Denver Mayoral Debate Hosted by Regis

By Danny Gonzales-Hyde, Staff Writer

This year Regis had the pleasure of hosting the Denver Mayoral Debate on February 9, the debate featured 16 candidates all of whom were given a platform to state why they are the best candidate for mayor. The event was hosted in the Regis recital hall, filled with Denver residents of wide-ranging demographics. As the event got underway, President Aceves gave a quick address to the audience thanking everyone for their attendance and the candidates for their participation. The debate format was distinct, as there were a variety of categories with a few questions and a number of candidates were called upon at random to answer each question. On top of this, candidates were each given three rebuttal cards that they could use when they deemed necessary. 

The first category addressed in the debate was the cost of housing as Denver has become increasingly expensive. In response, the candidates proposed a variety of different policy changes such as rent control, rent assistance, and increasing worker rights in an attempt to help Denverites accumulate more wealth. One of the most controversial topics introduced in the debate was that of houselessness which has been on the rise in Denver for a number of years. The candidates had an assortment of different takes on this such as having more of a focus on mental health and addiction services with the aim of creating stability, proposing that the city should invest in smaller housing units for individuals experiencing homelessness, and reevaluating where our tax money is going and repurposing that money. On the contrary, some candidates proposed that we should enact a camping ban as it creates an unsafe environment in the inner city.

Another fascinating topic that was touched on was the recent increase in population that Denver has been experiencing as people have been moving in from out of state. This is a relevant issue as Denver's infrastructure can’t support this influx of people. The candidates had varying ideas, most of which were centered around plans to improve infrastructure either by instituting more bike lanes or linking it to other issues such as Denver becoming increasingly overpriced and climate change. On the topic of climate change, the candidates all acknowledged the issue and stressed its importance, some even going so far as to call it a public health issue. In turn, they proposed solutions such as getting rid of fossil fuels, resorting to other forms of electricity, and holding corporate entities accountable as they disproportionately pollute our state. 

The debate gave us a sneak peek as to who the future and current leaders of our city are as we will surely see their names topping headlines for a number of years to come. Furthermore, we also received insight into the issues that matter to Denverites as the questions were all submitted by Denver residents who took the time to submit questions that matter most to them. Lastly, this debate gave us a chance to envision what the future holds for our great city. 

The Debate on the 2nd Amendment

By Patrick O’Neill, Staff Writer

On Friday February 15, Regis’ Debate Team held a public debate on the steps of the Dayton Memorial Library. The debate focused on two sides of the infamous gun control argument. One side which featured debate team members Nicholas Aranda and Sally Andarge argued that the 2nd amendment ought to be changed to promote gun control. The other side of the debate featured debate team members Amadia Al-Amin and Timothy Smith, arguing that the 2nd amendment was a fundamental human right that should not be taken away.

Debate team member, Amadia Al-Amin, kicked off the argument that the 2nd amendment was a fundamental human right by elaborating on that side’s perspective on the purpose of the government. She continued, saying that “freedom of action” was fundamental to an American citizen’s right and that action includes protecting oneself. She claimed that repealing the 2nd amendment would make the U.S. an authoritarian and oppressive regime. There would be, she elaborated, a fundamental flaw in the system if the right to protection is taken away; and, the intentions of the government would become obscured. She finalized her argument by saying that American rights must be ensured by regulating guns, not taking away the right to bear

arms.

To counter, debate team member, Nicholas Aranda stood at the podium, claiming that there is already a fear of state sanctioned violence in America—that the authoritarian regime that Amadia claimed would develop already existed. He elaborated that Americans already live in a system of tyranny with police brutality, gun violence, and school shootings. The Constitution, he claimed, is in no way a moral document. It is necessary to change and develop the Constitution to uphold human rights and prevent the mass-murder of people. To further his argument, Nicholas utilized mentions of the Abolition of Slavery and the Women’s Suffrage movements. He made the outstanding claim that America will become synonymous with violence if changes are not made to the Constitution. Nicholas also elaborated with examples of how the government might handle the repealing of then 2nd amendment by using buy-back programs such as those in the U.K. and Australia. Nicholas concluded his arguments with mentions of the outdated policies of the 2nd amendment and that changing the Constitution effectively represents what ought to be legal—gun violence, he said, is largely if not completely avoidable.

Two other debate team members, Sally Andarge and Timothy Smith spoke on the issues at the beginning and at the end of the debate, furthering the riveting gun control argument. Sally Andarge kicked the debate off but I unfortunately missed that part of the event.

The debate lasted about thirty minutes and gave attending Regis students and faculty a look at what the debate team really does.

The event went to promote Social Justice Fridays, which occur on the 3rd Friday of every month.