Summer Philodemic Practice

Exciting news from the Philodemic Society! Debating does not end with the school year! Over the summer the Society welcomes members, non-members, and alumni to join in practice debates and oratory practices. The Society will convene on Thursday evenings from 8:00 to 10:00 pm to have practice debates. The smaller crowd will allow for a focus on speech improvement as well as offering the added benefit of having multiple speeches in an evening. Saturdays will be focused on oratorical skills with readings from Shakespeare and other notable authors. The Saturday times are flexible, and the environment will be more informal.

The first debate will be Thursday May 17th in Gaston Hall, and the resolution is Resolved: Literature is Dead. I look forward to seeing many of you there and over the summer!

ELD,

Christopher M. DiMisa

Spring Grand Semi Results

The Philodemic Society is pleased to announce its new officers for the Fall 2012 semester:

Vice President – Mr. Jacob Arber

Treasurer – Ms. Hannah Miller

Corresponding Secretary – Ms. Catherine Murphy

Membership Secretary – Ms. Amanda Wynter (second term)

Librarian – Mr. Josh Donovan (second term)

Amanuensis – Mr. Chris DiMisa

President Andrew Marsh will also be completing his term.

Congratulations to all our new officers!

ELD,

CMD

Ode to the Seniors

In what is now Philodemic tradition number two hundred and two,

It’s that time of year for me to write a senior ode to bid you adieu.

A new delightful task—I have a one Ms. Daniels to thank for this—

The Amanuensis Emerita, who we will all dearly miss.

 

I warn you now: poetry isn’t really my forte,

English major and note taker? Yes. But poet? No way!

Western business attire? Not necessary for me;

So stay in your pajamas and get excited to see.

 

Chancellor Iacono, we’ll all miss you out on the floor,

Although to be honest, there’s one of us that might miss you more…

But enough about that, it’s time to talk about an Alex Henderson speech,

With that intense, quiet whisper that to the farthest back corner did still reach.

 

And oh Ms. Emma Green, we never meant to be “rude,”

Which was always your response when our comments were crude,

Now the names Tocqueville and Kirkegaard are a bit hard to rhyme,

But need to be included since for them you always made time.

 

Now Mr. Manchester, we hope you don’t sink to bowling alone,

In response to your proposal, maybe Ms. Green will change her tone.

But otherwise I’m sure Mr. Biesiada would say yes,

Though to be fair, he might be clad in colonial dress.

 

Now Mr. Medina, our philosopher friend,

Ne’er found a problem some Marxism couldn’t mend.

He could wax poetic about even the biggest mess,

No one would guess: he’s actually in the SFS!

 

Then Mr. Rinaldi and Ms. Pesant debated hipster or bro,

Wearing pinnies and glasses, it was guaranteed to be a good show.

Ms. Revier was the only one to really know at the Valentine’s Day Debate,

But at the marijuana debate, it seemed to be Mr. Soper who could relate.

 

As for Mr. Topf and Ms. Fritz—who you are, I haven’t a clue,

But since you’re n our list, I’m sure at some point you were this cool too.

As I come to the end of commemorating the seniors we’ll miss,

The only poor loser is the next poor kid who has to try to top this.

 

But now wait just a minute, my present to you isn’t quite done;

There’s always the website comments for you to continue your fun.

So after you graduate,

And your floor speeches abate,

But when you still desperately want to have a debate,

Just comment on the summaries—I promise you, they’re great!

So now as you enter the real world and begin your new lives in turn,

Remember the dear Philodemic to which you can always return.

 

For the last time, ELD and much love,

Emily R. Coccia

The 137th Annual Richard T. Merrick Debate

The Tradition

On Saturday, April 21, 2012, the Phildomic Society gathered to celebrate the 137th Annual Richard T. Merrick Debate. First held in 1874, the Merrick Debate remains the Society’s most prestigious event. The resolution is itself debated by the Society at length months beforehand. Allowing for discussion about both contemporary politics and timeless philosophy, this year’s Merrick topic was, “Resolved: The politician should represent the interest, not the will, of the people.” 

Unlike keynoters for our weekly debates, which are decided based on seniority, the four Merrick keynoters are selected by the Society during a competitive spring season of debates. Being selected to keynote the Merrick Debate is an impressive achievement in and of itself, and the Society could not have been more pleased with this year’s keynoters:

Ms. Emma Green (COL ’12) of Tennessee

Chancellor Nicholas Iacono (COL ’12) of New York

Mr. Alexander Henderson (COL ’12) of North Carolina

Mr. Michael Manchester (MSB ’12) of Pennsylvania

Another integral part of the debate is the judges who preside and are charged with the task of awarding the Merrick Medal to the best speaker. This year we were incredibly honored to have six esteemed judges from a diversity of backgrounds:

Mr. Ed Crane, founder and president of the Cato Institute and publisher of Regulation magazine.

The Honorable Chai R. Feldblum, Commissioner of the Equal Employment Commission and professor at the Georgetown University Law Center

Mr. Julius Lloyd Horwich (SFS ’86), Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressional Affairs in the US Department of Education.

Mr. Douglas Jehl, foreign editor of The Washington Post and former deputy Washington bureau chief of The New York Times.

Mr. Clark S. Judge, founding and managing director of the White House Writers Group, Inc. and an opinion journalist.

The Reverend Peter L’Estrange, S.J., Special Assistant to the President of Georgetown University.

The Society was incredibly lucky to have such renowned guests with us, and we thank them for generously offering their time.

The Debate

Ms. Emma Green began the debate by presenting the agreed upon assumptions, namely that politicians earnestly care and we are in a liberal democracy. In this democracy where we have rights and liberties, she asked, “Is it the role of the politician to ponder the needs of the constituents and act or to see their desires and mirror them?” In an ideal world the interest will of the people would align, but we are speaking about the exceptional cases. Utilizing the distinction Edmund Burke drew between the role of the delegate and of the representative, Ms. Green presented the argument that government is a matter of deliberation and reflection, not merely finding the intersection of the desires of the people. In considering important manners that will affect the entire body politic, such as the decision to go to war, individual constituents will obviously have their own personal opinions. However, the duty of the politician is more than simply mirroring public opinion polls; it is his job to discern what is the right course of action for the good of the people. Finally, she looked to find a definition for the “will of the people,” rejecting both majority rule for its tendency to dissolve into mob rule and Rousseau’s general will because that concept actually supports the affirmation more. She concluded that this is an issue of liberty and the sovereignty of the individual, which ignores the full role of the politician, who is entrusted with a great and terrible liberty and as such must have more tools than just the voices of his constituents.

On the negation, Mr. Henderson began by warning against two of Sir Francis Bacon’s ideas of the mind: the idles of the theater and the idles of the cave, reminding the Society that we are all members of the body politic and that we are the people and the will. Pushing back against the affirmation’s elevation of the role of the politician, he argued that a government set up in that way will not allow the people to have a voice, making citizens into subjects. Although this has the potential to create a just and equitable government, it will only do so if we ensured that the rulers were the most virtuous. Furthermore, a democratic regime that ceases to consider the will of the people—which he described as the “art of knowing what is good for you without bothering to ask”—will cease to be democratic. Looking to the Federalist Papers, Mr. Henderson cited number 59, arguing that the security we have against the tyranny of the majority arises from politicians being bound to their people’s wills, which will differ and non reach consensus on many issues. He offered a new theory of how the government should operate, arguing that politicians should seek a congruence of interest and will, not reducing it to the simple narrative of one, and should also incorporate many other factors, not allowing interest to override all. Once he has reached a conclusion he should go back to the people and attempt to persuade them, then actually listen to their responses, which, while arduous, is the surest safeguard of liberty.

Chancellor Iacono then took upon himself the task of bridging the gap between the ancient philosophers and current politics, speaking about the founding, task, and danger of our politics. Our founders rejected the view of the negation, and were tasked with dealing with the contradictory and fleeting nature of public opinion while attempting to avoid the dangers of the past, present, and future. He argued that will is not an efficient way to rule a country of disparate interests, nor does it consistently represent what is good for the nation. Asking the Society which side actually treats its citizens more like children and creates more self-serving politicians, Chancellor Iacono answered that the answer is the negation. That politician panders to the people to earn their votes, doing what is popular, not what is right. Ultimately, when we elect our politicians we do not send them in as a seismograph of public opinion specifically because the affirmation has more trust in the people. Arguing that it is the populous tendencies of the negation that create the stigma surrounding politics, he pointed out that the affirmation is a two-way street and the lifeblood of civic virtue. Finally, he ended with the example of Daniel Webster, who, in his speech against the bill for the right of secession, declared, “Necessity compels me to speak true, rather than pleasing things…I should indeed like to please you; but I prefer to save you.”

On the negation, Mr. Manchester presented the will of the people, not their interests, as the objective measure and framed the debate as one of paternalism versus populism, as well-being versus autonomy. He then refuted Ms. Green’s dismissal of majoritarian politics, stating that we should be asking what the majority of the people want and what is best for the majority of the people. He argued that man does not actively campaign against what is best for him and discussed studies that show that without incentives, large groups will act far less often than smaller, radical minorities. Additionally, he pointed out that politicians are just as susceptible to “group think,” and brought up the fact that in DC, there are over 23 lobbyists, whose job it is to argue for a non-majority interest, per each member of Congress. “It’s harder to corrupt a whole people than a small group of politicians to whom the special interests cater,” he argued. Finally, he too presented a new view of government, arguing that the best politician should spend more time with his constituents, bringing the experts to them but then leaving them with the choice. Although he admitted that the negation’s government is not perfect, it is far better than the affirmation where people are removed from government.

Beginning the floor speeches, Mr. Dulik began by quoting Burke, “A representative owes you not just his industry but his judgment as well,” which he applied to the historical example of Dr. Hall from Georgia, which was mainly Loyalist at the time, but who voted against his constituents’ will and signed the Declaration of Independence, doing what was right for them. Although the risks are high, he argued that the greatest accomplishments have come from these controversial decisions. On the negation, Mr. Spagnuolo countered that politicians, although they must believe in themselves, are nothing more than any of us and if they disregard the people then we are headed astray in a very bad way because the people do in fact know what is best for them. Ms. Melendez disagreed, speaking about the first time she voted in California and had to decide if money should be moved from one fund to another. Although she attempted to research the issue she could not draw an informed conclusion, which led her to the conclusion that it is our will for the politician to represent our interests. Pointing out that an issue like that is an argument only against referendum, Ms. Daniels argued that the job of the politician includes the will of the people. She brought up issues like gay rights to demonstrate the problems of populism, but argued that those problems are far more temporary than the problems of paternalism because the will of the people will shift with time. Mr. Walker countered this point with the example of the Iraq War, which received popular support from most politicians who said that it was the will of the people. He warned that there must be more than simply asking people what they think when it comes to matters of life and death. Mr. Hipple reframed the debate, defining will as the questions: “Who are we?” and “What do we believe in?” Although we currently have a system of government that we agree with for the most part, he asked the Society to consider what would happen if it were corrupt and tyrannical. On the affirmation Mr. Medina asked exactly who the people are, reminding us that at one point it was only propertied, white men. “Who represents the people who don’t have a say?” he asked. He argued that history moves forward when people reinterpret the concept of justice, when the renegades and the rebels not only stand up and point out that we are wrong, but then do something about it, thus propelling history and making the world a better place. Mr. Askonas declared that he stood on the negation to push against the harsh dichotomy being created between the exceptional and the ordinary. He argued that in moments of crisis, power goes to represent the interests as great men accumulate and take power until eventually the people are no longer represented. Although these leaders may be great, the people will feel disconnected and so he stands on the negation to assert that we must come together again. Finally, Mr. Rinaldi, using the example of Senator Edwards, argued that the negation gives a smokescreen to the politicians because they can do whatever they want so long as they appear to be doing what is right. Populism can hide egomaniacism while what we need in our politicians is courage. He concluded, “You must affirm this resolution to affirm our country.”

Mr. Manchester addressed the issue of the War in Iraq, arguing that it was started by special interests, not by populous politics, because it is special interests that corrupt the interest politician. On the other hand, the negation assumes equal footing with the politician and the people tell him what to do directly; as such, the will politician is less susceptible to corruption. He concluded, “The politician is a man too—better only in espousing rhetoric and charisma—and to say that he understand me better than I understand myself is a grave error.”

Chancellor Iacono countered that the on the negation, as constituents we succeed based on how well we can fit in with the 51% of the population. Refuting the idea that the problems of populist politics are temporary, he asked if in the 1930s we would have sold arms to England and sent soldiers if we went on will, demonstrating that these are not fleeting problems; this would have changed history. He then used the example of Charles Weltner who represented a pro-segregation district in Georgia in 1962. Although his constituents made it clear that he was not to support the Civil Rights Act, he became convinced that this bill would uphold the 14^th Amendment and was the right thing, warning, “We must not remain forever bound to a lost cause.” Although it was not the will of the people, he acted in a way that he believed upheld the law and the interest of the people. Finally, he concluded with a line from Ms. Green’s Library Report: “We must be true to our principles and traditions because liberty cannot eloquently defend itself.”

On the affirmation, Mr. Henderson refuted the idea that the negation was making politicians out to be seismographs for public opinion; rather, the negation offers a variety of inputs, asserting that interest cannot be the end of the line. Arguing in favor of conversational politics, he asserted that the government should be raising the refined voice of the people—refined, but still theirs. He brought up John Keynes who declared that no democratic society would reach the level of efficiency necessary to successfully implement economic policies. The only country that was successful was Nazi Germany, and we do not want that alternative. He argued that when we confine the considerations at play to one person’s gut instincts, we put ourselves at danger. Refuting the notion that the issue of the Iraq War requires a vote on the affirmation, he defined real moral courage as telling a group of people that they are wrong, and then persuading them of the truth like Pericles who was constantly in the Agora translating thought into speech. Ultimately, as citizens we have an obligation to form an opinion and provide our politicians with our will.

Finally, Ms. Green argued that this is not the black and white issue that it had been presented as; the affirmation also wants politics to be a conversation because you cannot just have the will of the people. She noted that the affirmation did not assert that politicians are better than us, but rather, the only thing we have to rely on is our conscience. They must take in as much information as they can and then decide what the best action is to take for their body politic. She asserted that there are instances of issues that require much work and effort, but ultimately sometimes they are for the best of society. She summarized the concept of leadership as an individual using all of his faculties and his conscience to lead his people as a whole, not just by the whims of the day. Ultimately, it is through deliberation and trying to discern the views of all that we take into account those without a vote and determine what is best for the people.

After the final speech, members of the Society rose and divided the room to vote on the resolution. By a count of 47-18-3, the Society affirmed, “Resolved: The Politician Should Represent the Interest, Not the Will, of the People.” In addition, the keynoters awarded Mr. Samuel Dulik with the Father Ryder Award, which recognizes the best floor speech of the debate.

The Merrick Medal Recipient

At the end of the debate, the judges were given the extremely difficult task of selecting a recipient of the Merrick Medal—the only medal of its kind that can be worn at graduation. After lengthy deliberation, the Honorable Chai R. Feldblum presented the award to the very gracious Chancellor Nicholas Iacono. Congratulations!

Thank you to all of our keynoters, judges, members, and guests for making the 137th Merrick Debate such a memorable day.

ELD,

Emily R. Coccia

The Hipster: The Lesser of Two Evils

The Society convened on April 19 for the thirteenth time this semester for the Dean Gordon Debate to examine the question Resolved: The bro, and not the hipster, represents the greatest threat to Western civilization.

Mr. Richard Rinaldi and Mr. Kevin Diasti, making his affirmation, spoke on the affirmation. Ms. Bibiana Pesant and Mr. Daniel Kendrick, making his induction, spoke on the negation.

Bearing in mind Ms. Green’s reminders that the Dean Gordon Debate is about wit, which still includes decency and eloquence, the Society gathered this Thursday, clad in popped collars, glorious pastels, skinny jeans, and plaid galore, ready to (attempt to) be funny. Mr. Diasti began the evening with a story about his descent to the land of bro-dom that is the frat house basement. Here, as the sounds of Asher Roth and Miley Cyrus filled the room, he was surrounded by girls wearing fabric strips they called skirts and boys affirming their masculinity by throwing balls in cups ten feet in front of them. Listening to their conversations–if you can really call it that–he concluded that frat bros perpetuate three things: superficiality and valuing money above all else, ignorance of female empowerment, and the revival of a labeling system. Ultimately, quoting the wise words of a one Mr. Derrick Zoolander, “I’m pretty sure there’s a lot more to life than being really, really, ridiculously good-looking.” And we, a group of really, really, ridiculously good-looking people, we do what we do for eloquence in defense of liberty. Mr. Kendrick painted a picture of the noble founders of our country, coming here to create a great land to which our ancestors immigrated; but something is threatening this legacy of greatness, and that is the hipster. The hipster represents everything opposed to our way of life. While we like practicality, hipster keep their successful methods secret and abandon them if they become known. While we like commerce and free enterprise, the hipster finds success far too mainstream. And worst of all, “The hipster doesn’t have honesty; he has irony.” He is pushing us to a point where we can no longer even distinguish between right and wrong. Ultimately, in a hipster universe we couldn’t even have democracy because anyone with enough votes to actually be elected would be automatically disqualified for being too mainstream. The bro on the other hand is honest and simple and does not try to hard to succeed or disdain non-bros. “Bro-dom is often a stage but hipsterism is a disease that lasts a lifetime.” Mr. Rinaldi then countered that bros do not grow out of it and they actually run the world because they get really important jobs. He supported this with his own story working on a group project with the tobacco-chewing, non-homework-doing species, better known as the MSBro, who will in fact be employed and running the world after graduation. So while the hipsters were off painting, it was the bros that orchestrated the financial collapse. He then gave a “hypothetical example” of if a bro, say someone who had been his frat house president and a rugby star at Yale then dabbled in oil and worked for his dad, ended up becoming president and having to make important decisions for the future of the country. “Thank God that’s just a hypothetical!” He concluded with the Hipster Paradox: they are anti-mainstream culture so they can never become the majority without ceasing to be hipsters. But it is the bros that will “infiltrate and permeate” all the most important jobs. Finally Ms. Pesant argued that bros, who are funding our economy, have been here since the dawn of civilization and are necessary for it to continue because they keep culture by perpetuating norms like strength and masculinity, enforcing survival of the fittest. In pre-history, she argued, the bro always won because the hipster couldn’t even catch his own animals. Later the bros were the ones out cultivating the American wilderness. Ultimately, we don’t know what the hipster stands for because he is characterized by inconstancy of purpose.

Mr. Spagnuolo began the floor speeches by asking who can threaten America more: the bros who care only for women and beer and are out there producing little baby bros, or the hipsters who ironically don’t do anything with women and who wear such tight pants it really wouldn’t matter if they did? He concluded that we can either “bro out or fade out.” Mr. Donovan added the examples of bro and hipster dystopias. Sure, the hipsters might do drugs but they would have great ideas, whereas the bros would be running around wrestling and eating all day. Many of the small little men who came up with the ideas that founded our society would not have survived in this Spartan land. Ms. Melendez countered that hipsters are merely wannabe nerds who just aren’t quite good enough. Mr. Petallides argued that the truth is much darker; these are all part of a dark sacrament going on in frat houses, gyms, and tanning salons, as they wait for the coming of the Brosiah when the streets will flow with Natty. On the other hand, the hipster is like the panda–lazy and apathetic, and able to be silenced as easily as simply banging a gavel. Ms. Regen, as a writer for The Voice, countered that hipsterism is insidiously sneaking into our culture, even our very own Philodemic leadership, and that hipster values have permeated Western civilization. She caution, “Soon you will all be hipsters, and you should be very, very afraid.” Ms. Daniels finally brought up women, pointing out that the bro, in his Sperries, pastel shorts, and lax tank, with the perfect hair gently blowing in the wind as he rolls his Natty Caddy down the street, has a paralyzing effect on women. So, she concluded, “If you believe in women, negate the bro.” Following on the negation Mr. Dulik presented another hypothetical, asking what would happen if a hipster was in the White House. “What if we ironically elected a guy with zero political accomplishments and then when he got there instead of creating jobs, he did the exact opposite?” He concluded, “That is not an America I want to live in.” Ms. Wood pointed out that we have been ignoring the most dangerous type of bro: SFS Bro, who will have international power and can be heard uttering phrases during war simulation games like, “Yeah, bro, it’s totally cool to just nuke ‘em.” Chancellor Iacono countered, “Bros are silly but hipsters fill you with rage.” On the affirmation, Ms. Green presented Rousseau as the first hipster, but asked who could be the intellectual father of the bros? She concluded that Rousseau, who is bizarre yet intelligent, is still better than the group without any intelligence. Mr. Manchester, decked out in a pink shirt with the collar popped, sunglasses, and spiked hair, argued, “We run the world. What do you do? Boom.” Finally Mr. Medina urged the Society to abstain because he is both, so the answer is procreation. Throwing together Mr. Manchester, a bro, and Mr. Spagunolo, a hipster, he emerged, dubbing himself the Messiah, and earning himself a $5 fine.

Ms. Pesant brought up women again, concluding that while there are problems with dating a bro, hipsters do the same amount of damage with practices like “Hipster Sexual,” which she found out about on UrbanDictionary. She argued that hipsters will not fade away because they are still here. Ultimately, they revel in mediocrity and are insincere and inauthentic. Mr. Rinaldi countered that no one explained why the hipster is a threat, but brought photo proof of the bro mistreating senior citizens, taking the Christ out of Christmas, and giving support to those who oppose uncontrolled Second Amendment Rights. Mr. Kendrick then brought up Nietzsche’s slave and master moralities, arguing that the hipster is the epitome of the slave morality. They are weak and unsuccessful yet are convincing the world that they are better, whereas the bros pursue greatness and strength but are threatened by the hipster’s push for mediocrity. Finally Mr. Diasti argued that when the hipster gets upset, he doesn’t pull out a gun, but instead he writes on his blog and takes tinted Instagram photos. He also called into question the authenticity of the bro’s masculinity, asking, “Can you tell me that pastel shorts, argyle sweaters, and a haircut more expensive than your girlfriend’s is really masculine?” Ultimately, he argued that while it’s easy to get lost in the daily routine, the hipster values perspective and reflection, remembering why he does what he does, and “isn’t the life worth living the one you’re supposed to live?”

The keynoters awarded the Dean Gordon Cup to Mr. Petallides.

The Society voted 46-7-17 to affirm the resolution.

The Society inducted Mr. Kendrick and Mr. Diasti.  Huzzah!

ELD,

Emily R. Coccia

Religious Universities Provide a Better Education, the Society Decides

The Society convened on April 12 for the twelfth debate of the semester to examine the question Resolved: Secular, not religious, universities provide a better education.

Ms. Amanda Wynter and Ms. Laura Higbee, making her affirmation, spoke on the affirmation.  Vice President Peter Prindiville and Mr. Dennis Quinn, making his induction, spoke on the negation.

Ms. Higbee began by framing the debate as a question of if religion should play a role in higher education, a question to which the affirmation answers that it should not be the overarching message, even though it can play a part in an individual’s experience. She defined a secular university as one that does not declare an official religion whereas a religious university does. She argued that secular education does a better job of promoting self-discovery and independence in its students. Generally, the main attraction of a religious university is its affiliated faith, and as such most students there tend to be of that faith, which limits the scope of exposure, whereas in a secular university students can better prepare to understand the plurality of the outside world. Mr. Quinn countered that he still hadn’t heard a definition of education and went on to define it as a student’s collected experiences, both academic and otherwise, that shape the student as an individual and prepare him to interact with his chosen community. He argued that religious universities teach students to understand and respect the beliefs of others and how religion shapes individuals and communities in addition to promoting an individual journey of faith. He argued that in the United States, where 92% of Americans believe in a god, you cannot be an effective citizen without understanding religion and how it effects and shapes our cultures. Although he admitted that there are some non-pluralistic religious universities, he argued that for those students, if they are so involved in one religion that it defines who they are, then they must learn to understand that well in order to understand themselves. Since we choose our community, we have to accept that some will choose a local, non-global one. Ms. Wynter countered that the negation seems to have contradictions and argued that secular universities offer an opportunity to find one’s way without the imposition of a preferred path by providing theology classes and religious resources but allowing it to be individual-driven. She argued that the reasons we love Georgetown and the high quality of education it provides need not stem from its religious affiliation, pointing out that the idea of cura personalis is implemented in many secular institutions too. She argued that the debate was not anti-religion vs. religion or secular vs. Georgetown, but rather, many ideologies and views vs. one overarching view. Vice President Prindiville asked, “Does the religious nature of an education provide something different or more?” He argued that the affirmation must show that a secular education has something inherently better. He stated that one can receive the benefits of a religious university without even knowing it was religious, and cautioned the Society against looking at only extreme examples. He presented three ares that make religious universities better. The first, institutional culture, could be found in the university’s charism, or founding purpose and reason for existence that provides it with a guiding mission, promoting a different type of mindset. Secondly, religious universities teach students mechanisms for self-discernment, or learning about themselves, by encouraging them to explore the “big questions” in life. Finally, they push students to lead a life of mission, which need not be religious, and work for a higher purpose.

Mr. Henderson began the floor speeches by arguing that Georgetown is a secular university. He used the fact that Descartes attended a Jesuit university yet said he learned nothing to argue that it was the rigid religious scholasticism of Jesuit universities that prevented genuine free thought, advising the Society not to be trapped by religion, but to be freed by science. Mr. Dulik countered that Georgetown is religious, which shows the great variety present in religious universities. We still have diversity and we have a religious identity that is “particularly, but not exclusively,” affiliated with the university. It is this that challenges us to confront our decisions and be individuals. President Marsh countered that religious universities create a bipolar, adversarial way of thinking whereas secular ones give us more options. Countering that secular universities can be very one-sided, Chancellor Iacono exclaimed, “Try being a Republican at Columbia!” Ultimately, the biggest difference lies in the models of teaching. At secular universities like Harvard and Yale, they teach the students to go out and be successful as individuals, whereas at religious universities have a mission to better the world. Mr. Donovan disagreed, arguing that Georgetown is the exception because it imitates secular universities, and schools like Liberty are the norm, and “to negate is to affirm those universities.” On the negation, Mr. Medina argued that Georgetown, and religious universities, produce a certain kind of citizen because it is these students that come out driven by an individual faith and an idea, not simply academic technicalities. Mr. Manchester countered, “I’d rather have a university that is overly inclusive, even of crazy ideas, than one that is even remotely exclusive.” Ms. Wood added a voice of pragmatism, pointing out that the goal of higher education is  not simply to find the Truth, but it is also to prepare students for jobs, and secular universities are far more accessible in terms of cost and location.

Vice President Prindiville argued that we need to look to the middle on both sides, not focusing on the extremely negative examples. He argued that it came down to the students and what will give them the best opportunity to understand themselves and their world. He concluded that being at a religious university forces you to address certain questions more than just in the classroom three times a week. Ms. Wynter argued again that the negation is not just Georgetown and that secular universities do in fact have missions and provide the opportunity for students to individually explore religion. Using a plant analogy, she asked which seed would be better prepared: the one that was in a nice pot inside under a great lamp that was only eve directed at one angle, or one that was planted outside and survived the elements, facing everything, the good and the bad, taking in what improved it. On the negation Mr. Quinn argued that when you come through a religious university, it does not mean that you have to be exactly what they want you to be. He argued that when we get out of bed and dow what we do, we are doing doing it for a belief in a higher power so we must living in a community that espouses values of these sorts, which is a religious university. Ms. Higbee disagreed, pointing out that you can still believe in God in a secular environment because all the resources are still present. Religious universities subtly provide a bias because they believe in that with which they affiliate. She question that since the negation argued that it doesn’t matter if your higher purpose is religious, then why does it matter if you go to a religious university?

The Society voted 17-6-31 to negate the resolution.

The Society inducted Ms. Higbee and Mr. Quinn.  Huzzah!

ELD,

Emily R. Coccia

The Rich Are Entitled to Their Millions, the Society Decides

The Society convened on March 29 for the eleventh debate of the semester and the final Merrick debate to examine the question Resolved: The rich are entitled to their wealth.

Mr. Alex Henderson spoke on the affirmation.  Mr. Stephano Medina spoke on the negation.

Mr. Henderson began by arguing that we live in a profoundly inter-dependent world and do best in a society that prioritizes individual autonomy, which he defined as the right to choose your own profession and the right to succeed in it as best you can. To affirm means to believe in taxation based on long-term economic prosperity, that men are entitled to keep what they legally earn, and that no one has a right to set a limit on an individual’s success. He argued that securing the right of an individual to the fruits of his labor is the single greatest contribution for rich and poor alike to use as a shield against the political class. He added that a man’s financial well-being should not be determined by a third party’s arbitrary decision about what is and is not necessary. Ultimately, he concluded that in affirming this resolution we’re affirming objectivity, freedom from coercion, and the industry to succeed. Mr. Medina countered that the affirmation hasn’t offered us a choice even though this is a statement we know to be intuitively not true. He argued that the debate comes down to one question: are the rich different or the same? Either they are different and have a different set of rules, or they are the same and must be held to the same moral obligations as everyone else. He argued that the key word in this resolution is “entitled” and discussed the Labor Theory of Value, which states that you are entitled to the sweat of your labor. The primary effect of a capitalistic economy is a surplus of products and value, meaning that according to the Labor Theory, there is an excess that no one is entitled to yet there will always be a class that finds themselves at the benefit. He negated the idea that hard work would bring wealth, arguing that if that was so, Marines would make more than $30,000 a year. Ultimately, he argued the rich cannot have everything; they cannot have 92% of the wealth and 43% of the country. He concluded that we should side with the negation because we are one, united country.

Speaking on the negation, Mr. Spagnuolo presented the idea that we are not entitled to anything in this world. We don’t actually have a right to a happy life; we just hope for it because no one is inherently deserving and nothing in this world is a given. Ms. Wood countered that creating this dichotomy and drawing this line is wrong if we truly want the united whole. Mr. Askonas argued that there exists a prior question: Are you entitled to live in the United States? The answer is yes because we’ve created this system that benefits us. But this country is divided with the bottom 30% stuck in a cycle of poverty and the top 5% that keeps gaining more and more wealth. We must protect our society. On the affirmation, Mr. Whitfield looked to Communist Russia, arguing, “Socialism subsidizes failure, inefficiency, and the fall of a nation.” He concluded that social justice is out-dated and the free market is the best way of distributing assets. Mr. Donovan asked the Society to think about how it applies to our own lives, questioning the notion that people can truly pull themselves up by their bootstraps. He argued that perhaps some are “more equal than others,” having been born into wealth, and that those who succeed have a duty to “pay it back.” Chancellor Iacono countered that we’ve all gotten here in different ways and “to sit on the negation is to betray the American Dream.” Mr. Stromeyer argued that society rewards where and to whom you were born, skill, willingness to seek wealth, chance, and hard work; but it doesn’t reward these equally and we only have control over two. On the affirmation Mr. Dulik argued against “disincentivizing excellence,” warning, “Don’t criminalize success.” Mr. Manchester added that we need incentive structures because if we tax the rich 95%, who will work? We live in a society where people have needs and wants that are satisfied by labor and the rich have to be entitled to their wealth for it to run correctly. Ms. Green countered that this debate is about what we, as human beings, are entitled to. We are owed “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but she added that there is something we’ve forgotten: obligation. Rights are not unaccompanied by obligations, so “do not forget your obligation to your fellow man!”

Mr. Medina argued that from childhood we are taught a fundamental moral lesson: it’s not all about you. No one got rich on his own because rugged individualism does not work anymore. He refuted an earlier point about the negation betraying the American Dream by stating that the ability of one man to become a billionaire is actually the biggest threat to the American Dream. He negated the idea that we aren’t entitled to anything but argued that we changed “property” to “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence because this country is about more than just wealth. Mr. Henderson refuted the Labor Theory of Value, arguing that to be true to human nature, the definition of value is “how much do I want it.” While he agreed that there was no supernatural entitlement and that obligations exist, the rich are equally entitled to their wealth. He argued that the “invisible hand” lifts up the whole of society even though it is driven by self-interest, not compassion. He acknowledged that we probably should raise taxes but warned against falling into the “democratic fallacy” of thinking that one idea is equally good. Our system is disinterested and is the best we can do because when we try to determine value, we fall prey to our biases. He concluded by saying that to affirm is to believe that we can make something bigger than ourselves.

The Society voted 37-6-20 to affirm the resolution.

The following outstanding speakers were awarded Merrick points:

• Mr. Henderson – 5
• Mr. Manchester – 4
• Chancellor Iacono – 3
• Ms. Green – 2
• Mr. Medina – 1

This brings the Merrick totals to:

• Ms. Green – 27
• Mr. Henderson – 27
• Chancellor Iacono – 25
• Mr. Manchester – 22
• Mr. Medina – 22
• Mr. Dulik – 8
• Mr. Spagnuolo – 5
• Mr. Petallides – 3
• Ms. Daniels – 2
• Mr. Askonas – 2
• Mr. Taft – 1

The four keynotes for the 137th Annual Richard T. Merrick Debate will be: Ms. Green, Mr. Henderson, Chancellor Iacono, and Mr. Manchester. Huzzah!

ELD,

Emily R. Coccia

Affirming Character, the Society Decides Pete Rose Should Not Be Inducted into the MLB Hall of Fame

The Society convened on March 22 for the tenth debate of the semester to examine the question Resolved: Pete Rose should be inducted into the MLB Hall of Fame.

Mr. Michael Manchester and Ms. Michelle Dailey, making her affirmation, spoke on the affirmation.  Mr. Samuel Dulik and Mr. Reilly Poppert, making his induction, spoke on the negation.

Mr. Manchester began by presenting Pete Rose’s impressive record and reminding the Society that he never threw a game. He asserted that sports is one of the last bastions of competition. He argued that Rose truly loved the game and he was an icon for the children. Mr. Dulik then reminded the Society that Rose was adjudicated on one issue: character and integrity. His extreme and pervasive moral errors prove a track record of immorality. Ultimately there are two main issues, that of the character clause and the rules against gambling. Rose lied and fundamentally broke the ethical standards of the MLB. Ms. Dailey then presented other athletes who have made mistakes, arguing that we put our athletes on a pedestal but they didn’t sign up to be role models. She argued that the focus should be on throwing a game, but he bet for his team and thus didn’t hurt the game. She concluded by asking if gambling is really the biggest problem in the MLB. Finally Mr. Poppert argued that this is a debate about what is fair and just. Rose is a bad character, committing adultery and tax evasion among other things. We cannot accept immorality just because athletic prowess exceeds it because our children’s children need someone to look up to.

During the floor speeches, Mr. Lim argued on the negation that gambling is a complicated issue and that Rose put the careers of other players on the line by betting on point differentials. Ms. Wynter countered that Rose had a passion and a love for the game. On the negation Vice President Prindiville asked, “Is being a great player enough?” He answered that rules have to inform the way we honor people. Mr. Henderson countered that we need only look at the history of our republic to see that we have many heroes who broke the rules and led bad lives, yet we still honor them. Chancellor Iacono refuted that, arguing that Rose broke the two core rules of baseball and messed with other players’ careers. In looking at what the Hall of Fame means, he argued it meant demonstrating a sacred regard for the game, something Rose did not do. Ms. Green countered that we’re not factoring in the issue of addiction or the fact that we’re fundamentally flawed. On the negation Mr. Arber argued that this is a question of how we honor people and that we do that by looking holistically. The Hall of Fame is for the ideal and Rose simply does not belong there.

Mr. Poppert concluded that ultimately Rose betrayed the trust of his fans and undermined the integrity of society. Ms. Dailey countered using the historical example of Ty Cobb who was inducted into the Hall of Fame despite horrible moral failings. Mr. Dulik refuted the notion that the particulars of whether he bet for or against his team are relevant and asserted that it is about the institution and morals. Finally Mr. Manchester framed his speech in a narrative about bringing his grandkids to the Hall of Fame and walking down to look at all the greats. Although many players had failings and problems ranging from alcoholism to gambling addictions, they all have one thing in common: they’re good at baseball.

The Society voted 23-27 to negate the resolution.

The following outstanding speakers were awarded Merrick points:

• Mr. Manchester – 5
• Chancellor Iacono – 4
• Mr. Dulik – 3
• Ms. Green – 2
• Mr. Henderson – 2
• Mr. Medina – 1

This brings the Merrick totals to:

• Ms. Green – 25
• Mr. Henderson – 22
• Chancellor Iacono – 22
• Mr. Medina – 21
• Mr. Manchester – 18
• Mr. Dulik – 8
• Mr. Spagnuolo – 5
• Mr. Petallides – 3
• Ms. Daniels – 2
• Mr. Askonas – 2
• Mr. Taft – 1

The Society inducted Ms. Dailey and Mr. Poppert.  Huzzah!

ELD,

Emily R. Coccia

Negating the Tyrant, the Society Decides Napoleon Was Not Beneficial for France

The Society and guests from the Demosthenian Society of the University of Georgia convened on March 15 for the ninth debate of the semester to examine the question Resolved: Napoleon was beneficial for France.

Mr. Patrick Spagnuolo spoke on the affirmation.  Mr. Joshua Donovan spoke on the negation.

Mr. Spagnuolo began the evening by setting the scene, describing how Napoleon found France consumed by a Hobbesian state of chaos and battle, in desparate need of a leviathan. He argued that for liberty to truly reign, France needed order and stability. Napoleon brought just this while providing for the nourishment of the citizens, increasing food production and paving the road for private ownership and industry. Through the Napoleonic Code, he codified French law for the first time, creating parameters for a merit system and prohibiting ex post facto and secret laws, both of which protected commoners from exploitation by the law. Ultimately he concluded that without Napoleon bringing the ideas of liberty forward while providing security, modern France could not be what it is today. On the negation, Mr. Donovan began with a bit of Philodemic Society history, noting that the Society’s first debate in October of 1830 was over whether Napoleon Bonaparte or General Washington was the greater man and the Society negated Napoleon’s tyranny, a tradition he hoped we would continue today. He urged the Society to look at the truth: Napoleon took a nascent republic and turned it into a tyranny while systematically trampling on the rights of his people, striking the worst blow of all in depriving them of the right to vote. In his reign he allowed millions to die for the wars he waged for himself, not for France. Ultimately he ignored the values the French had just fought and died for, leaving a legacy that legitimized tyranny, absolute power and suppression. He asked the Society to consider what it means to live in a republic and what the responsibilities of the leader are, asking, “Is it enough for an entrusted leader to give his people empty words, broken promises, and self-serving military conquests?”

During the floor speeches Mr. Hipple (Class of 2009) argued that the Republic was just a new face of oppression. From the perspective of Europe, Napoleon was a fire, burning the foundations without putting a system in place to replace him, thus leaving a vacuum for liberty to enter. Mr. Bade countered by comparing Napoleon’s France to communist China; while many might say China was left better, what about the people who were hurt and lost everything to the system? He presented this as an issue of individual rights, asking the Society to think about the men of France who were drafted to fight in the bloodbaths of Napoleon’s ego. On the affirmation Mr. Dulik reminded the Society that in evaluating historical figures we must not forget that they come from times with values fundamentally different from our own and we must evaluate them within their contexts. Ultimately, Napoleon was beneficial for France because when he came out of his second stay, the France he left was stronger than the one he found. From the Demosthenian Society, Mr. Alan Goldman (’14) affirmed that Napoleon was a leader, and what is a country without leaders? Wars lead people in a direction and so at least Napoleon made the people work together to do something, which is ultimately beneficial. Also from the Demosthenians, Mr. Monty Lucco (’14) countered that Napoleon was a tyrant and tyrants take the trust and free will of their people and run with it. Napoleon took it and ran to Moscow, where he “froze their trust, tripped, and shattered it.” Ultimately as a victor he was meant to stay a victor, but instead he left the French with nothing. Mr. Manchester added, “Silent, obedient, oppressed consent is not the same as liberty.” He ruined France in the most sure way possible: by creating an empire and an unsuccessful one at that. Looking at the country’s brief period stability as being proof of a truly beneficial impact is a myopic view. Mr. Medina countered on the affirmation that although Napoleon was an emperor and a tyrant, “he was our emperor; he was our tyrant.” The French loved him and he was the epitome of the Enlightenment’s legacy of rationalism and equality before the law by rising to such power from a background without nobility. Chancellor Iacono pointed out that loved leaders often do much detriment to their people. He argued that the French died for Napoleon’s page in history books, not for anything real, and that is absolutely not rational. Ms. Green added that we cannot be so shortsighted so as to mistake Napoleon’s charisma as being beneficial for France. She argued that a country is more than bricks and structures or the charisma of its leaders; it is the spirit of the people that runs through the city. On the affirmation Ms. Daniels argued that it is precisely this argument that shows Napoleon’s benefit: he gave that spirit to his people. France had simply been united as a bureaucracy but Napoleon gave them a united language and meaning through war, since defeat does not mean that a war cannot engender pride in its people.

Mr. Donovan noted that we’ve been lingering on the ideas of Hobbes and Machiavelli by arguing that France’s existing state of chaos lead to an ends justify the end mentality, but that’s simply not true. He argued that there were better ways to go about solving existing problems; France did not need Napoleon. He refuted the notion that modern France exists because of Napoleon, noting that we have modern France because of Metternich and the Council of Vienna since Napoleon left his country unstable enough to have its existence questioned. He ended by stating that liberty did exist in the 18th Century and we must hold Napoleon responsible for what he did. Mr. Spagnuolo reminded the Society that Napoleon removed the power of the aristocracy and opened the possibility for people to have private property and for the industry to come, all of which are beneficial. He argued that Napoleon’s laws gave the framework for future liberty and that he did in fact have his support from the people. Bringing the ideas into a modern time, he stressed the idea that we must judge on context by predicting that fifty years from now our leaders will probably be criticized for actions such as oppressing the gay community. We have freedoms and opportunities that come to us from past deaths, struggles, and tyrants and ultimately the benefits of Napoleon’s reign are what allowed France to become what it is today.

The Society voted 37-25 to negate the resolution.

The following outstanding speakers were awarded Merrick points:

• Mr. Spagnuolo – 5
• Mr. Medina – 5
• Ms. Green – 3
• Mr. Manchester – 2
• Chancellor Iacono – 1

This brings the Merrick totals to:

• Ms. Green – 23
• Mr. Henderson – 20
• Mr. Medina – 20
• Chancellor Iacono – 18
• Mr. Manchester – 13
• Mr. Dulik – 5
• Mr. Spagnuolo – 5
• Mr. Petallides – 3
• Ms. Daniels – 2
• Mr. Askonas – 2
• Mr. Taft – 1

ELD,

Emily R. Coccia

The Obama Contraceptive Rule Does Not Violate Religious Freedom, According to the Society

The Society convened on March 1 for the eighth debate of the semester to examine the question Resolved: The Obama contraceptive rule violates religious liberty.

Ms. Colleen Wood and Mr. Christopher DiMisa, making his induction, spoke on the affirmation.  Ms. Jordan Daniels and Mr. Luke Young, making his induction, spoke on the negation.

Mr. DiMisa began by defining that the contraceptive rule was the original, not the compromise, and that this stated that religious and secular institutions, except for those that were directly linked to religion such as churches, would be required to pay for contraceptives. This meant that Catholic colleges and hospitals would still have to cover these. He began by arguing that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause demands religious freedom, then explained the history of the Sherbert Test and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He then went through, evaluating the issue on the criteria provided by the Sherbert Test, arguing that since the Church’s contraceptive teaching is sincere and the rule presents an undue burden while not meeting a compelling government interest and failing the least restrictive means test, the rule does not pass and violates the Free Exercise Clause. Mr. Young then presented both the First and Fourteenth Amendments as those pertaining to religious freedom, reminding the Society that religious freedom is not the freedom to abstain from what you believe to be murder. He argued that the HHS Mandate does not establish a religion nor does it discriminate on faith. He pointed out that government may interfere with religious practices because otherwise every citizen would become law unto himself. He then presented the Lemon Test, which he argued is the more current test. Ultimately, he concluded that the Church cannot violate laws simply because it is the Church. Ms. Wood then urged the Society to turn away from the legal details and tests lest this debate turn into two opposing equations with no real discussion. She argued that this should be a debate about values; the question is what does our society value and how do we rank these values. She pointed out that just because a law says everyone must follow it, it doesn’t mean that it won’t affect one group more than others. For instance the Catholic Church is one of very few groups that has a strong aversion to providing contraceptives and this mandate is forcing religious organizations where people live out their religious beliefs to go against their morals. Ultimately, just because something fits with laws does not mean that someone’s beliefs are not being infringed upon. Finally Ms. Daniels pointed out that many have tried to sideline the discussion about contraceptives and argued that this is a debate between religious freedom and common interest. She stressed the importances of contraceptives in society, noting that they have given women power in being able to plan pregnancies and pointing out that the majority of theologians and bishops found that the Church should reverse its teachings on contraceptives. Ultimately, the majority of people receive their health care through their workplaces and this health coverage needs to be fair between the sexes. If men can receive Viagra but women cannot receive birth control, there’s a problem.

Katie Bolas (COL ’15) began the floor speeches on the affirmation arguing that we aren’t  outlawing contraceptives and the Obama rule has important points, but there are better ways to go about doing this. Vice President Prindiville added that the focus of this debate should be on religious liberty and there seem to be two competing moral systems: one more traditional view (of the Catholic Church, amongst others) and the other moral system coming from the government. The question is if the government has the right to implant its moral system on those with competing views and from that it seems clear that the Obama contraceptive rule is a violation of religious liberty. On the negation Mr. Donovan then argued that a religious institution being forced to pay for something it does not believe in does not violate religious liberty because there are many instances where taxes from the religious go to causes they do not believe in, such as the Quakers who indirectly pay for war. On the affirmation, Mr. Medina argued that mandating the availability of contraceptives will ensure that all births are the product of love. Furthermore, religious institutions are corporations, not people, and rejecting this rule will favor corporations in a country which is supposed to have a government “for the people, by the people.” Mr. Dulik added that there is a difference between impact and infringement on the ability to exercise religion and a rule requiring a Catholic institution to provide access does not infringe upon other Catholic employees to practice their faith. He also argued that we’re not talking about churches; we’re talking about tangential institutions and setting them up as edifices of the Church which is a dangerous road. Chancellor Iacono countered that the rule is forcing the Church’s institutions to contract with insurance companies, which is a conflict of religious beliefs and this action is “extending the giant regulatory arm of government.” Ms. Green refuted this, stating that this is not about government overreach; it is about the exercise of liberty, particularly in the case of religion. The issue is a question of the rule of law in a pluralistic society and if institutions that are not the Church must follow the law. Mr. Biesiada asserted that the government has overstepped its bounds in forcing institutions to violate the principles upon which they were founded. On the negation, Mr. Henderson asked, “What is the nature of liberty?” He answered that liberty is a unity; it is not divided into branches. The question is whether we should leave it to individual morality or the common good and in the context of the community of values, we do not believe that the objections of the Catholic Church are valid enough to change this rule.

Ms. Daniels quoted US v. Lee, “Not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional.” The religious employers must accept limitations on their own faith if it comes into contradiction with the general rule of law. Responding to floor speeches, she reminded that just because there have been exceptions in the past it does not mean that religious institutions are entitled to them, especially because the government has only made exceptions for individuals to avoid the “multiplying effect.” She also refuted the “myth of choice,” about women choosing where they worked. She argued that this choice is a leveling of the playing field, giving women the ability to decide when to have a family. She concluded, “Don’t give the Church a pass; this is too important.” Ms. Wood then argued that just because someone believes women should have these rights does not mean that the affirmation is wrong. She asserted that tangential institutions are core to the Catholic Church and this mandate is asking the religious heads of these institutions to go against the religious beliefs upon which they lead their lives. Mr. Young then argued that the Catholic Church is imposing its beliefs and that the law comes first. We cannot simply not do something because we don’t believe in it because the government protects beliefs, not practices. Finally Mr. DiMisa responded to Mr. Donovan’s examples stating that there is a difference between tax money going towards something and the direct act of signing a document. Ultimately this is a religious freedom violation because there are much better plans and so this plan fails the Least Restrictive Means test. Ultimately liberty is not divided, but this plan forces us to do so by separating the liberty of individuals and of institutions. We can have a win-win situation, but this is not it because it clearly violates religious freedoms.

The Society voted 19-9-20 to negate the resolution.

The following outstanding speakers were awarded Merrick points:

• Mr. Henderson – 5
• Ms. Green – 4
• Mr. Medina – 3
• Ms. Daniels – 2
• Chancellor Iacono – 1

This brings the Merrick totals to:

• Ms. Green – 20
• Mr. Henderson – 20
• Chancellor Iacono – 17
• Mr. Medina – 15
• Mr. Manchester – 11
• Mr. Dulik – 5
• Mr. Petallides – 3
• Ms. Daniels – 2
• Mr. Askonas – 2
• Mr. Taft – 1

The Society inducted Mr. DiMisa and Mr. Young.  Huzzah!

ELD,

Emily R. Coccia