By Brandon Fey, Staff Writer
The annual Gettysburg College Campus Wide Policy Debate was held on Oct. 18 in the Atrium of the Dining Center. This was hosted by the Public Policy Department, the Public Policy House, the Public Policy Student Council and the Eisenhower Institute at Gettysburg College.
Political Science Professor Dr. Ae sil Woo moderated the event. She gave an opening talk in which she introduced the goals for the debate to foster dialogue, educate the campus on opposing political views and promote ongoing conversations.
Professors Woo Moderating the debate. (Photo William Oehler/The Gettysburgian)
The participants were arranged on a panel by the ideologies of the student organizations they represented. To the left were the Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA), represented by Quinn Gillies ’25, and the Gettysburg College Democrats, represented by Owen Labruna ’24 and Adam Doran ’25. In the center was the Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), represented by Clayton Brosend ’24 and Michael Klatt ’25. To the right of the spectrum were the Gettysburg College Republicans represented by Tyler Seeman ’26 and Gavin Wilson ’27, and the Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), represented by John Riccardi ’24 and Grayden Varisco ’26.
The debaters were asked a set of topical policy questions in an alternating order of response for each group. This was followed by time for rebuttal.
The groups began with brief opening statements about their general values and visions for America’s political future. YDSA argued for dismantling hierarchies of capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and heteronormativity to achieve redistributive policies and sustainable wealth distribution.
College Democrats stood for valuing “human-centric policies that promote liberty and that promote justice.” They mentioned the need to fight climate change and fight corporate interests in support of workers.
College Republicans mentioned their favor of “a strong national defense, traditional values, fiscally responsible economics and limited government.” YAF held similar stances, emphasizing free markets, a strong national defense and traditional values.
YAL took an approach that was centered on individual autonomy, asserting that it strives to promote its mission to take private options out of the government and return them to the hands of the individual.
The first question read, “Should the federal government be moving towards utilizing renewable energy sources? If so, what role should the government be taking in that?”
College Democrats began by arguing that the federal government should prioritize renewable energy sources to combat climate change, with conditions for funding allocation. YDSA concurred that national environmental responsibility was of critical importance. YAL held that current regulations are hindering the development of promising new technologies in the private sector like Tara, a solar-powered car.
College Republicans suggested a market-driven approach to energy policy but acknowledged the need for the government to consider adverse health effects and not rely solely on non-renewable sources. YAF spoke about the potential for the currently restrained free market to create innovative new technologies whilst lifting many out of poverty.
Participants were also asked about the disarray in Congress, especially in the wake of the recent ousting of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. YAF stated that McCarthy’s outing was the result of his failure to keep promises to the Freedom Caucus and therefore a positive sign that the establishment would have to remain true to its word.
In turn, YDSA saw this development as evidence of the inefficacy of the Republican Party and also criticized Congressional Democrats for failing to take advantage of the situation.
College Democrats spoke about the ineptitude of Congressional Republicans and cited examples of breakthrough legislation passed by the former Congress in which Democrats held an identical house majority.
YAL then said that it was pleased to see that McCarthy was able to be removed after he failed to follow through with his budget obligations.
College Republicans stated while the ousting of McCarthy was neither pragmatic nor advantageous to the party at the time, it was done to promote the confidence of the House. They also said that having Jim Jordan as Speaker of the House would be the best option in the future.
Debaters from various political clubs participating in the Campus Wide Policy Debate. (Photo William Oehler/The Gettysburgian)
Regarding foreign policy, the groups were asked if they agreed with President Biden’s decision to support Israel in response to the recent attack from the Palestinian group Hamas. In response to this question, everyone agreed that the attacks were appalling and unjustifiable.
College Democrats acknowledged the right of Israel to prosecute the attackers but warned that a military operation into Gaza would lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent lives. They held that the U.S. should remain committed to opposing terror but should also oppose Israeli settlement of internationally recognized Palestinian lands.
YAL mentioned the role of the U.S. in funding both sides, whether directly or indirectly, as part of a trend in which the military-industrial complex has perpetuated endless international conflicts.
College Republicans stated their belief that Israel remains an ally of the United States as a beacon of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. It emphasized the heinous actions taken by Hamas and affirmed the commitment of the U.S. to support Israel with military aid.
YDSA claimed Israel to be an apartheid state responsible for the unjust displacement of Palestinians. They held that the operation that is to be undertaken by Israel in Gaza would be an effort toward ethnic cleansing, and the U.S. should halt all support for the country.
The audience had the opportunity to ask questions to the panel regarding the representation of women in U.S. politics on campus and on Capitol Hill, as well as the possibility for congressional term limits.
During the program, audience members filled out bingo sheets to mark expected phrases and/or topics that were mentioned over the course of the program.
Public Policy House member and organizer of the event, Ella Prieto ’26, shared her thoughts on the program.
“Putting together this debate was really important to our house and it was something that I was so proud to be able to lead. I think it’s so important to show that we’re able to have these productive political conversations and engage across campus,” Prieto said.
