Penn political groups clash over gun control, Israel-Hamas war at GPA all-party debate

Three of Penn's student political organizations participated in the all-party debate hosted by the Government and Politics Association on Wednesday. 

The event drew around 80 attendees, who watched representatives from Penn Democrats, Penn College Republicans, and Penn for Liberty engage in a discussion for more than an hour. GPA co-hosted the event with the Andrea Mitchell Center for the Study of Democracy in the auditorium of the Perelman Center for Political Science and Economics. 

Notably absent from the lineup was Penn Young Democratic Socialists of America, a group that has historically participated in the event. Initial promotional material for the debate included Penn YDSA as a participant, but the organization was later quietly removed. 

The debate brought together student voices from across the political spectrum to discuss topics including gun control, abortion, immigration, and foreign relations. College sophomore and GPA Vice President of Internal Sage Mehta was the moderator for the evening and opened the debate with the topic of gun control. 

Penn Dems debater and College first year Steve Yang advocated for measures such as banning assault weapons, strengthening background checks, and closing loopholes. Emphasizing that gun control measures were "simply common sense," he said the Republican Party was "beholden" to the National Rifle Association, a prominent gun rights policy organization.

“A party that claims to be pro-life is twiddling its thumbs," Yang said, referencing many Republicans' stance on abortion. "Innocent people are being maimed and gunned down. They are only pro-life when it suits them.”

Penn for Liberty debater and College senior Kevin Mani countered Yang’s arguments, contending that past assault weapon bans had proven ineffective. Mani said it was "important to respect" Second Amendment rights, and that they could act as protection against potential government overreach.

College first year and College Republicans debater Finn Broder echoed sentiments from both sides, agreeing with "common sense" measures like strengthening background checks while cautioning against wholesale bans on firearms. 

Tensions reached a high point during the rebuttal section, with debaters from all three organizations speaking over each other. The heated exchange started when Wharton junior and College Republicans debater Jack Klein repeatedly asked the Penn Dems debaters to define “assault weapon.” 

“You’re coming to this debate with a pledge to have an open and civil discussion. You are plainly unable to have this type of discussion,” Yang said. "We're talking about lives here, right?" 

The debaters then moved to the issue of abortion. Republicans debater and College first year Emma McClure expressed support for the overturning of Roe v. Wade and states' rights. 

“Abortion is not a right and is not guaranteed in this nation’s constitution,” McClure said.

Penn Dems debater and College sophomore Lucas Eisen supported the codifying of abortion rights as “a fundamental question of liberty.” He said that the overturn of Roe v. Wade impacted individual privacy and autonomy, particularly for marginalized groups.

In contrast, College senior and Penn for Liberty debater Maya El-Sharif framed abortion as a moral and religious issue that should be determined at the state level through democratic processes rather than imposed as a federal right. 

"Should we as population enforce a federal right to something that is largely a moral question?" El-Sharif said. "For a lot of libertarians, that's a hard no." 

On immigration, Penn for Liberty said immigration was an "intrinsic good," and advocated for increasing legal immigration pathways to meet labor demands while supporting deportation — rather than a pathway to citizenship — for undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United States. 

“Creating legal shortcuts and then justifying them is a gross misstep of legal enforcement and destroys the entire facility of law,” El-Sharif said.

College senior and College Republicans debater Lexi Boccuzzi — who is also a former DP staffer — agreed with El-Sharif's stances on immigration policy, but also pointed out that mass deportation would be "way too expensive." She supported a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the United States who have jobs or family ties by a set deadline, followed by stringent border enforcement and highly regulated future immigration. 

Penn Dems debater and College sophomore Alexandra Kanan McPhee proposed a different approach, advocating for undocumented immigration to be treated as a civil offense rather than a criminal one. 

On the final topic for the debate, foreign policy, Penn Dems expressed support for continuing foreign military aid to Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Yang defended Israel’s right to self-defense against Hamas's attacks while urging efforts to reduce civilian casualties in Gaza. 

"We also urge world governments to continue to put pressure on the Israeli government to adhere to international human rights law and to work towards a constructive end of hostilities, while ensuring the safety of Israel," Yang said. 

Taking a non-interventionist stance, Mani advocated ending military aid and involvement abroad for both Ukraine and Israel. Instead, he favored using economic soft power rather than military interventions.  

“We believe America should be a republic, not an empire,” Mani said. 

College Republicans strongly backed continuing military aid to help Ukraine and Israel “win their wars completely” against Russian and Hamas forces. Klein defended Israel’s efforts to minimize civilian casualties, accusing Hamas of using civilians as human shields. He also rejected the “accusation of genocide” against Palestinians, citing Palestinian population growth since 1948.

During the rebuttal, El-Sharif pushed back against Klein's framing of the war in Gaza. 

“The question then is not 'Do you think Israel is justified in defending itself?' but 'Should the U.S. be complicit in the ways that Israel is defending itself? Is it in our interest to permit a genocide of a population?'” she said.

After the debate, Yang told the DP that he felt the debate went well overall, especially in the latter portions. However, he felt there was some “lack of reasonable discourse” early on around gun control before the sides could return to more civil and polite discussion.

Members of College Republicans said to the DP that the discussion may have benefitted from more guidance from GPA — such as a background information packet or structured research time — as well as more time on each topic to fully flesh out arguments. 

“I think everyone needs to know there are some debaters who put the effort into knowing the facts, and other debaters who are passionate, but maybe didn’t have enough of a factual basis and background knowledge to speak in a way that was productive,” Klein said.

El-Sharif noted the overall benefit of the all-party debate forum. 

“Across all the aisles, there were times where different groups agreed and disagreed on different points, which I think is not something we see in Congress," she said to the DP. "It’s something that I hope to do in these types of debates.”