of the next generation of engaged citizens.