Students attended debate of the College Republicans and College Democrats in the Flom Auditorium. Courtesy of Zack Miklos
By Lily Vesel
An excited crowd of Fordham students gathered Monday night in Flom Auditorium in the basement of Walsh Library to watch members of the Fordham College Democrats and the Fordham College Republicans debate issues regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), gun control and student debt.
The debate opened with a bipartisan discussion regarding the TPP, a trade agreement (awaiting congressional approval) among the United States and 11 other countries.
The partnership “includes, among other things, reductions in trade barriers, more rigorous labor law and environmental guarantees,” explained Ben St. Clair, FCRH ’17 president of the Fordham Political Review, who introduced the debate topics.
Democrat Adam Hamilton, FCRH ’18 and republican Robert Gray, FCRH ’17 argued in favor of the partnership while republican Jacob Linker, FCRH ’18 and democrat Alejandra Rodriguez, FCRH ’19, argued against it.
The pro-TPP side emphasized a “holistic” view of the partnership’s effect on the countries involved, arguing that it would boost the United States’ economy, help the middle class and reduce poverty in poor nations.
“The transpacific partnership is going to have one of the largest poverty reduction effects in the world, specifically in Vietnam,” argued Hamilton, citing that “poverty in Vietnam is going to see a decrease by 13 percent,” with the implementation of the partnership.
He argued that the increase in exports, which this partnership would allow to poor nations, would eventually reduce poverty in those countries.
“On the economic side, the United States is able to grow its economy by opening itself to foreign trade,” Gray explained. “The U.S. gains the ability to purchase goods it would otherwise not be able to purchase, improving consumer utility.”
The anti-TPP side argued that the partnership benefits corporate interests, not free trade, and that it would force domestic workers to compete with workers abroad, negatively affecting wages for all.
“We argue that it is questionable how much free trade will be a product of this [partnership],” Linker asserted. “It may actually result in a net increase in the amount of regulations and amount of trade rules established.”
“We are giving large multinational corporations the ability to outsource jobs and eliminate the pressures and tariffs that are put on from other countries importing their goods here, we are seeing a loss of industry here in the United States,” explained Rodriguez.
Next, in partisan debates, one member of the College Democrats and one member from the College Republicans presented opposing arguments on gun control and student debt in America.
Abhinay Govindan represented the Democratic side of the gun control debate, arguing in favor of gun control, while Sebastian Balasov represented the Republican side, arguing against increased gun control.
“Statistics show that where there are more guns, there is more violence,” emphasized Govindan, citing studies by Harvard and NYU on gun availability and shootings. “Stricter gun control will prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.”
Balasov, on the other hand, claimed that “crimes, illegal guns and mental health” were to blame for gun violence, and that there is “no clear evidence suggesting that taking away guns from law-abiding gun owners will lower US crime rates.”
The last debate topic was the reduction of student debt in Ameirca.
Introducing this topic, Ben St. Clair cited several statistics. “The Federal Reserve estimates that the student loan debt has reached approximately 1.3 trillion dollars and CNN reports that this debt is held by 43 million borrowers,” he explained. “Seven percent of households with student debt owe over 50 thousand dollars, while 58 percent of households owe less than ten thousand dollars.”
Democrat Matthew Santucci, GSB ’18, argued for implementing a free public education system modeled after European countries such as Germany and Denmark. Republican Rachel Cole argued that Santucci’s calls for a public education system might be well-intentioned, but ultimately unrealistic.
Santucci’s argument was reminiscent of presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. “We need to look to Europe in order to have comprehensive reform,” he explained. “Education is a right, it is not a privilege.”
He suggested a plan to implement public higher education. “We’re going to decrease the military budget, appropriating funds from a military budget to an education budget, and there will be a wall street tax in order to help mitigate the expenses.”
Cole countered that America could not afford a public higher education system. “If you were to tax the top one percent at 100 percent, that’s only going to give you one trillion dollars,” she asserted, suggesting instead that schools offer online classes to reduce education costs.”
“I thought that both sides [made]good points and most of their arguments did come from a place of fact,” commented Adam Hamilton, FCRH ’18, one of the democratic debaters. For him, a highlight of the debate was republican Rachel Cole’s argument on student debt. “I think that she was able to assess the problem holistically and see that the debate was not about solving college, but that it was about focusing on student debt,” he added.
Sebastian Albrecht, FCRH ’17, president of the Republican Club, remarked, “I think it went well in the sense that we actually had a good conversation between both clubs.”
“The problem our club had was that most of our debaters stepped out right before the debate so we had to find replacements right before [the debate],” Albrecht added.
An audience member, Elisabeth Finn, FCRH ’17, shared her favorite moment from the debate. “I really liked the TPP discussion because I really liked to see the bipartisanship and I also thought it was well-argued.”
“I don’t know that I could determine a clear winner,” she added, in reference to all the debates that night, noting that both sides presented effective arguments.
David Balick, FCRH ’17, had similar comments regarding the highlight of the debate. “I thought the TTP one was especially interesting because of the bipartisan factor with both sides defending both points. I thought they both [Republicans and Democrats] did a really good job there.”
“I thought it was really even,” he added.
