Last Wednesday, in the Davis Auditorium, The College Republicans and the DU Democrats held their first formal debate since 2011’s winter quarter. In what the clubs called “the faceoff of a lifetime,” three representatives from each side proceeded to argue over three of today’s most controversial topics.

Jacob Gunter, Alex Johnson and Andrew Struttmann argued for the Republican side, while Gabe Rusk, Chelsea Warren and Michael Neil represented the Democrats.

“The most important thing that both our groups hope to see from this event is a genuine desire from DU students to be more involved politically,” said Struttmann. “We hoped that this debate would make this issue real to less-involved students, and that it would spark their interest in the country they live in and the world around them, regardless of their ideology.”

Professor Prince, who claimed to be neither Democrat nor Republican, mediated the event, posing questions to the groups.

Each group was given the opportunity to present an opening argument for three minutes followed by 10 minutes of rebuttal and a two-minute closing argument from each side.

The debate became heated when Prince posed the question: “What is the proper relationship between federal and state governments?”

Democrats and Republicans were completely split on this issue.

Warren presented the Democrats’ opening arguments. She said while federalism is necessary for the system to work, the federal government should have the greater power. She argued that more federal power is needed to create “equal opportunity on a national scale,” and cited multiple examples of when the federal government has intervened with positive results.

Republicans disagreed.

“The federal government today is nothing like the founders intended,” argued Johnson. Republicans cited the Constitution’s 10th amendment, which states powers not specifically designated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are by default given to the states. They said states should be free to operate without mandates from the federal government. In closing, Republicans argued that members of a state know what is best for them because they are local residents.

The debate continued with the question: “To what extent should the government operate as a social safety net?”

The groups focused on welfare reform. The Republicans’ main argument, presented by Gunter, contended that too much money goes toward welfare programs. They argued that money for welfare should be given to states in categorical, rather than block, grants, meaning the money must be allocated for more specific purposes.

Gabe Rusk, in turn, argued for the Democrats that there should be “direct beneficiary support through welfare.” The Democrats said our society is built on entitlement, so when individuals’ needs are not being met, they have a right to direct support from the government.

The debate ended with an analogy from the Democrats.

“If the goal is to reach the top of Mt. Everest, then so many people are born on the bottom without the ropes to pull themselves up,” Rusk said.

The democrats believe it is the government’s role to help these people.

“Of course if anyone could choose, they would choose to be born on top of the mountain, but why should we pull other people down in order to get them there?” said Gunter in a response.

The College Republicans and DU Democrats hope to continue having debates on a quarterly basis.