‘Needed now more than ever’: UR College Democrats and College Republicans debate after four-year hiatus

College democrats and republicans debated about free speech and abortion during an event hosted by the University of Richmond’s Speech and Debate.

The president of Speech and Debate, junior Julia Murphy, said hosting the event, which has not been held since 2021, would help promote civil discourse and the exchange of ideas.

“It's, in my opinion, needed now more than ever,” Murphy said. “It's a very tense political environment. People are often afraid to speak their mind and have unrestricted political beliefs on college campuses, so we really want this to model the kind of discourse we could be having throughout the campus, even if it's not on a stage like this.”

The two teams debated on issues of immigration, public safety, abortion, gun violence and free speech. Each team was allotted three minutes to speak on the topic and four minutes for cross arguments and questions.

“Tonight is about ideas, not people,” political science professor Daniel Palazzolo said before the debate began, emphasizing the importance of respect between all debaters and audience members.

Senior Kate Chasin, the moderator of the debate, asked the democrats and republicans if Virginians should support the Virginia Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment. The constitutional amendment, passed by the General Assembly earlier this year, would protect abortion access and reproductive healthcare in Virginia. 

Sophomore Sophie Christianson, president of the College Democrats, responded with an anecdote about her reaction to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022.

“That moment made me question the values we hold dear as Americans and why, with this decision, our freedoms felt more limited than those in other nations,” Christianson said. “…The government wasn't claiming power over just our bodies; it was just a political decision. And to be honest, it wasn't even just about abortion, it was about control, and it was a betrayal of everything I thought my country stood for.”

Christianson then told a story of a brain-dead woman who carried her baby to term after Georgia law prohibited abortion when a fetal heartbeat is detected. She related it to an increase in unsafe illegal abortions since the overturning of Roe and added that reproductive rights are part of fundamental American ideals like individual liberty.

“[The Statue of Liberty] is supposed to stand for freedom, for the right to choose one’s own path. That’s what America’s meant to be,” she said. “A place where no government dictates what women can or cannot do with their bodies. We owe it to ourselves, and we owe it to the promises built in our founding documents to protect the right to privacy and personal autonomy for everyone.”

When the College Republicans were asked to respond to the same question, sophomore Max Williams, the president of the organization, answered with one word, “no.”

“We are all pro-life,” Williams continued. “Some of us in the College Republicans are more pro-life than others, but generally we are all pro-life, so any bill or law or amendment that seeks to make abortion more accessible or more legal, we would be against.”

The organizations also debated whether the primary purpose of free speech on college campuses was to protect expression or uphold a respectful learning environment.

Member of College Democrats, first-year Aniska Manojkumar emphasized the importance of structuring discussions in a way that allows students to debate both sides of an argument constructively.

“Implementing regulation and structure and allowing people to express their thoughts and opinions, regardless of what side of the political spectrum you may be on, is the most effective way to have these discussions,” Manojkumar said.

She also explained how a “free speech at all costs” doesn’t allow arguments to be heard in a safe and respectful manner. 

The republicans countered her point highlighting that college should prepare students for real world scenarios where they might encounter offensive speech.

“We think that free speech should always be encouraged on college campuses, especially because college campuses are where we are prepared for the real world, where we will experience ideas that are different and even may seem offensive,” Williams said.

In the cross argument, Christianson asked the College Republicans, “How do we determine what's offensive versus what's hateful?”

“I don't know if either of them should be restricted,” Williams responded. “...I think that generally even if something is hatred it should be counteracted with dialogue, not violence, and instead of suppressed maybe it should be understood better and counteracted with words instead of suppression.”

During the cross, College Democrats sophomore Trey Madison said, “I think that there is such a thing as hate speech, and I think that it should be suppressed. I don't think that's something that we should normalize in society. We shouldn't be allowed to go around and say the n-word, I don't think we should go around and say the f-slur.”

The debate closed with each team complementing one thing about the other in order to foster civility and openness of discussion.

Audience member and first-year student, Taylor Derwin, said that the event helped remind her that it is possible to find common ground and have productive conversations with people across the political aisle.

“I would say that this restored my faith in civil discourse. Seeing on the news political debates, debates on podcasts, all sorts of things, it's always people yelling, people talking over each other, and here I saw a lot of common ground, which was amazing, and to have this on our campus was really special.”

Contact City and State editor Christina Taylor at christina.taylor@richmond.edu.

City & state writer Megan Bucholtz contributed to reporting.