On March 28, 2024, the BYU Republicans and BYU Democrats held their once-a-semester debate. Both clubs believe holding civil discussions between differing political views is integral to sustaining our healthy democracy. Each organization had three representatives, one to argue each topic; the three topics for debate were criminal justice reform, foreign affairs, and the minimum wage. The agreed-upon format involved five-minute opening statements from each side, a three-minute rebuttal, a Q and A portion involving audience questions, and one-minute closing statements from each participant. There was a large turnout for the event. Based on the volume of cheers for each side, the Democrats seemed to have stronger audience support.
Criminal Justice Reform
Criminal Justice Reform was the first debate of the night, with the following statement being debated: Can criminal rehabilitation replace longer sentencing? The republican debater argued the negative, saying that due to rehabilitation only reducing recidivism rates by 7%, rehabilitation remains ineffective as a replacement for longer sentences. He then went on to argue that since the majority of violent criminals are young adults and that longer sentences produce a negative linear relationship with recidivism, longer prison sentences remain the most effective way to protect our communities.
The democrat debater argued the affirmative; while justice remains a foundational necessity to our system, rehabilitation and prevention must take priority rather than applying a short-term solution of imprisonment to a systemic problem. She argued that due to racial targeting, longer prison sentences are not just and therefore only exacerbate the mass incarceration problem.
During their short rebuttals, the republican countered by saying that those who participated in existing rehabilitation programs did not outperform their counterparts in recidivism rates. Therefore, those programs remain ineffective, and the only reliable method of change must be intrinsic. The democrat countered that longer prison sentences increase prisoners’ contact and knowledge sharing, leading to increased knowledge about committing crimes effectively and that there resides within humans an intrinsic desire to improve if only given the opportunity.
Foreign Affairs
The second debate addressed the following question: What level of involvement should the United States have in foreign affairs? The republican argued for a stronger isolationist route than the United States has taken in recent history. While she remained adamant on the importance of the United States’ role in the international community, she argued that as a country we have simultaneously become too dependent on others for natural resources. At the same time, we have allowed other nefarious actors to abuse organizations, like the UN, under our watch. As a consequence of the UN’s failure, she called for reducing funding to the UN and to only interfere in foreign wars when the United States’ interests are threatened.
The democrat argued against the “America First” agenda, citing the importance of free trade throughout the world’s oceans; the US guarantees the flow of commerce throughout the world, and protectionist policies will restrict global trade and harm economic growth. He argued that we have a moral right to be an agent of change within the world, even in cases where direct threats to US interests are not readily and easily understood.
During the rebuttals, the republican argued that she did not advocate for an isolationist policy but rather argued for a policy of prudence when involving ourselves in a foreign conflict. She also argued that the United States has footed the defense bill of most of the Western world and that we must demand they play their part in their own defense rather than relying on the United States’ unilateral intervention. The democrat reiterated the importance of our international agreements and that the rhetoric used by the America First foreign policy is irresponsible. Additionally, he pointed out the risk of leaving such organizations to the nefarious agents within the world, arguing that the failure in Afghanistan was due to the United States acting unilaterally without any help from allies in the region.
For closing arguments, the republican reiterated her policy of prudential intervention, arguing that we must be prepared for anything and that limiting ourselves to archaic understandings of foreign policy serves no purpose. The democrat reiterated the importance of helping our allies, even at the expense of ourselves.
Minimum Wage
The final question of the night was whether the United States should raise the federal minimum wage. The democrat pointed out the existing wage disparities between racial and ethnic groups in the United States and proposed raising the minimum wage could help create more equitable pay across the board. Additionally, according to his sources, there was no evidence that increased minimum wage harmed employment. He also argued that minimum wage remains a small sliver in the total production cost of goods and services. Therefore, while there remains some risk, the net positives outweigh this risk to help create equitable pay to combat corporate greed. The republican argued raising the minimum wage creates wage stagnation, leading to talent flight and mass exodus. She said that finding a job becomes more difficult and the businesses themselves must pay the higher wage, which is passed onto the consumer. This cost disproportionately affects small businesses. Additionally, she argued that due to thirty states having a higher minimum wage, the effects would be negligible and therefore the risks more apparent. Finally, she proposed that due to cost of living differences across the nation, a higher blanket minimum wage will disallow the locality’s freedom to adjust to the needs of the city.
During the rebuttals portion, the democrat pointed out that while talent outflow happens, it encourages those who left to apply for positions they may not have otherwise considered. This was to help address the objection that those making more than minimum wage are harmed by the resulting inflation. He also stated that there remains no reason for pay inequity across different localities and that we should not view these problems as ingrained within the system. He reiterated his point that late-stage capitalism and corporate greed are to blame for the rising income inequality faced within the United States, and governmental action remains the best way to deal with these problems. The republican argued raising the minimum wage reduces the incentive to excel by artificially leveling the pay scale in contrast to a free market. She argued on behalf of a free market approach in determining wages.
For closing arguments, the democrat restated his position that due to the 46 million Americans making under the proposed $15 an hour minimum wage, greater pay equity can be achieved at very little cost. He reiterated his view that rising wages do not contribute equally to final product cost, and therefore the inflationary pressures should not be significantly damaging. The republican argued the real figure was 20.6 million Americans making under the proposed $15 an hour minimum wage. One short search provides stronger evidence for the 20.6 million figure post-pandemic. Additionally, she cited the BLI suggesting unemployment would rise 11% and cost 700,000 existing jobs.
Written by: Ian Farris
Senior Contributor and Editor at the Cougar Chronicle
The Cougar Chronicle is an independent student-run newspaper and is not affiliated with Brigham Young University or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints