UMass Lowell Connector Logo

British Debate discusses heated topic

The seperate factions ahd time to prepare their argument before debate (Mary Connell/Connector)

Mary Connell
Connector Staff

The second annual British Debate was held at Moloney Hall, University Crossing this past Tuesday, March 29. Students debated over the following statement: Donald Trump is good for American politics.

There were eight debaters in total, with two UMass Lowell students and two Cambridge Union students on each side. The sides were randomly selected, and therefore did not reflect the debater’s opinions. This added a new challenge, however, they handled it gracefully.

Each debater was allotted roughly five minutes and the sides alternated. While they spoke, other members could stand up, politely interrupt them, and have 15 seconds to speak if given the okay by the debater.

The debate kicked off with UMass Lowell junior Thomas Wood. He stood up to the podium, introduced himself, and put on a red Trump hat, and said, “Make America great again!” This was clearly the proposition side.

Wood opened up his argument by stating that Trump’s candidacy has already increased America’s number of voters and would in the future if he won the nomination. Wood said this increased voter turnout has been seen on both sides, as Trump is “both inspiring some and terrifying others.”

Harry Stoven-Bradford, a Cambridge Union student, argued further that Trump has created a platform for his supporters to vocalize their formerly unrepresented complaints of D.C.

On the opposition side was Katherine Dunbar, a Cambridge Union student. She argued that Trump has been successful because of his media attention. Dunbar said, “Politics have become more about personality than open discourse on policy,” causing the media to pay attention to Trump’s Twitter battles and tiny hands. As a result, supporters pay attention to his strong personality rather than his expertise on policy.

UMass Lowell senior Nicholas Gates shot Trump down for his inconsistency, an important aspect of politics. He also said that “Trump’s personality is not suitable on an international stage.”

After four of the eight debaters spoke, the floor was open to the audience. Members of the audience had a great deal to say both for and against Trump. Some agreed that Trump had allowed young people to care more about politics and that his “cultish personality,” coined by Katherine Dunbar, was a good thing because he is getting people involved like no other. Others argued that Trump is proof that the U.S. is still racist and is bad for democracy.

Nicquania Gamble, a UMass Lowell junior, opened up the second half. She discussed Trump’s unconventional views compared to that of the G.O.P. Because he does not care what the public thinks, Trump can create a platform that suits him instead of simply following the Republican Party’s expectations.

UMass Lowell student Chris Kelleher spoke of his own experience from attending the Jan. 4 Trump rally at the Tsongas Center. Kelleher said, “Grown men were yelling, saying, ‘put the Muslims on stage and shoot them.’”

Later, George Clay, a Cambridge Union debater, argued in his closing statement that the average politician will not help the recurring tragedies that the population has become numb to.

He created a human side of the Trump proposition argument and spoke of the very man who jumped off a bridge in Baltimore in September 2012 that “tipped the scale… the number of U.S. Army veterans that have killed themselves since the invasion of Afghanistan have exceeded the number of people killed in those conflicts themselves.”

Clay used this to argue that Trump is re-engaging those who have largely been ignored “in epic levels.”

Lastly was Robin Zhang Xu, a Cambridge Union debater. He spoke of the lack of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. and the millions suffering from the D.C. political elite’s free trade deals.

Despite this suffering, Xu said, “I don’t think this legitimizes racism within our society, I don’t think this absolves the degradation of political discourse within our country, and this is ultimately harmful to the very people that Trump claims that he supports.”

All eight debaters spoke with confidence and argued their side convincingly. Following the debate, the audience was told to vote by exiting either the door with the “yes” sign or the “nay” sign. The final vote was 14 to 4 against the statement “Donald Trump is good for American politics.”

Related posts