Students present issues in mock presidential debate

The Frangipani Room in the Indiana Memorial Union was filled with unusually strong words for two-and-a-half hours Tuesday night. \nRepresentatives from the IU College Democrats, the IU College Republicans and the Neo-Conservatives debated issues pertinent to the 2004 presidential elections in an event sponsored by the Mortar Board Senior Honor Society.\nSenior Darrin Nix, president of both the Mortar Board Senior Honor Society and the Parliamentary Debate team, planned, facilitated and moderated the debate. \n"I knew there was a lot of interest in the issues surrounding the coming presidential election in the IU community," Nix said. "I thought there would be even more interest if we hosted a debate on these issues."\nThe debate covered six issues likely to dominate the November 2004 presidential elections, including the economy, national security, health care, social security, civil rights and the environment. Nix said he was happy with the turnout and deemed it a success.\n"I expected to have about 25 people show up to watch," he said. "But, it looks like more than 50 came."\nSenior Mike Reiss and junior Morgan Tilleman, both members of the College Democrats, argued on behalf of the Democratic Party's platform. The representatives from the College Republicans were Graduate student Zach Wendling, sophomore Chase Downham and junior David White. A third ticket, the self-named Neo-Conservatives, was represented by brothers Ben and Brian Stewart. \nReiss, Wendling, Downham and both Stewart brothers agreed the most contentious issues of the night were the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq and other matters of national security. \nTilleman criticized the Bush administration's expenditures in Iraq, arguing it overestimated the cost of most projects. \n"National security was by far the hottest issue," Ben Stewart said. "It's been on everyone's minds since Sept. 11."\nDownham said the nation is "at war" and Bush's choice to invade Iraq was a just one.\n"George Bush decided to attack Iraq because he loves America and he wanted to stop weapons of mass destruction proliferation," Wendling said. \nBut Reiss, speaking for the Democrats, said Bush's attack on Iraq was unjustified because it was "unilateral," which the Republicans rebutted, citing 65 other nations involved in the war. \nOther hot topics discussed included gay marriage, universal health coverage and the Bush tax cut's effect on the national economy. \nMost of the debate participants and members of the audience agreed the debate was conducted professionally and presented useful information.\n"The debate was cordial and (the participants) seemed pretty well-informed on the issues at hand," said audience member Chad Shearer.\nBrian Stewart said his Neo-Conservative platform primarily consisted of "moralistic use of American military power abroad."\nThroughout the night, all three tickets weighed in on each of the six issues, each giving a three to five minute response to a question posed by Nix. The contending tickets then had a chance to give one to two minute rebuttals. \nBut the tickets all agreed on one thing.\n"Events likes these are important because they get people interested in politics and will hopefully motivate more students to get out and vote," Reiss said.\nNix said the Mortar Board is sponsoring a discussion on human rights that will feature a panel of North Korean exiles. It will be held at 7 p.m. April 6 in the Frangipani Room at the IMU.\n-- Contact staff writer Michael Zennie at mzennie@indiana.edu.