The Political Science Society and Bridge Stony Brook co-hosted the third annual College Republicans versus College Democrats debate on Wednesday, Oct. 30, six days before the general election on Tuesday, Nov. 5 where president-elect Donald Trump won a landslide victory. 

This was a surprising result after weeks of polling putting Democratic candidate Kamala Harris within points of Trump. Harris’ loss, worse than Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, shows a potential consensus forming among a divided nation in spite of heated campaign trail rhetoric.

As the students settled into one of the lecture halls in the Humanities Building, debaters were split along party lines discussing strategy and questioning moderators on procedure.

“I think it will be a lot more heated simply because of the election season,” Jenni Lee, a College Republican and past debater, said.

As spectators started filling seats, the excitement in the room spiked. Minutes before the debate, Lara Gouda, the president of the Political Science Society and a junior double majoring in political science and economics, anticipated a rich and interesting debate.

“I’m actually feeling really excited,” Gouda said. “This is my first debate as a part of an affiliated club. I’m just observing the room right now and I think people are eager to listen and the debaters are eager to give information.”

The teams spent the next hour and a half discussing their views on key issues. In some cases, they fell along party lines. They disagreed on fiscal responsibility over social programs; financial and arms support for Ukraine; the threat posed by the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection and the role of diversity, equity and inclusivity in different institutions. Notably, other divisive issues such as the Israel-Palestine conflict and abortion access were not discussed.

Some of these disagreements came with raised tensions and voices. When Democrat debater Lauren Limmer called Trump a Nazi, Republicans objected. Democrat debaters Hanief Saterfield, a freshman majoring in economics, and Sean Camas, a junior majoring in political science, objected to Republicans’ comments about the Capitol insurrection. Saterfield interrupted another Republican debater when he claimed that Trump stepped down from power in 2021.

“Reluctantly,” Saterfield cut in. “Reluctantly!”

Though Camas told him to hold back at the moment, he would later raise his voice when the same Republican accused Democrats of exaggerating the severity of the insurrection.

“At what point in American history, at least in modern American history, did people go to the capital and chant, ‘Hang Mike Pence’ and build a gallows at the seat of the capital?” he asked. “I mean, how is that not a threat? I’m sorry! The only time the Confederate banner ever set foot in the Capitol was on January 6. The fact that people actually came there with zip ties to coerce members of Congress … I just don’t see how that’s not a threat!”

Despite the clashes, the often at-odds parties came to find common ground on several other points throughout the debate. A key phrase repeated that night: “In short terms, I agree with you.”

A question was posed about one of the hottest topics of this election season: gun control. Typically, Democrats advocate for increased background checks and bans on assault rifles while Republicans oppose universal background checks, citing the Second Amendment.

At Stony Brook’s debate, this issue played out differently.

“I’m actually also in favor of psychiatric tests if you want to purchase a firearm,” College Republican debater Julio, who declined to provide his last name upon request, said. “I think that is also important.” College Democrat debater Matthew Wlazlo agreed, adding, “I do not think you should be able to own a gun if you have a mental health problem or if someone in your home has a mental health problem.”

This was the first divergence from the party platform of the night for the Republicans. Later, both parties would agree on stricter term and age limits for elected officials and the need for a national voter identification requirement. They also agreed on the positive impact of deficit spending, which Republicans oppose.

After the debate, those in attendance reflected on these moments.

“I was surprised, again, at how their rhetoric disagreed with a lot of the mainstream Republican party, at least [with] their main figurehead Donald Trump,” Wlazlo said.

Samuel Shpak, the secretary for College Republicans and a junior majoring in history, noted that he had hoped this would be the outcome of the debate setting.

“A lot of people might be surprised that a lot of times people actually agreed with each other,” Shpak said. “As I was saying to other people, when you actually talk with people on the other side, or just generally talk with people, you might actually come to agreement on a lot of stuff.”

Shpak also pointed out another feature of the night: the inter-party disagreement.

“Even on both sides, there were actually disagreements within the groups,” Shpak said. “I will say, most [predominantly] on the Democrats’ side, but there were disagreements on the Republicans’ side, too.”

It was at this point in the debate that the panel offered the audience an insight into the political spectrum. Richard Vatawat, the president of the College Democrats and senior majoring in political science, called both clubs “moderate.” However, one panelist did not fit this description. After the debate, Saterfield spoke on how his views as a self-described socialist differed from his peers.

“Me having certain views that are different to the Democrats, some views that are further to the left, I wanted to try to work with them well,” Saterfield explained. “But [Wlazlo] just straight-up disagreed from the beginning. I was like, ‘Ah, you’re not supposed to do that,’ so that was pretty frustrating, but I ended up [doing the same] later on, too, so I can’t even say that much.”

Despite their differences, Saterfield said, “We worked well together when we were working well together.”

After the debate, several groups formed to discuss the topics of the debate. This time, conversants mingled between parties.

“The debate actually spurred people to talk to one another,” Shpak said. “There was a lot of intermixing where people had some good discussions. Even some debaters afterwards had a chance to finish some debate topics.”

Wlazlo said the same. After the debate, he was able to follow up with his opponents on topics from the role of the vice president to the criminal cases against Trump. 

“We went over a lot of the stuff in the debate, but in more detail,” he said. “But it was a nice conversation, it was very civil, there was no yelling or arguing — it was nice.”

Wlazlo also described the debate itself as a valuable opportunity to explore politics civilly. He called the rarity of such instances a “shame,” and called for “more of these discussions on every level, whether it’s in high school or college, or even formal politicians — I think they need to do this a lot more for sure.”

“I think it’s a shame, and gives us a poor reflection on our current political system,” Wlazlo added. “But it also gives me hope for the future, that if we get these people to be the leaders of the political parties and the political foundations that we’ll have a much better society in the future.”

Republican debater Chris Baker also left the debate feeling hopeful.

“We’re growing up,” Baker said. “We’re almost able to get into government, and I think the sooner that happens, the sooner more progress will be seen in this country. And we’ll be better prepared to enter the government by having more discussions like we had tonight.”