In an increasingly politically polarized society, fostering civil discourse between those with different views is crucial. This year, political participation on campus is on the rise. More than 1,100 students have enrolled in the U.S. Elections class, there are active voter registration efforts from Vanderbilt Student Government and Vandy Votes, and the recent presidential and vice-presidential debate watch parties hosted by student organizations and Residential Colleges drew considerable crowds. Against this backdrop, the Vanderbilt Political Review (VPR) hosted a spirited debate this past Tuesday night between the College Democrats (VCD) and College Republicans (VCR) on the merits of the respective parties’ presidential candidates. As the debaters took to the stage, the atmosphere buzzed with promises of a robust discussion, critical thinking, and to guide the audience in making an informed decision in the upcoming election. Cosponsored by the Vanderbilt Civil Discourse Lab, this event showcased the general excitement on campus surrounding the election, while underscoring the importance of civic engagement and respectful, albeit passionate, dialogue.

In Case You Missed It: The Debate in Brief

The debate was hosted in Wilson Hall on Tuesday, October 15th at 5:30 pm, and was attended by around 100 people. The debate commenced with a statement by Andrew Kyung (Editor-in-Chief of VPR and President of VCD) introducing the moderators and representatives from VCD and VCR. Moderating the debate was sophomore public policy and economics major Alícia Isasi (Managing Director of VPR). Time was kept by Professor Sandoz of the Communication Studies Department. VCD was represented in the debate by Drew Spiegel, a sophomore and the Vice President for Administration of VCD, and Melanie Gerko, a junior and the Vice President for Political Affairs of VCD. VCR was represented by Noah Jenkins, a junior and the President of VCR, and Frederik Schutz, a freshman and active member of VCR. The debate lasted for a little over an hour and consisted of an opening statement from each side, three questions debated by VCR and VCD, and a 3-minute closing statement from both sides. Each question began with a 2-3 minute opening statement from each side that preceded 13 minutes of free debate and concluded with each side making a 3-minute closing statement regarding the question.

Opening Statements

In the opening statement, led by Schutz, the Republicans asked a straightforward question: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” This question would become a motif throughout the debate, as their arguments focused on inflation, the southern border crisis, the Biden Administration’s foreign policy, and their effects on the American people. Schutz concluded his opening statement with a quote from Tim Walz, “We can’t have four more years of this,” and encouraged the audience to find common ground on the fact that the US is not on the right track, imploring them to consider Trump as a more viable alternative. VCD then gave their opening statement, in which Gerko focused on the positive aspects of Harris, complemented by Spiegel who discussed the negative aspects of Trump. Gerko portrayed Harris as a champion of the working class, while Spiegel portrayed Trump as a “flamboyant” threat to democracy, humorously riffing on a comment made earlier by the Republicans about Trump’s controversial character. 

Question #1: “Why is your candidate more qualified?”

Spiegel responded by giving a summary of Harris’ career as a district attorney and attorney general, arguing that in these government roles, she proved her efficacy as a political leader. Gerko brought up Trump’s role in the January 6th attack on the Capitol, characterizing him as “anti-democracy”. Schutz argued that Trump was a great president, citing unemployment and inflation statistics. Inflation continued to be a contentious topic in the free debate section, where Spiegel and Schutz exchanged comments disagreeing on the causes of the inflation that has occurred under Biden, its severity, whether it was better or worse under Trump, and whether it’s fair to attribute any responsibility for Biden’s economic policy to Harris. Towards the end of the section, there was a heated exchange between Jenkins, Spiegel, and Gerko about January 6th, which led to laughter from the audience.

Question #2: “How has your candidate’s background and life experience possibly shaped their political character?”

Jenkins responded, “I would say that my answer to this question would be very different had it not been for what happened three months ago in Butler, Pennsylvania, when President Trump was almost assassinated on live TV.” Jenkins characterized Trump as a “fighter,” citing Trump’s business ventures (a topic which would recur later on in the debate) and his battle against the “bogus charges” leveled against him. Gerko discussed Harris’ identity as the daughter of immigrants, her educational background at Howard and in law school, her career as a D.A. and California Attorney General, and tied these threads of her past together to describe her as an “American original.” The theme of “American originalism” continued into the free debate section, where Jenkins attempted to create a bridge between the Republicans and Democrats, asking whether it could be agreed upon that both Trump and Harris could be considered “American originals”. Spiegel rejected this notion, saying that he didn’t understand why Jenkins wanted to engage in “bothsideism.” Spiegel also brought up Trump’s 27 sexual misconduct allegations, asking the Republicans whether they considered sexual abuse to be a “red line” in terms of supporting a candidate. After a few moments of silence, Jenkins responded by saying that Trump “is not a perfect man, in fact far from it,” and said that he would not “defend the problematic aspects of President Trump’s past.” This triggered a back-and-forth between Spiegel and Jenkins in which Jenkins repeated his answer multiple times before moving on. The remainder of the section focused on the work environments of the offices of Trump and Harris. Schutz claimed that Harris’ office has a poor turnover rate because of toxicity. Gerko counter-argued that Trump’s office work environment was much worse, drawing on statements from some of Trump’s former cabinet members.

Question #3: “Why would your candidate be a better representative of the United States on the world stage?”

Spiegel opened discussion on the final question by discussing what he referred to as the Republicans’ “least favorite topic,” January 6th. Gerko mentioned Trump’s problematic history of employing language like “vermin” to describe opponents which historians have compared to Nazi rhetoric. She expounded upon his dissemination of disinformation, particularly regarding FEMA, COVID-19, and the validity of 2020 election results. Spiegel followed Gerko’s point by asking the Republicans if they believed Trump lost the 2020 election. Schutz agreed that Trump did lose in 2020, which was met with applause from the audience. Schutz responded, arguing that Harris is not as strong as Trump, citing his trip to North Korea, the facilitation of the Abraham Accords, and his experiences handling unfriendly journalists. This conversation extended into the free debate section. Gerko argued that Schutz’s argument doesn’t hold because Harris was planning to go on the strongly anti-Harris FOX News later that week while Trump had been canceling interviews. 

Closing Statements

The debate ended with each party given a chance to state their case to the audience. Jenkins gave VCR’s closing statement, imploring the audience to ask themselves what they thought was more important: being unorthodox or having good policies. He claimed that policies were more important and that the audience should consider Trump’s policies from his presidency when deciding who to vote for. Gerko and Spiegel split VCD’s closing statement, with Gerko urging the audience to look back to January 6th and avoid returning to a Trump presidency, rife with danger to American democracy. Spiegel admired that Schutz agreed Trump lost the 2020 election, but posed the question: why is Trump still lying about it? The debate was followed by a catered reception in the lobby of Wilson Hall.

Interviews and Commentary

Following the debate, I reached out to the participants to gain insight into their experiences and perspectives. The College Democrats did not respond for comment. The College Republicans reflected on the need for civil discourse. Freshman Frederik Schutz stated, “It’s necessary to have debates like these because the bedrock of our republic is free speech, and we’re lucky to be at a school which provides the platform for conversations like these to happen. When I challenge someone’s idea, they challenge mine, it forces both parties to truly think critically about why they think what they think, while potentially finding some common ground along the way. Better ideas come out of it as a result. When it comes to a school like Vanderbilt, where the orthodoxy of thought is to the left, I wanted to provide the audience with an alternate perspective, perhaps challenging what they believe, giving them a different perspective on the topics.” Jenkins complimented Spiegel on his rhetorical strategies regarding the question of sexual abuse being a “red line,” and admitted that the debate was inherently difficult, given the controversial nature of Donald Trump’s personality. He also said that he was looking forward to the next event in this year’s series of debates, which will be the night before the election, on November 4th. 

The debate showcased a vibrant display of political engagement, highlighting diverse perspectives that enrich campus discourse. As the nation approaches a critical election, the importance of civil dialogue becomes paramount. This debate served as a vital platform for such engagement. However, the debate also revealed the challenges inherent in political discussions, especially in a polarized climate, as evidenced by moments in the debate where audience members laughed or groaned at comments made by the debaters. The audience served as a litmus test for the popularity of the debaters’ lines of reasoning and exemplified the tendency of people to only engage with viewpoints that confirm their biases, making it difficult to find common ground. 

The debate format facilitated robust exchanges of ideas, despite moments when the debaters veered off-topic. Each question encouraged representatives to articulate their candidates’ strengths while challenging the opposition. The back-and-forth exchanges, particularly regarding contentious issues like January 6th, provided insight into how candidates might handle difficult topics. Audience laughter illustrated how humor can diffuse tension, reminding participants that serious discussions can foster camaraderie. As the election approaches, engagement in political discourse will become increasingly crucial. Events like this debate cultivate informed voters who grasp the complexities of the issues at stake and reinforce the role of universities as spaces for dialogue and learning.