Urban Debaters Split Over Democratic Debate in Nevada

A panel of high school debaters from the nations’ Urban Debate Leagues was as divided on the outcome of a Democratic Presidential debate as American voters have been thus far in their selection of a favorite.

Last night, the main candidates for the Democratic nomination participated in a debate in Las Vegas, Nevada on MSNBC. It was the first Democratic debate held since the New Hampshire primary. The participants were Senator Hillary Clinton, former Senator John Edwards and Senator Barack Obama.

A panel of four urban debaters judged the debate for the National Association for Urban Debate Leagues (NAUDL) and was widely split on their verdict. The panel was comprised of Joe Anthony, a junior from W.E.B. Dubois High School in Milwaukee; Christopher Bernard, from Northeast High School in Kansas City; Alexander Chan, a senior from the Josiah Quincy Upper School in Boston; and John Trevino, a senior from Walter Payton College Prep High School in Chicago.

The panel members chose to focus their analysis on areas of particular concern to their families – issues concerning the economy, education and national service, and energy.
The members of the panel extensively analyzed John Edwards’ focus on the middle class. Alexander Chan, who judged Edwards as the winner of the debate, thought the candidate would “fight for middle income level families” and make sure that “children would have a better life.” He particularly pointed out that Edwards would “make sure that college was accessible to everyone, an important issue for a high school senior.” Joe Anthony explained that he found Edwards “very sincere about bettering the life of the blue-collar people” and “how passionate he is about what he has been saying.” Anthony also felt this focus on the middle class help “is why I feel Edwards won the debate.”

On the other hand, John Trevino pointed out in relation to Edwards that “yes, we understand that Middle America is important, but what are you going to do about it? Ultimately, Edwards failed to answer this question.” Directly regarding Edwards’ college program, Trevino said “he provided no plan of action outlining how he would get this done.” Trevino also mentioned that Edwards “signed a bill which made it difficult for poor, middle class families to achieve economic stability in the event of bankruptcy.” Christopher Bernard similarly mentioned that “while there is nothing wrong with a focus on the middle class, not everything in politics links to the middle-class American.”
The NAUDL panel of judges was equally divided over the performance of Senator Obama. Joe Anthony, thought Obama “was the best and most powerful speaker throughout the debate.” He highlighted how Obama “stuck to the questions” and “made sure people saw a different perspective on the issues at hand.” Christopher Bernard favored Senator Obama in the debate because of his answers concerning alternative energy and tax policy for greenhouse gases. He also highlighted the discussion on the economy, particularly “the fluctuation of real estate, fixed interest rates, foreclosures, and bankruptcies.”

John Trevino thought Obama was “underwhelming” and that “some of his points were overshadowed by his inability to give examples of how he would change policies or successfully withdraw from Iraq.” Trevino also disagreed with Obama’s “theory that national service should be required of college students who receive financial aid from the government. Does this not perpetuate the classist discrimination he seeks to eliminate from the armed forces?” While Alexander Chen liked Obama’s point about “how teachers play a crucial role in a child’s education,” he felt that Obama “wasn’t as impressive as Clinton or Edwards.”

John Trevino judged Senator Clinton the winner of the debate. He liked how she “spoke with confidence and authority – something both Obama and Edwards lack” and that “she was the only candidate who actually provided solutions to the question asked” particularly mentioning her “plan to freeze interest rates”. He liked how Clinton “said it was ‘pathetic’ for President Bush to be ‘begging’ for oil in the Middle East.” He also found Clinton’s strategy to ask Obama to co-sponsor Iraq legislation as “a daring yet impressive move” showing how this proved she would be “blunt in order to change the direction of America’s foreign and domestic shortcomings.” Alexander Chan thought Senator Clinton “by far was the best speaker in the debate” and also felt that “she is ready to take on the White House.” Christopher Bernard admired her “precision on the economy and its effects on mid-class America.”

Senator Clinton did not escape mixed reviews, however. Joe Anthony felt that she “seemed to be very arrogant” and “did nothing to make herself stand out on any issues, until she started slamming Bush.”

The participants were selected by leaders of their UDL’s: Gabe Cook (League Director, Kansas City), Dave Denomie (League Director, Milwaukee), Andrew Brokos (League Director, Boston) and Dick Sullivan (Chairman of the Board, Chicago Debate Commission).