After losing last year’s Caucus Cup Debate, the ISU College Republicans had a lot to prove. In the end, they succeeded in defeating the defending champions, the ISU Democrats.

“It really helps when you have people who want to come out, want to debate, want to speak,” said Caitlyn Van Dame, senior in political science and member of the ISU Republicans. “We then just figured out what we wanted to talk about, our main points, put it together and we were good to go.”

The Caucus Cup Debate, part of Iowa State’s First Amendment Day activities, is held between the ISU Democrats and ISU College Republicans, and a new topic chosen every year.

As last year’s winner, the Democrats got to choose whether to pick the topic or frame the issue, and they decided to set the topic as gun control.

This meant the Republicans chose the parameters of the topic. They stated the resolution as “the United States should not enact any new laws to restrict gun ownership,” said Logan Pals, president of the ISU College Republicans.

“It’s pretty general; it doesn’t have anything to do with just Iowa or a certain state,” Pals said. “We wanted to keep it within the nation so we would have a lot of things to discuss.”

The annual debate is kept to a formal format. Each team is given a strict time limit on introductions, rebuttals and concluding statements.

Each side was made up of four members, with Patrick Thomas, Tyler Platt, Jefferson Fink and Michael Fox debating for the Democrats and Pals, Van Dame, Stephen Quist and Jeremy Freeman debating for the Republicans.

The judges included Richard Doak, lecturer of journalism and mass communication; Charles Dobbs, professor of history; and Jean Goodwin, associate professor of English.

The Democrats argued against the resolution, saying there should be the option of creating new laws that might restrict gun ownership.

“We feel the nature of the issue itself lends support as to why state legislators and, to a limited extent, the federal government should continue to evaluate new and better options pertaining to gun regulations,” said Thomas, ISU Democrats’ team captain.

The Democrats also stuck to the point that the resolution set by the Republicans was too narrow and just is not practical in today’s society.

“Basically, my argument is that the proposal here, it is too definitive,” Fox said. “It’s just too strong of a statement.”

The Republicans centered much of their argument on the Founding Fathers and the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves if necessary.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes,” Pals said, quoting the Founding Fathers.

The team also focused their argument on the rights given to people under the Second Amendment and the constitutionality of it all.

“Both Republicans and Democrats, police officers and politicians, Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court agree,” Van Dame said. “Not only do individuals have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but it is unconstitutional for the states to restrict that right.”

The two teams were judged on the clarity, relevance and strength of the arguments and the overall cohesiveness of the group.

“It was a tough issue to debate because there weren’t a lot of disagreements,” Goodwin said. “But I think the Republicans in general were really better prepared than the Democrats and they were really more cohesive.”

Audience members also agreed that, while they may not have agreed with the arguments, they understood why the Republicans came out as the winners.

“I think the Republicans were very well prepared and they had a clear point and they made it, and throughout the whole thing they always came back and reiterated the point,” said Rachel Malone, senior in advertising. “The Democrats had good points, but they were just kind of all over the board.”

As the winners of this year’s debate, the ISU College Republicans will decide whether to choose the topic or frame the issue for next year’s Caucus Cup Debate.