The Philodemic website has been experiencing some technical issues.  We will be reposting old entries that were not properly registered with the site.  Our apologies for the inconvenience.  

On Thursday January 23rd, the Society conveigned to consider the issue:

Resolved the AK-47 has had a greater impact upon history than the Atomic Bomb.

Mr. Kolodin began the debate on the affirmation by describing how the AK-47 represented the idea of the common man acting uncommonly, just as the Minutemen, who rose up to defend their freedoms. Mr. Kolodin told the Society that the Age of Nations was passed, and that instead faith ought to be put in the masses. Mr. Hipple countered on the negation by reminding the society that nuclear weapons are employed for strategic purpose, but also that they represented a greater power of destruction than had ever before been known to warfare. Mr. Hipple then stated that with the atomic bomb, the weight of our full power was placed squarely upon our own shoulders.

The floor debate was marked with vigorous speeches on both sides, including one by Chancellor Rugg, who explained that a pernicious dichotomy seemed to exist between determinism and chaos, but that the ultimate solution is a third option of finding a way for liberty to co-exist with authority. Mr. Merighi also made a stirring speech that employed a humorous analogy to the Crossbow’s introduction to medieval warfare and eventual banning by the Papacy. Mr. Rendleman furthermore reminded us that regardless of the technologies that we might develope, mankind will still remain inherently the same.

Concluding the arguments of the negation, Mr. Hipple proceeded to explain that the progression of history has always been based around man’s ability to assert himself, but that assertion ceased with the development of the atomic bomb. To finish off the evening’s debate, Mr. Kolodin gave a rousing speech and implored the society to consider that believing in the sacredness of every human life required a vote for the affirmation.

The debate was negated by a vote of 18-25-1.

Mr. Merighi was the best speaker of the evening by the Society, and was awarded 5 Merrick Points.

This past Thursday the Philodemic Society met to debate whether Bill Gates or Mother Teresa was a greater philanthropist.  The Society happily inducted two new members this week; Mr. Nicholas Myers and Miss Emma Green.  The debate began with a keynote speech from Mr. Dan Huntley, who framed the debate, defining philanthropy as actions undertaken by one in the attempt to benefit humanity.  Opening for the negation was Emma Green, who gave a superb speech and reflected a talent sure to be appreciated by the Society in upcoming debates.  Mr. Myers then responded with a splendid rebuttal; his command of language echoing the masters of literature themselves. Miss Carolyn Kraemer rounded out the keynote debaters with a description of the selflessness of Mother Teresa’s acts throughout her life.

The floor debate was rather eventful, with the speakers on each side resolutely defending their opinions.  Centering the debate was a focus as to whether the amount of money that Bill Gates has given amounts to a greater contribution than the works of Mother Teresa.  Eventually, Mr. Merighi explained to the society that, though charity and selfless giving are important, the importance of monetary contributions in helping solve illnesses in areas of abject poverty is a greater contribution overall to humanity, and thus that Bill Gates is the greater philanthropist.  Mr. Merighi was awarded the speaker of the week award for his contribution to the debate.

After completing the keynote speeches, which included quite a memorable description of the power of mathematical graphs from Miss Green, the society divided the room and voted upon the issue.  It was determined by a vote of 18-24 that Mother Teresa was a greater philanthropist than Bill Gates.

On Thursday November 6th, the Society gathered to debate whether or not the Great Gatsby is an indictment of the American Dream.  The Society was excited to revitalize its tradition of literary debates with such a classic work of American fiction.

The debate was a double induction, with Ms. Ludden (Negating) and Mr. Carlozzi (Affirming) joining the Society.  Ms. Caroline D’Agati and Chancellor Rugg keynoted alongside.  Chancellor Rugg, on the affirmation, urged the society to remain focused on the piece of literature itself, and to keep in mind the the telling ending of the novel. Ms. D’Agati, speaking on the negation, argued that the society should consider the life of Fitzgerald and his troublesome romantic life.  Ms. Luden argued that there is a difference between indicting the American dream and indicting  a specific group of people pursing it.  Last, Mr. Carlozzi spoke about the pervasive irony in the book and its constant negative message. 

The Debate was lively and spirited, with much focus placed on the character of Nick and whether he represents a possibility for hope and the fulfillment of the American Dream.  After the closing keynotes, the debate was affirmed.  Mr. Rendleman received the award for best affirmative floor speech.  Ms. Sarah Olsen won the best negative floor speech.  The President’s gavel, for best overall floor speech, went to Mr. Cantirino.

The Society will next debate Resolved: Bill Gates is a Greater Philanthropist than Mother Teresa.

This past Thursday the Philodemic Society debated which of the two frontrunners in the Presidential election race, Barack Obama or John McCain, ought to be the next president of the United States.  The Keynoters set the stage for a great debate. Mr. Nick Greenough reminded the Society how important education is to the future of the United States, and why Obama’s plan for America’s education system would bring needed funding and attention to many of America’s underperforming schools.  Mr. Dustin Walker, speaking on behalf of McCain, offered a challenge to the Obama supporters, asking them to provide substantive credentials proving Obama’s experience and bipartisanship. The Philodemic Society was proud to induct two new members during the debate, Mr. Eric Wind and Ms. Corina Kwami, who both impressed everyone with their talented displays of speaking.  Mr. Wind exclaimed that Obama’s popular support abroad would reignite support for America’s global image, while Ms. Kwami contended that America’s ideal of putting country first, a tradition which exhibited itself in men like John Adams, would be reflected in John McCain’s service to our nation.  The Society was extremely excited to have two eloquent new members selected to its ranks.

The beginning of the floor debate was rather heated, and both sides were determined to convince each other why their own candidate would make the better President of the United States.  For his efforts to defend Obama, Mr. Colin Judd was awarded the best floor speech on the Obama side by the keynoters. For his efforts on behalf of McCain, Chancellor Rugg was awarded best floor speech by the McCain keynoters and received best speech of the evening by the President. Having rounded out the debate with spectacular closing speeches from each of the four keynoters, the society divided the room to vote on the resolution.  It was determined by a vote of 32-30-1 that Barack Obama ought to be the next President of the United States of America.

Next week, the Society will debate whether The Great Gatsby is an indictment of the American dream.

We are pleased to announce an exciting way for Alumni, family, and friends of the Society to help support the Philodemic.  Using Georgetown’s Hoyas Online Site, donations can be submitted directly to the Philodemic Gift Account.

Please check out the ‘Alumni, Donors, and Parents’ section of this web site for instructions and information on how donate online to the Philodemic Society!

Thank you to all the Alumni, family, and friends of the society for the continued support to the Society!

For questions about donating online, please contact our Treasurer, Brian Harbour, at bjharbour@gmail.com.

In our conclusion to the interviews that we begin during the summer, we’ve reserved our final interview for our very own dear President, Mirco Haag

Q: What do you think the Philodemic can expect in fall of 2008?

A: Many of the older members were abroad for part of the past year and it will be a real treat to welcome them back. Also, all of our fantastic new speakers will hopefully come back for another fantastic year. Having both experienced and talented developing speakers will events such as the Merrick debate (in the Spring) even more special. Spring semester began to more firmly institutionalize many activities and traditions that I think a lot of people are looking forward to, especially the Hamilton and Christmas Party. Hopefully our success from the past year will mean strong interest by new Hoyas. An expanded off-campus competitive program, in the vein of our tradition with UVA, will also be something to look forward to.
What challenges do you think the Philodemic will face this semester?

Q: Well, recruitment of new members is always important and obvious challenge of the fall semester. Maintaining a high level of debate is also central to who we are as a society. The less obvious challenge will be the maintenance of the society’s cohesiveness. A number of new members have been inducted, many are return from abroad and relatively few Philodemicians graduated this past May. The overarching challenge is then balancing recruitment against growing too quickly and losing our quality.

A: What do you like most about the Philodemic?

Q: The people, and how welcoming we try to be as a society. 
What’s your impression the previous Philodemic semester (spring 2008), how do you think it went?

A: Looking back, it was an incredibly successful semester. The Merrick Debate was a good time had by all with great speeches both by the keynoters and from the floor. We went to UVA as part of our ongoing plan to expand intercollegiate debate. Relationships with the University administration were strengthened. President’s Dinners became established, as did workshops to work on speaking techniques. Membership grew and became more established, all while allowing members a varied level of interest and involvement. 

Q: What debate topics or subjects do you want to see this semester?

A: I would like to see some more topical debates. While they’re harder for us to do because of how we choose topics, I think we do them well. Maybe a good Georgetown debate, but I can’t think of a good one at the moment.

Q: Who is the sexiest President of all time in the Philodemic

A: Without a doubt it has to be Chancellor Andrew Rugg.  His handsome good looks are dreamy. 

Get excited for the first debate of the Fall Semester!  This Thursday Ms. Sarah Olsen and Mr. Daniel Rendleman will be squaring off over the topic: Resolved: English Should be the Official Language of the United States.  The debate begins at 8:00pm this Thursday in Healy Hall room 208.   Hope to see you there!

Check out and join the facebook event: http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php#/event.php?eid=24356006796&ref=nf

Affirming: Mr Daniel Rendleman

Negating: Ms. Sarah Olsen

The Philodemic Society was founded in 1830 amidst the golden age of America rhetoric, where oratory was not only a corner stone of academic education, but was a popular source of entertainment.  Titans such as Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, and Henry Clay clashed in rhetorical battles that have not been duplicated in America since, and have few rivals at any time in any place. 

Amidst this environment, the early Philodemic Society composed numerous topics to  fashion their rhetorical skills.  Often, these topics presupposed working knowledge of history, literature, and oratory of the past.  Here are some great examples of those early resolutions:

• Whether Napoleon Bonaparte or General Washington was the greater man?
• Was the destruction of Carthage beneficial to Rome?
• Which nation produced the greatest men during the reign of George III and IV, England or Ireland?
• Which was the greater man, Charles XII of Sweden or Peter the Great of Russia?
• Can Dueling be justified in the United States?
• Who is greater orator, Cicero or Patrick Henry?
• Was the age of Augustus Caesar superior to that of Louis XIV in literature?

 

Feel free to comment: What do you think about the style of these early resolutions? 

Source: Eric M. George The Philodemic Society, 1830-1890 in Swift Potomac’s Lovely Daughter, Georgetown University Press 1990

This week on the Philodemic blog, we continue with our officer interviews.  For this entry, we interview our beloved and perennial grand librarian.  The last question, by the way, was a real question asked.  Certainly not something that Dan inserted.  Certainly.    

Q: What do you think the Philodemic can expect in fall of 2008?

A: Three things will occur: We’ll receive a rush of excited new freshmen, last year’s freshmen will return with a little more maturity and eloquence, and we’ll welcome back the wave of seniors that studied abroad last year.  I’m a gambling man, and I bet that’s going to make for some pretty fine debate if we can keep everything on topic.

Q:How do you view your officer positions?  What are you most exciting about doing?

A: I am the Keeper of the Ancient Scrolls.  I look forward to digitizing those scrolls as well as purchasing new additions to the Philodemic Library with my new-found budget.  I’m still taking requests, by the way.

Q: What challenges do you think the Philodemic will face this semester?

A: Right off the bat we’re going to be pressed for space.  We were really pushing things last year and if the new crop of freshmen is even average in size we’ll have to be creative with how we set things up.

Q: What do you like most about the Philodemic?

A: Philodomecians, particularly when someone’s speech can get me to turn inward and rethink something I hold to be true.  Of course it doesn’t always change my mind, but when that happens I can look around the room and say, “This is a good debate.”

Q: What’s your impression the previous Philodemic semester (spring 2008), how do you think it went?

A: I think it was a semester of transition and growth.  I don’t mean that in the “It was terrible, please help us” fashion either.  Anyone who attended our Merrick Debate came away with the impression that this society is dedicated to quality debate (in defense of liberty).

Q: What debate topics or subjects do you want to see this semester?

A: Nothing that Matt Hipple suggests.  If he brings up “Empires of the Mind” again, there will be fisticuffs.  I am excited to handle the election, a little later on in the semester though.

Q: You know, Daniel, I’ve always secretly stared into your deep blue eyes and wondered how such a beautiful man was fashioned?

A:  Well, that’s not really a question, Andrew, but it’s true, I am stunning to look at.  Thanks for noticing!

Brian Harbour

In eager anticipation of the upcoming fall 2008 Philodemic season, interviews have been conducted with the new officer corps.  This ongoing series of post will explore the opinions and personalities of the Philodemic leadership.

For this post, we interviewed Brian Harbour MSB ‘10, who is the current Treasurer of the Society.

Q: What do you think the Philodemic can expect in fall of 2008?

A: Hopefully plenty of good new blood and the inductions of some good
people from last year. I always like it when new people come and
become interested and involved. Also, of course many great members
will be returning from abroad.

Q: How do you view your officer positions?  What are you most exciting about doing?

A: Apparently I have to be symbol of organization, responsibility and
maturity…I´ll make sure I work on that. Of course fundraising and
keeping finances in order will be key for me, mainly so that we can
fund our increasingly extravagant events, which I am really looking
forward to.

Q: What challenges do you think the Philodemic will face this semester?

A: We´ll need to keep quality of debate up and promote cohesion among the
membership, as the society is now more diverse and larger than it has
been in the past. This is outstanding, but can make management more of
a challenge.

Q: What do you like most about the Philodemic?

A: The fact that it is more intellectual and entertaining (at the same
time) than anything else I´ve experienced at Georgetown. I hate
missing any Philodemic event. I also like Sarah Olsen´s passion for
event planning.

Q: What’s your impression the previous Philodemic semester (spring 2008), how
A: do you think it went?

Generally outstanding- I think we outdid ourselves with Merrick, and I
really enjoyed the growth, although things were challenging at times
without some senior members.

Q: What debate topics or subjects do you want to see this semester?

A: Something related to fiscal or economic policy (which would require
numbers!). It probably wont happen, but I keep trying. I tend to be
happy with most topics.