Before last night's presidential debate even started, the AU College Democrats and College Republicans had already fought their own battle on foreign policy.
The School of International Service and the Kennedy Political Union sponsored a debate between the political groups, held Wednesday at 6:30 p.m. in Kay Spiritual Life Center. SIS Ambassador in Residence Anthony Quainton and SIS Dean Louis Goodman moderated the debate.
Josh Goodman and John Manthe, freshmen in SIS, and Catherine Kozak, a junior in SIS, represented the College Democrats. David Hodges and Scott Belusik, seniors in SIS, and Caroline Solomon, a freshman in the College of Arts and Science, spoke for the College Republicans.
Some students agreed that the College Democrats won the debate. After their closing statements, the spokesmen were greeted with applause, and several audience members began cheering.
"[The College Democrats] knew their information much better than the Republicans and were much more eloquent," freshman Elizabeth Sanders said. "They did a better job defending their side,"
However, Belusik disagreed.
"I don't think anyone actually won," he said. "I think if you take it issue by issue, each side had different strengths."
Belusik said that while the Democrats said John Kerry "could be a good leader," he expressed doubt over whether or not Kerry would "follow through" on his apparent leadership.
College Republicans President Mike Inganamort agreed. "The College Republicans defended vigorously the positive plan President Bush has for the future of international relations," he said.
"The CR Team had a real grasp of the issues and conveyed their message in a serious, intellectual and informative way," Inganamort said.
The format of the student debate was similar to that of the presidential debates. Each side was allotted two minutes to respond to a question, with a 90-second rebuttal and possible 30-second extension. Quainton posed the questions, giving three to each group. After Quainton's set of three formal questions for each side, Goodman took questions from the audience.
Topics ranged from the war on terror to the war on drugs. Several questions addressed issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, nuclear proliferation and international cooperation.
The College Democrats defended Kerry's positions, questioning the existence of a "true coalition" for the Iraq war, citing the large number of American casualties in the war on terror, and attacking Bush's actions with regards to the Kyoto treaty.
The Republicans countered with statements about Kerry's indecisiveness, an emphasis on spreading democracy, and a vehement defense of the war.
However, the Republicans had some trouble defending their description of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as a "dictator."
"A lot of our problems came from not really being ready for some of the issues," Belusik said. "We were not prepared on South America and trade ... and I really think those issues cannot be ignored,"
Manthe, a College Democrat in the debate, said that if he could change something, he would "reiterate the failure of the leadership of the president."
"The world is crying out for leadership now, but [Bush] has really pushed the world away," said Manthe.
College Democrats President Greg Wasserstrom said that both sides did an excellent job debating "real substance" about North Korea and Latin America. Citing "a lot of back-and-forth debate," Wasserstrom said it was impressive to see "more depth than the presidential debates, particularly on a college campus ... [when] young people are so often criticized for being unconcerned."
Both parties prepared for the debate by splitting the world into regions and doing individual research. Each debater was prepared to address different foreign policy issues in different arenas. Also, two debaters for each group prepared the opening and closing statements read by each side.
College Democrats held tryouts for the debating positions, with the club members voting to decide who would get the chance to defend John Kerry. According to Belusik, the College Republicans approached the debaters based on foreign policy knowledge, experience, and campus reputation.
