Campus Debate: The Death Penalty is Justified
On October 29th, over 30 students and faculty gathered to debate whether the Death Penalty is Justified. Students offered many views both for and against the resolution.
The debate began with two key reasons for the affirmative. First, the death penalty ensures that those who have committed heinous crimes will not be repeat offenders. Using the death penalty protects citizens from future harm. Second, speakers noted that the death penalty serves as a deterrent, thus reducing the probability that such heinous crimes will take place. Those in the negative noted that the finality of the death penalty means that any mistakes or errors by a jury or judge can’t be reversed. Because criminal proceedings can result in a guilty verdict even when the defendant is innocent, the death penalty is cruel. Moreover, those in the negative noted that some recent research suggests no deterrent effect. Most heinous crimes are either crimes of passion or those committed by people found to be mentally unsound.
As the debate continued, students also discussed Locke and Mill’s views on liberty and why the death penalty violates individual liberty. Others noted that other types of punishment, such as the removal of a limb, might serve as a greater deterrent than the death penalty.
The CSFE is thankful for Barnes Debate Fellow, Laz White, who expertly introduced the resolution and rules of the debate. He seamlessly guided the discussion and ensured that all speakers and audience members were given an opportunity to offer their views. He also ensured that all audience members were given an opportunity to ask probing questions of each speaker.
The Debate was made possible through the support of the Barnes Family Foundation, ACTA, and the College Debates and Discourse Alliance. We thank Astrid Richardson and Bryan Paul for their suggestions and guidance.
And a big thank you to Whitey Mcall for ensuring we were all well-nourished and hydrated!
Campus Debate: Should the U.S. adopt a Universal Healthcare System run by the Federal Government?
On September 28th over 50 students and faculty gathered to debate whether the U.S. should adopt and run a Universal Healthcare System. Students offered many views both for and against the resolution.
In support of the resolution, one student noted that the United States signed the UN’s resolution on health and that, through a universal health care system would be able to meet many of the guidelines the US currently fails to meet. Those against the resolution noted the increased wait time that would likely result if healthcare was provided by the U.S. Government. Another student for the resolution noted that the government healthcare plan for former military in North Carolina, Tricare, works well and that it could also work well for others. Other students noted that they did not trust those currently in power and would therefore be concerned if the current administration had a say over the types of care that a US universal healthcare system would provide. Some noted the large sums spent on the current military action in Iran and how those resources could be better used for healthcare in the United States. One student against the resolution noted that the United States’ individualistic culture would make it difficult to replicate the well-run universal healthcare systems available in European countries.
No successful debate is possible without an excellent facilitator. In his first time as debate chair, Barnes Debate Fellow, Laz White, carefully guided the discussion and ensured that all speakers and audience members were given an opportunity to offer their views. He also ensured that all audience members were given an opportunity to ask probing questions of each speaker.
The Debate was made possible through the support of the Barnes Family Foundation, ACTA, the College Debates and Discourse Alliance and Braver Angels. We thank Bryan Paul for his suggestions and guidance.
And a big thank you to Whitey Mcall for ensuring we were all well-nourished and hydrated!
Should the U.S. adopt a Universal Healthcare System run by the Federal Government? A Campus-Wide Debate.
Healthcare expenditures in the United States have grown from 13.3 percent of GDP in 2000 to 18% of GDP in 2024. According to the Pew Foundation, 73% of U.S. adults now say affordability of health care is a very big problem. On September 28th at 6pm in Forsyth 101A, the College Debates and Discourse Alliance and The Center for the Study of Free Enterprise at Western Carolina University will cohost the campus-wide debate:
“Should the U.S. adopt a Universal Healthcare System run by the Federal Government?”
Please join us at 6pm for food and beverages before the 6:30pm debate. All community members are welcome!
Please register here: CD&D Braver College Debate – WCU Tickets, Monday, September 28 • 6 PM – 8 PM | Eventbrite
Is Economic Inequality Bad?
Ashlyn Hannon chaired classroom debates in two introductory macroeconomics classes.
The resolution: Economic inequality is bad.
Students debated and discussed the causes and consequences of income inequality. Presenters noted that inequality can arise when individuals or groups face discrimination or when new technology increase the productivity of some workers. Presenters talked about the role international trade, immigration, and unions can play in determining the level of inequality. Many students noted that people can become discouraged when they witness a decline in the income relative to others. Other students noted that some level of income inequality can incentivize people to put forth greater effort.
All participants respectfully listed to their classmates and asked valuable questions. Ashlynn was an outstanding chair. She clearly described the format and goals of the debate and ensured that all were given an opportunity to present their ideas or ask questions of the speakers. Our outstanding whip was Lazarus White who ensured those with unique perspectives were given an opportunity to present their ideas to the group.
A big thank you to Mae Rum and Bryan Paul for their help and guidance.
Abolish ICE? A Campus-Wide Debate
On March 23, students and community members gathered for the CSFE’s fourth campus-wide debate/discussion of the year to debate whether the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, or ICE, should be abolished. Participants who were against the abolition of ICE noted that it plays an important role in vetting those who want to enter the country. ICE is a line of protection from those who want to harm those who are legally in the country. Some noted that ICE enforces customs rules and regulations.
Many who supported the resolution and would support the abolition of ICE noted that some of ICE’s duties could be assigned to other agencies, such as the Department of Justice. Speakers noted that ICE’s activities, particularly how it has treated many US citizens, border on tyranny. Other speakers thought that the abolition of ICE did not go far enough. They suggested that the Homeland Security Agency should be given much less authority. A few wanted to defund the Homeland Security Agency.
Facilitating a debate on such charged topics requires an excellent team of Barnes Debate Fellows. Ashlyn Hannon was our outstanding chair. She ensured that audience members respectfully listened to every speaker and that audience members were given ample opportunity and time to ask questions of each speaker. Lazarus White and Tryston Weiss encouraged audience members to present their ideas about ICE and ways to move forward. The CSFE also thanks Mae Rum, Melanie Lewis, Whitney McCall, and Brynne Murphy for making the event a success. The debate was cosponsored by Braver Angels, Bridge USA, and the College Debates and Discourse Alliance with support from the Barnes Family Foundation.
The Role of AI in Education: A Campus Dialogue
On February 23rd, the CSFE cohosted a campus discussion, along with Braver Angels and College Debates & Discourse Alliance, on the role of AI in education. Students presented the benefits and draw backs of using AI inside and outside the classroom, whether AI should be limited by age or type of assignment, how AI affects the environment, and how the usage of AI might alter how brains form and function
Tryston Weiss expertly served as chair and ensured all speakers were given time to present their ideas and answer questions posed by participants. Ashlyn Hannon and Lazarus White encouraged audience members to offer their thoughts and ideas to the entire group.
Classroom Debate Resolution: College is not worth it.
On November 12th, Emma Jutte chaired classroom debates in two introductory macroeconomics classes.
The resolution: College is not worth it.
Students debated and discussed the importance of prestige, college location, admission standards, tuition and fees, choice of major, time invested, and options outside of a four-year college degree. Many students noted that college attendance only made financial sense because they were on an athletic or academic scholarship. Students discussed whether the focus of college should be financial or income from their first job. Others noted that many lessons would pay off later in life or other aspects of their lives.
All participants respectfully listed to their classmates and asked valuable questions. Emma Jutte was an outstanding chair. She clearly described the format and goals of the debate and ensured that all were given an opportunity to present their ideas or ask questions of the speakers. Tryston Weiss served as whip to ensure those with unique perspectives were given an opportunity to present their ideas to the group.
A big thank you to Mae Rum and Bryan Paul for their help and guidance.
Campus-Wide Discussion: How to respect religious values while upholding the separation of the church and state
On October 27th, around 50 students, staff, and community members gathered to discuss the how to respect religious values while also ensuring the separation of church/temple/synagogue and state.
Participants discussed how many political views are often shaped by one’s religious views. Audience members considered how democracy might result in government policy that follows the doctrine of the most prevalent religious view. Speakers discussed ideas ranging from abortion, same-sex marriage, welfare, and taxes.
The discussion was led by Barnes Debate Fellow Tryston Weiss, who ensured that all speakers and audience members were given an opportunity to convey their views and ask respectful, yet probing questions. Banes Debate Fellow Emma Jutte ensured that audience members were given the opportunity to present their ideas to the entire audience as speakers. Many valuable insights were presented and debated.
The CSFE would like to thank Mae Rum, Whitney McCall, Bryne Murphy, and Melanie Lewis for ensuring the event was a success!
Campus-Wide Dialogue: Religious Values and the Separation of Church and State
Join us on October 27th at 6pm to discuss the how we can respect religious values while also ensuring the separation of church/temple/synagogue and state.
Food will be served at 6pm. The discussion starts at 6:30 pm in Forsyth 101.
Please register here: A Braver Campus Dialogue – Western Carolina University Tickets, Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 6:30 PM | Eventbrite.
All campus community members are welcome!
Are Deportations Under the Trump Administration Unconstitutional? A Campus-Wide Debate
On September 24th, over 75 students, faculty, staff, and community members gathered to debate:
“Are Deportations Under the Trump Administration Unconstitutional?”
All participants offered excellent, concise, and well-supported views on a wide range of topics related to deportations. 
Many speakers cited the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Others noted the importance of the Fifth Amendment, which says that no person can be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Others noted the pain and suffering experienced by those who must live and work in the underground economy because of their legal status. Presenters suggested that although they came here in hope of a better life, they might be better off returning to the country of their birth.
Recent Supreme Court cases were also discussed. Many presenters offered in-depth analysis of the case of Abrego Garcia, who was removed from the United States while also subject to a withholding order that forbade his removal to El Salvador.
Speakers discussed why and why not the Alien Enemies Act section of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 pertain to the current environment. The Alien Enemies Act enables the President to detain or deport the natives and citizens of an enemy nation during wartime without a hearing. Participants also discussed and debated whether and to what extent the laws of the United States, such as the Due Process Clause, extend to people who are not U.S. citizens.
Successful debates on potentially contentious issues are only possible with well-prepared facilitators. Lee Barnes Family Foundation Fellow, Tryston Weiss, served as an expert chair. He carefully and calmly ensured that each questioner and speaker remained respectful throughout the debate.
Lee Barnes Family Foundation Fellow, Emma Jutte, served as the debate Whip and ensured all audience members were given an opportunity to present their views to those in attendance. She also encouraged participants to ask questions of the speakers.
The Center for the Study of Free Enterprise thanks our co-sponsors and supporters: College Debates and Discourse Alliance, Braver Angels, ACTA, the Barnes Family Foundation, Mae Rum, Kayla Johston, and Bryan Paul. The event would not be possible without the assistance of Melanie Lewis, Whitney McCall, Brynne Murphy, and Sharron Crain.