The Tartan

On April 12 in the McConomy Auditorium, a debate was held between the Carnegie Mellon College Republicans and College Democrats. The event was moderated by the Undergraduate Student Senate and Carnegie Debate, with questions created by the latter student organization. The debate was also livestreamed and posted to the cmuTV YouTube channel. The Tartan spoke to members of each student organization to learn about the motivation behind the event and its importance in the Carnegie Mellon community.

“More often than not, college campuses tend to be more of a liberal bent, so it’s difficult sometimes to get the conservative points across on campus when there is an organized fashion to do so,” said Junior Anthony Cacciato, the president of the College Republicans. 

“It is so important to go out and engage in the community by tabling, having events, and things like this where College Republicans can make points about how the Party is looking to make life better going forward for young people.”

Junior Avalon Sueiro, the president of the College Democrats, said the event was held now instead of in the fall semester so as to not influence voters.

“No matter what, you really lose a key factor of being a human if you cannot talk to people you disagree with.” Their goal is “to try and find some common ground, understand the differences in our ideas and how we think it is to promote open discussion, and to try to bring these ideas out of just our own clubs and to the mainstream,” said Sueiro.

Junior Francesca Cain, the president of the Undergraduate Student Senate, said, “The Undergraduate Student Senate has put particular emphasis on political engagement and civil discourse.”

“I think the importance of the Undergraduate Student Senate being able to moderate this debate is promoting civil discourse, understanding, and discussion amongst students over topics that sometimes are polarizing, and trying to come to the common ground and at least hear each others’ opinions,” Cain added.

Junior Thomas Sargent, secretary of Carnegie Debate, stated, “We in CMU Debate wrote the questions to be content-neutral, so that the audience wouldn’t be unfairly influenced by the phrasing of the question, and so each debater could emphasize the issues they believed most important. The topic areas were agreed upon by CMU Democrats and Republicans, but the specific questions were not known ahead of time.”

“At CMU Debate, we often have to argue for and listen to sides that we disagree with when competing at tournaments. But if we never leave our echo chambers, our views can never evolve. This is why events like this are so important: so that students can meaningfully engage with views that they disagree with, and come to conclusions and beliefs that are more informed,” Sargent added.

The event began with opening statements from each side. Afterwards, each group spoke on six different topics: immigration, the economy, foreign policy, governmental issues, social issues, and healthcare and welfare. All questions below were posed during the debate. The sections are not listed in chronological order.

Immigration

Sophomore Grady Kenix represented the College Republicans in this section, while Sueiro represented the College Democrats. Republicans began in this section. 

Moderators asked, “International students across the country are having their visas canceled by the Trump administration. Are the visa cancellations of Mahmoud Khalid, Rümeysa Öztürk, and other pro-Palestine activists a violation of free speech rights?”

Kenix began by stating that foreign and immigrant students are welcomed in the College Republicans student organization on campus. Kenix also described the importance of the student immigration system and the soft power and talent it brings to the United States. “It also brings us the certainty that we are helping countries around the world upskill their smartest and most talented people, and in the end, some of them, even immigrate to the United States,” says Kenix.

Kenix argued that “A very small minority in an immigrant population of several million have committed some violent protest, or crimes, … and that is a problem. That is in violation of visa conditions. And when people violate visa conditions, those visas ought to be canceled.”

Sueiro proceeded to argue that during Trump’s previous term, the number of F-1 visas issued was cut in half. Sueiro acknowledged that while some immigrants commit crimes, it is a small minority of the immigrant population and that overall, immigrants “produce GDP growth for the United States.”

Sueiro referenced examples of international students getting their visas revoked and argued that the Republican Party’s rhetoric towards immigrants is used to generate fear amongst the American population. “They are choosing people because they disagree with what Donald Trump thinks, and that is how they are using immigration. They are weaponizing immigration law to suppress dissent,” Sueiro added.

Other questions posed during this section were:

“What will Trump’s deportation operation accomplish? Will there be any adverse consequences?”

“The 14th Amendment states that, ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.’ Are all legal immigrants subject to the jurisdiction of the United?”

“Do H-B1 visas harm American workers, and should they be expanded?”

The Economy

Cacciato represented the College Republicans. The Democrats began this question.

Question: “Is the U.S. trade deficit harmful and what steps should be taken to resolve it if so?”

On the question of the U.S. trade deficit, the Democrats’ debater argued that tariffs are a tax imposed on American citizens and compared trading to buying a meal from a restaurant — a transaction that benefits customers without requiring an equal exchange. The debater emphasized that the trade deficits help circulate the U.S. dollar globally, strengthening the United States’ economic role.

He cited a 12 percent drop in the stock market and a 10 percent rise in the euro against the dollar as signs that investor confidence is declining due to recent trade policies. 

He argued that tariffs are not an effective solution unless deficits become dangerously large.

Cacciato responded by affirming the value of free trade but argued that tariffs can serve as a “sledgehammer of a negotiation tool” to address practices by other countries against the U.S.

He pointed to internal disagreements within the parties, mentioning members of the Republican Party who are pushing back against tariffs, as well as members of the Democratic Party who are in favor of the tariffs. 

Cacciato closed his statement by arguing that “free trade is something that both parties used to have a consensus on. I think it’s worth discussing ways that we can try to find that consensus again.”

The Democrat debater countered that while small tariffs can sometimes act as a “scalpel” to address specific trade issues, tariffs on Chinese goods, which he said have risen to 125 percent, would dramatically raise consumer prices. 

He argued that such policies are “punishing the American consumer” and described them as a result of “incompetence or malice” by President Trump.

The Republicans added that while some small tariffs may be defensible in theory, tariffs tend to raise prices for consumers. 

Cacciato argued that Democrats appeared conflicted in supporting tariffs and called for a return to the old bipartisan consensus that tariffs are generally harmful to the economy.

Other questions posed during this section were:

“What should each level of government do to reduce the cost of housing?”

“The U.S. has run a budget deficit every year since 2001. Is national debt a problem? If so, how big is it, and what steps should be taken to resolve it?”

Social Issues

Junior Soren Dupont represented the College Republicans in this section while freshman Ryan Tosh represented the College Democrats.

Question: “Trump recently signed the executive order designed to prevent transgender individuals from being able to enlist in the military. What is the justification for this?”

Dupont began by giving an example of changes being made to public restrooms, stating, “there’s two doors next to each other, one labeled ‘all gender restroom,’ the other labeled ‘all gender restroom with urinals,’ and I think this is a funny example, because it’s seamlessly confusing.” Dupont went on to say that identity pertained to an individual’s passions, likes, and dislikes, and added that focusing on gender distracts individuals from “discovering their true identity.”

Tosh began with a point of clarification, saying, “‘All gender with urinals’ means all genders can use it and there’s a urinal.” 

Tosh proceeded to say that Dupont did not address the question and argued that, given the military’s struggle to enlist people and the need to enlist people from diverse backgrounds, “cutting out a whole class of people just because you don’t like them is idiotic.”

From there, Dupont acknowledged he did not answer the question but stated that he wanted to speak on the “transgender issue more fundamentally.” Shortly thereafter, he used the word “degeneration,” which caused a member of the audience to heckle at Dupont, yelling, “There is no problem with trans people! Are we going to let him spread bigotry in this city? Are you serious?” The heckler was told that the debate is not a place for demonstrations from the audience and that they are allowed to depart the event if they so desired, which they did. Dupont clarified, “I did not say degeneration. I said the degeneration of our imagination.”

Question: “Our president has revoked security clearances and terminated government contracts for law firms engaged in D.E.I. hiring and representing prominent Democrats. Does the president have a right to do so?”

Tosh said, “the answer is obviously no.” He argued that having people from different backgrounds is important and that diversity, equity, and inclusion are meant to fight systemic biases within fields. Tosh emphasized, “It’s very important that people from different backgrounds are able to have an equal opportunity to progress through their careers, through whatever they choose to do with their life.”

Dupont began his argument with a quote from Frederick Douglass’ speech delivered to the American Anti-Slavery Society on Jan. 26, 1865. In the quote Dupont read from the speech, Douglass argues for justice and equality rather than charity or special treatment.

Dupont argued that the Democratic Party “refuses to untie the hands of black America and give them a chance. It insists on interfering with the labor market at every turn, thereby putting people out of work and preventing them from moving on to better paying jobs.” 

Dupont added that inner-city parents from providing their children with a better education through school choice. He continued, “by the time you get to college or post college, there simply are not enough qualified minorities from the general population to fill the position that institutions have to fill. How is D.E.I. going to solve that? How is D.E.I. going to solve the lack of quality education that minorities have in this country?”

Other questions posed during this section were:

“Are specifically racial quota systems of hiring folks on racial discrimination?”

Governmental Issues

Junior Bonnie Ji represented the College Republicans, while masters student Alexander Ellis represented the College Democrats. The Republicans began this question.

Question: “Should the Department of Education exist?”

When asked whether the Department of Education should exist, Ji, from the College Republicans, argued that education should be governed at the state and local levels, not by a centralized federal system. 

“Education is not a one-size-fits-all situation,” she said, emphasizing that local communities and parents are better equipped to manage schools according to their specific needs. 

Ji criticized the Biden administration for increasing spending through the Department of Education without improving student outcomes, claiming that polarization “is getting bigger and bigger” despite federal investment.

In response, Ellis warned that eliminating the Department of Education, as proposed under the Project 2025 plan — an expansive think tank proposal that many commentators believe is highly influential over Trump administration policy — would disproportionately harm underserved communities. He pointed to funding initiatives for community schools, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and Hispanic-Serving Institutions that would be jeopardized if the Department of Education were dismantled. 

The College Democrats framed the move to abolish the Department of Education as part of a broader trend of “anti-intellectualism” and argued that investing in education is critical to America’s future prosperity. 

He went on to directly address the audience, mentioning that the recent uncertainties in federal education funding have caused many students to face jeopardized academic and career prospects, particularly those pursuing higher education, such as Ph.D.s. He stressed that the impacts of funding cuts were “not just statistics, it’s real life.”

Ji questioned the effectiveness of the Department of Education, expressing uncertainty about where its funds are allocated and arguing that, despite billions spent annually since its creation in 1979, student outcomes have not improved. She warned that a centralized, one-size-fits-all approach fails local communities and concluded that education should primarily be the responsibility of parents.

The Democrats responded by defending federal investment in education and research, highlighting that government support helped drive major technological advances like GPS, the internet, and the iPhone. He warned that cutting education funding would undermine America’s future growth and innovation for decades to come.

Other questions posed during this section were:

“What’s the best way to reduce bureaucratic waste and redundancy?”

“What should be the future of Pell Grants, work study, and federal student loans?”

Foreign Policy

First-year student York Bourgeois represented the College Republicans and Sophomore Sam Curry represented the College Democrats. The College Democrats began.

Question: “How should the U.S. respond, if at all, to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza?”

Curry stated that President Trump has been doing the opposite of what the United States should be doing. He argued against Trump’s proposal to remove Palestinians from Gaza and convert the area into a luxury resort, saying, “This is not conduct becoming of our president of the United States. It makes America look foolish. It makes our country look completely idiotic.”

Curry said that a ceasefire had been reached under the Biden administration but that soon after Trump was elected, the ceasefire was broken. Sam argued that this was because the United States’ reputation as a leader of the free world has been tarnished under the Trump administration. “We have no more diplomatic ability. We have no more soft power under the Trump administration, we have failed in Gaza, and we will continue to fail as long as Trump continues in his disastrous policies,” Sam added.

Bourgeois began by stating that he does not agree with Trump’s handling of the ongoing war between Palestine and Israel. He also commented that Trump’s proposal of turning the Gaza Strip into a luxury resort should not be taken seriously. Bourgeois argues that focus should be spent on reaching a ceasefire and that it can be accomplished through cooperation between nations like Egypt, Jordan, and Iran. “I agree that for the Palestinians and Israelis that were both attacked, the best way for this to happen is through diplomacy,” said Bourgeois.

Bourgeois said that the attacks on Israel on Oct. 7 should not be understated, arguing, “This was Israel’s 9/11, except the people stayed in the tunnels and they were kidnapped for multiple years on end. … Both sides are coming from a huge place of hurt and a tremendous deal of controversy, and it’s very complicated.”

Other questions posed during this section were:

“Russia has thus far not agreed to the ceasefire in Ukraine. How should the U.S. proceed?”

“Does NATO provide value to the U.S. today?”

“What responsibility does the United States have, if at all, in producing climate change?”

Healthcare and Welfare

Sophomore student Ally Aufman represented the College Republicans and sophomore River Sepinuck represented the College Democrats. The Democrats began this question.

Question: “How should the United States healthcare system be reformed?”

Sepinuck argued that the country should move toward universal healthcare, citing its popularity and supposed lower costs compared to the current privatized model.

Sepinuck said that, “It is insane to think that we should continue to allow private healthcare companies to profit off the arms of everyday Americans,” adding that countries with public healthcare systems consistently show better health outcomes than the U.S.

Aufman responded by criticizing government-run healthcare systems like Canada’s, pointing to long wait times and the controversial rise in medically assisted deaths under the MAID program.

Aufman also raised concerns about the rapidly increasing costs of Medicare, Social Security, and interest payments on federal debt, arguing that fraud and waste in existing entitlement programs must be addressed through structural reforms.

In rebuttal, Sepinuck acknowledged that fraud exists but argued that the private healthcare industry’s profit margins represent an even greater inefficiency. He accused Republicans ofinflating savings projections and prioritizing the interests of billionaires over healthcare access for ordinary Americans.

In closing, Aufman warned that entitlement programs will soon become financially unsustainable without serious reforms, including raising the minimum eligibility age for Social Security as a last resort.

Other questions posed during this section were:

“Should I.V.F. in federal resolution be a statutory right, and should insurance be required to cover it?”

“Under what circumstances should a minor receive affirming care, and what would the tariff encompass?”

After the six topics were covered, members of the audience were permitted to pose questions to the debaters on a specific section by filling out a Google Form through a QR code. The event concluded with statements from each side, presented by the presidents of each club.

Throughout the event, the audience reacted to statements made by each side with applause, gasps, and heckling, which was not permitted in the event. 

The following day, The Tartan met with Cacciato, who was content over the turnout of the debate. Cacciato believes it is important for young people to discuss pressing issues and said, “our party is not a monolith, and when debaters went up there, they presented their own personal opinions as registered Republicans. Bearing that in mind, it’s not indicative of the party on the whole.” He added that he looks forward to engaging in another debate next year so that audiences can hear the opinions of other members of the College Republicans.

Sueiro echoed similar sentiments and highlighted the collaborative effort across campus organizations behind the event. “Overall, we’re really proud of how our debaters performed on Saturday,” she said. “We’re thankful to everyone who came together to make this event happen. We really enjoyed the collaboration and hope to make the debate an annual occurrence.”