Spring 2013 Grand Semi-Annual Meeting Results

As the outgoing amanuensis, it is my pleasure to announce the results of the Philodemic Society’s Spring 2013 Grand Semi-Annual Meeting. First, congratulations are in order to Mr. Patrick Spagnuolo (SFS ’14), Ms. Abigail Grace (SFS ’16), Mr. Michael Mouch (SFS ’15), and Ms. Madeleine Ringwald (COL ’16), on their elections to the Officer Corps, as well as to Mr. Chris DiMisa (COL ’15) for his re-election as membership secretary. The Fall 2013 Officer Corps will consist of:

• President: Mr. Peter Prindiville
• Vice President: Mr. Patrick Spagnuolo
• Treasurer: Ms. Abigail Grace
• Corresponding Secretary: Ms. Amanda Wynter
• Membership Secretary: Mr. Chris DiMisa
• Librarian: Mr. Michael Mouch
• Amanuensis: Ms. Madeleine Ringwald

Second, we voted to induct a number of honorary members into the Society. Honorary members are recognized for their contribution to the Philodemic Society and its mission, as well as their embodiment of the Society’s motto of eloquence in defense of liberty. I am pleased to announce that the following esteemed citizens have been extended an honorary membership:

• Rev. Pat Conroy, S.J.
• Mr. Clark S. Judge
• Mr. James Robertson
• Mr. Paul Sprenger
• Mr. Albert Wynn
• Ms. Rachel S. Kronowitz
• Rev. David J. Collins, S.J.

Finally, the Constitution has been updated to reflect amendments that were adopted at this Grand Semi. These amendments include:

• Article V, Section 10: Relevant to the duties of the Sergeant-at-Arms

  [4] It shall be the duty of the Sergeant-at-Arms, in coordination with the Vice President in the fall or Chancellor in the spring, to conduct at least four Speakers’ Workshops per semester. The primary goal of these Workshops shall be to foster competence in rhetoric, logic, and argumentation, especially in those members and non-members who do not regularly have the opportunity to speak on the Philodemic floor.

• Article III, Section 6: Relevant to the Caroe Award

  [1] The Jessica Caroe Award for Progress in Eloquence, in honor of Jessica Caroe (COL ’06), shall be awarded to the Philodemic Member inducted since the previous Caroe Debate, who has demonstrated the greatest improvement in eloquence in his or her extemporaneous floor speeches since his or her first speech on the floor of the Society. 

  [3] All active members shall be eligible to select the recipient of the Caroe Medal.

  [5] In order to ensure that all members who were inducted during that academic year have a sufficient opportunity to demonstrate their improvement in eloquence, the floor speakers at the Caroe Debate shall not be chosen based on seniority.

• Article III, Section 4: Relevant to the Merrick Medal

  [5] It shall be the duty of the Merrick Keynoters to inform the Vice President of any factor that may bias a Merrick Judge. Should such a case arise, the Judge shall not be eligible to be a Merrick Judge. A factor that may bias a Merrick Judge shall be at the discretion of the President.

  (a) The failure of a Merrick Keynoter to disclose such a bias will result in his ineligibility to be a Merrick Keynoter. Such ineligibility shall be declared by the President. The Keynoter’s position will thus be filled according to Section 3, Article III, Subsection 4 of the by-laws.

  (b) Merrick Keynoters are precluded from interacting with or otherwise biasing the judges at any point before or during the Merrick Debate.

  [6] The Vice President shall orient the Merrick Judges prior to the opening of the Merrick Debate and again before their deliberations.

  [7] The Vice President shall orient the Merrick Judges before their deliberations and inform them that they are tasked with selecting the Merrick Keynoter who best exemplifies the Society’s motto: “Eloquence in the Defense of Liberty.”

  (a) The Vice President shall at no time bias the Merrick Judges by expressing preference for one Merrick Keynoter over any other.

  (b) Deliberations and voting of the judges are strictly closed and secret.

  (c) The Vice President shall inform the Judges of the following deliberative rules: (i) The Merrick Medal may only be awarded to one of the Merrick Keynoters by a majority vote. (ii) The Merrick Judge Panel must select a Foreman or Forewoman to award the Merrick Medal.

• Article I, Section 2[2]: Relevant to the requirements for membership eligibility

  (b) Non-members must have attended at least one Speaker’s Workshop prior to becoming eligible for membership. Those who are already eligible for membership at the time of passage are exempt from this amendment.

That wraps up what resulted from an eight-hour meeting in the ICC on the Sunday after Georgetown Day. Huzzah to the members who were present for their dedication to the Society and its traditions.

ELD,
Chloe J. Krawczyk

The 138th Annual Richard T. Merrick Debate

The Philodemic Society convened for its 138th Merrick Debate on Saturday, April 20. This historic part of Philodemic tradition is held each year to determine the best undergraduate speaker for the Merrick Medal, which is the only non-academic award that can be adorned at graduation. (More on the history of the Merrick Debate.)

Resolved: Pragmatism, not idealism, is the higher virtue.

Affirming the resolution are Mr. Patrick Spagnuolo (SFS ’14) of New York and Mr. Constantine Petallides (SFS ’13) of New York.

Negating the resolution are Mr. Samuel Dulik (SFS ’13) of California and Mr. Benjamin Snow (COL ’13) of Washington.

The esteemed judges invited to determine the winner of the Merrick Medal are:

• The Reverend Pat Conroy, S.J., the 60th Chaplain of the U.S. House of Representatives
• Mr. Clark S. Judge, founding director of the White House Writers Group, Inc. and former speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan
• Ms. Rachel Kronowitz, founding partner and vice chair of Gilbert LLP and Board Chair of the Washington Area Women’s Foundation
• Mr. Paul Sprenger, lawyer, philanthropist, and 2007 Washingtonian of the Year
• The Honorable James Robertson, lawyer and former U.S. district judge
• The Honorable Albert Wynn (L’77), former elected official in the U.S. House of Representatives, Maryland House of Delegates, and Maryland State Senate

Mr. Spagnuolo began the debate by describing a pragmatist as one who is willing to sacrifice their ideals when it becomes necessary to forge compromise and agreement. A pragmatist acknowledges that their personal ideals of the truth may not be the universal truth. They acknowledge that everyone has different conceptions and visions of how to reach truth. In contrast, idealism is “the most dangerous way to go,” as going along with one person’s idea and their dogmatic insistence on how it must be carried out can lead to disastrous results. He cited Chairman Mao Zedong of China as someone who was fervent in their belief that certain sacrifices must be made to achieve his ideal of a better society, but those sacrifices resulted in the deaths of 30 to 60 million people. Mao was convinced in the orthodoxy of communism — those were his ideals that he stood by intractably. Mr. Spagnuolo cited the obstinacy of idealists as the reason they alienate so many others: “Society is harmed by people putting abstract principles so far ahead of everything that they refuse to have any willingness to compromise.” He argued that the pragmatist is the truly brave one: “They are willing to realize that their own path to truth is not the only path.” Mr. Spagnuolo ended by remarking that the courageous who have come together and incorporated more than one point of view are the ones who have truly changed the world.

Mr. Dulik reminded the audience that the resolution is not constrained to policymaking or governance, but rather represents a fundamental human question. He cited Aquinas to define virtue as an orientation of the mind and the heart. “You’re forced to live out your virtues, so the unit of analysis of this debate shouldn’t be limited to what you do,” Mr. Dulik said. He contended that one must have idealism when advocating a position, but idealism can subsequently produce pragmatism. Further, pragmatism is anchored in idealism: “Idealism is the end of any pursuit. When you remove that end, you are walking around in circles.” Mr. Dulik also defended unrestricted idealism (without pragmatism) as a force that positively motivates society, asking the audience to imagine the bright eyes of an 8-year-old boy who declares his dream of becoming an astronaut. “We should not shut down those dreams,” he said. “We still want that idealism because it builds engines and innovations. It anchors our people.” He concluded with a pithy juxtaposition of the two values: “A pragmatist sees problems where an idealist sees opportunities. Idealism calls virtues to ring true in their truest sense. Pragmatism boxes them in and tamps them down.”

Mr. Petallides emphasized an important distinction in the debate: ideals should not be conflated with idealism. Neither the affirmation nor the negation has a monopoly on ideals, as one could be a pragmatist and stand for important values as well. The crucial difference is that “pragmatism does not hold onto uncompromisable positions” so it is the “most effective course of action to achieve the goal of an ideal.” Therefore, Mr. Petallides argued that pragmatism is relatively higher on the virtue scale than idealism, as the higher virtue is one that “allows us to get things done.” He contended that a pragmatist is willing to make advantageous compromises, to accept less in the short-term for more in the short-term. Mr. Petallides described idealism as the pursuit of goals in their purest form, such that anything less than full achievement of those ideals is unacceptable. “This level of perfection eludes us,” he said. “They should stand as goalposts for which we strive. Striving for the ideal is unrealistic.” He reminded the audience of how President Woodrow Wilson’s insistence on his ideals in the creation of the League of Nations prevented compromise with congressional leaders who disagreed with him, ultimately resulting in the defeat of the Treaty of Versailles in the Senate. “The more desirable trait in society is one that demands people to cooperate and see other perspectives rather than dig ideological trenches with No Man’s Land in between,” Mr. Petallides concluded. “Pragmatism can evolve and adapt to changing variables.”

Mr. Snow refuted the assertion that idealists cannot compromise: “An idealist is a person who abides by certain core principles. You can compromise towards your ideals; you just can’t compromise away your ideals.” He contended that idealists are motivated by a sense of humility, as they recognize that they do not know everything, so they must draw certain boundaries that cannot be crossed. Mr. Snow argued that idealism in fact produces better outcomes than pragmatism because “idealists can make guarantees.” He then described the nation’s founding as centered on idealism because it gives people the strength to make things possible. “My family fought in the American Revolution because they believed it was the right thing to do,” he said. “They held onto American ideals.” He ended by espousing the spirit of idealism: “An idealist doesn’t sell his soul along the way. Idealism is the strength and resolve to stand in the face of the world who tries to push you down, and to say ‘No.’”

In the floor speeches, Mr. Donovan (COL ’13) described how Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was co-opted by the British to intervene in Iran because he was “blinded by his staunch anti-communist ideals and unable to see the minutia of geopolitical conditions.” Conversely, President William Jefferson Clinton embodied pragmatism when he accepted for incremental compromises in the fight for LGBTQ equality such as DADT, despite his passionate ideal that LGBTQs should have equal rights. He allowed for a less-than-perfect compromise in the short-term so that the next generation of pragmatists could win marriage equality and further LGBTQ rights. Chancellor Randy Drew (SFS ’10) described idealism as “a tough gig,” but believed that idealists move us forward as a society more so than pragmatists. Ms. Miller (SFS ’14) cautioned the Society to avoid conflating ideals and idealism: ideals are the end goal and pragmatism/idealism represent distinct methods of reaching that. In response, Ms. Wynter (COL ’14) pointed out that the resolution does not say “idealist” or “pragmatist,” but rather the concepts of “idealism” and “pragmatism.” She contended that both virtues can exist within the same person, so the question surrounds the goals that motivates their actions. Ms. Melendez (COL ’13) posited that “doubt is not the opposite of faith,” so pragmatists don’t necessarily have less faith in their ideals, but they give themselves room to doubt them. “Holding fast to our ideals makes us brittle and ignores our internal human fallacy,” she said. Mr. Desnick (COL ’13) denigrated pragmatism as over-inflating the desirability of compromise: “There are objective ideals towards which we should strive, which we can determine through reason. Compromise is not an ideal.” Thus, pragmatism cannot be a virtue because compromise is never the best solution we should strive to attain.

Returning the spotlight to the keynote speakers for their closings, Mr. Snow championed idealism as the higher virtue that allows us to “move mountains and win wars.” He said that there won’t be constant clashes of ideals because we must be picky when it comes to choosing our ideals: ideals should come from the gut and should represent the fundamental principles of humanity, equality, and liberty. Finally, he pointed out that “not everyone needs to be an idealist” for idealism to be a higher virtue, but that our greatest leaders were. “Once you give up your ideals, you have nothing left,” he said.

Mr. Petallides emphasized that pragmatism can hold any of the laudable ideals that have come up today on the floor, as “acting in service of an ideal does not make one an idealist.” He presented Javert from Les Misérables as the paragon of idealism, who holds up the ideal of law and justice so staunchly that he ends up committing suicide. “After he realized that the ideals to which he clung were flawed, Javert could not function. He could not function in a world in which his ideals have been sullied,” Mr. Petallides contended. Similarly, idealism is dogmatic blindness that cannot bend when faced with opposing ideals.

Mr. Dulik began his closing by retelling the story of Ruby Bridges, an African-American child who went to school with white children accompanied by members of the National Guard, after the Supreme Court constitutionally mandated integration. He believed that her and her family’s idealism in equality and fairness motivated them to take this brave stance despite the overwhelming social obstacles. He reminded the audience of what Georgetown chaplain, Father Kevin O’Brien, has taught him: “The world should make your heart break. You should be horrified by some of the things that you see beyond the manicured gates of Georgetown.” In response to this heartbreak, Mr. Dulik said that we must act with deliberateness. We must act with agape, a self-giving love that puts others first, before personal ambition: “Agape is the ultimate ideal. It should anchor our idealism to make sure our laws and institutions live up to it.”

Mr. Spagnuolo provided a devastating rebuttal to Mr. Dulik’s Ruby Bridges story by pointing out that the white supremacists who sought to exclude non-whites from public institutions were also idealists. “If those white supremacists had considered that maybe they were wrong, if they didn’t draw their arbitrary line in the sand, maybe things could have gone better,” he said. There is an obligation for each person in this world to stop and critically examine their ideals: are they actually in line with the good? Are they actually applied correctly in certain instances? Idealism fosters a dogmatic blindness that prevents such self-reflection. Mr. Spagnuolo argued that because we don’t live in a world where everyone believes in and practices the same thing, conflicts are inevitable and therefore the necessity of compromise is inevitable. He proclaimed, “Pragmatists can achieve compromises that are perfect, beautiful, and brave.”

In the end, the audience voted 43-21 to affirm the resolution. The keynote speakers presented the Father James Ryder Gavel for the best Merrick floor speech to Mr. Desnick. After much deliberation, the judges awarded the Merrick Medal to Mr. Dulik. Congratulations to both members!

Thank you to all of the judges, speakers, and spectators for making the 138th Merrick Debate an memorable event.

ELD,
Chloe J. Krawczyk

Pride: A Deadly Sin?

The Society convened for its twelfth debate this semester and the inaugural Caroe Debate, held in honor of a Philodemician, Jessica Caroe (COL ’06), who tragically passed away with her fiancée in a car accident last year. The 2006 graduating class of Georgetown endowed the Society with a medal, the Jessica Caroe Award for Progress in Eloquence, for the Philodemic Member inducted during that academic year who has demonstrated the greatest improvement in his or her extemporaneous floor speeches, to be voted upon by the members inducted during that academic year and the current membership secretary. On behalf of the entire Philodemic Society, I am pleased to announce that the winner of the first Caroe Award is Mr. Victor Wang (NHS ’15).

The resolution for the evening was Resolved: Pride is a virtue, not a vice. Christian ethics declare pride to be one of the seven deadly sins, alongside wrath, greed, sloth, lust, envy, and gluttony. In contrast, the Catholic Church also recognizes the seven virtues to correspond inversely to the sins: humility, patience, charity, diligence, chastity, kindness, and temperance.

Ms. Caroline Egan (COL ’15) of New York presented the framing of the debate by defining a virtue as “a quality that helps people do better in society” and pride as “a high or inordinate amount of confidence in oneself and one’s abilities.” She distinguished between altruistic pride and hubristic pride: the former is a sense of self-worth internally derived from one’s achievements, while the latter is a confidence in oneself to achieve beyond what is possible or likely. Altruistic pride is a virtue, as it is simply feeling worthy of one’s own love for oneself. Though she acknowledges that hubristic pride is more problematic, she concludes that it is also a virtue because it “gives you hope to achieve imaginary possibilities” and “gives you a sense of what you could be.” Thus, both forms of pride represent virtues.

Mr. Joshua Weiner (COL ’15) of Illinois emphasized that negating this resolution would not be negating self-esteem or self-respect. Those may be ingredients of pride, but pride is more excessive than that. Instead, Mr. Weiner said that negating the resolution was an acknowledgment that one’s pride must be limited, that “the right amount of pride” can be virtuous but pride itself is not a virtue. Similarly, greed, itself a vice, can also be virtuous if limited and channeled positively, as it can inspire great businesses that benefit the world. Thus, pride itself is not a virtue simply because its causes or results can be positive. It is ultimately a vice because if unrestrained, pride leads to selfishness and brings out other weaknesses.

Mr. Stephen Wooten (MSB ’13) of Connecticut countered that pride feels good and can in fact encourage other virtues. “Pride helps you become better,” he said. “Pride can tell you that you are good enough to give some of what you have to the less fortunate.” Moreover, lack of pride or false humility of negative thinking can ruin a person’s life. Mr. Wooten argued that one cannot fault a personality trait for the errors of human ways. Other virtues, such as courage and determination, are still considered virtues even if some courageously determined people use it poorly or have a deluded sense of who they are.

Ms. Hannah Muldavin (COL ’15) of California contended that what mattered the most in determining a virtue is how the quality can be manifested in people’s responses to situations. In many cases, humility (the opposite of pride) produces better actions and generates a more harmonious society. She channeled Aristotle to argue that pride can make problems become intractable and elusive to compromise, pointing to the current disastrous state of the American political system as an example. “Heroic pride is always the downfall of the most well-intentioned heroes,” she said. “Being too full of oneself can stop one from accomplishing one’s goals.”

Mr. Diasti (NHS ’14) argued that any personal quality taken to the extreme will be a vice. What’s worse is complacency, in the words of Mr. Diasti’s grandma. “We live in a world of fabricated limitations, which are being pushed ever and ever more by people who had pride and believed in the impossible,” he said. Mr. Quinn (COL ’15) argued that pride is an inordinate amount of confidence, or when one’s belief exceeds one’s abilities, which leads to treating others poorly and behaving in dangerous ways. Vice President Christensen (COL ’15) corrected the previous speaker by reminding everyone that the definition of pride is a high or inordinate amount of confidence, which is necessary in order to reach one’s goals. “Believing that you are capable in more than what you can imagine can be the greatest motivator,” she said. Ms. Miller (COL ’14) pointed out that Icarus did not meet a fabricated barrier, but a real one. He tried to push the sun though he knew it was a boundary, and that is arrogance. Mr. Spagnuolo (SFS ’14) pointed out that society has many real barriers: it is in fact idiocy for all of us to believe that we will one day become the President or Secretary of State because the actual odds of us doing that are very, very low. “You better believe that pride is a virtue because no one else will believe in you,” he remarked. “Humanity isn’t going to go anywhere if we don’t try to break boundaries.” Mr. Dulik (SFS ’13) said that pride cripples one’s ability to healthfully interact with other people. “Pride produces paragons of mediocrity, destined for loneliness,” he proclaimed. Mr. Desnick (COL ’13) challenged the weak, accommodating framing of the resolution that is collapsing the dichotomy between the affirmation and negation to produce stale debate. “The negation should have to prove that you shouldn’t believe in yourself,” he stated, citing Chesterton and other philosophers that have written volumes backing this position.

Chancellor Iacono (COL ’12) derided pride for its subjectivity and reliance on emotion rather than fact to make a judgment about oneself. “Pride is championing a beauty contest in which the only contestant is also the only judge,” he said. Mr. Taft (COL ’13) took a more positive view of pride, arguing that it is necessary to have “one’s emotional house in order” or some level of pride before one can reach out and help others. Ben Mazzara (COL ’15) posited that pride creates the delusion that you’re too good for something. He prefers the pragmatic approach, which is believing that we’re not too good for anything. Abby Cooner (SFS ’16) said that pride is finishing an accomplishment and knowing that you gave it your best. “Pride is believing in oneself to make oneself better,” she commented. Ms. Wood (SFS ’14) took a critical view of history in justifying her argument against pride, noting that the Soviet Union’s inordinate amount of confidence in their central planning produced mass poverty, destitution, and deaths. Ms. Wynter (COL ’14) argued that the consistent focus on “moderating pride” throughout the affirmation speeches proves that it cannot be a virtue. “A virtue doesn’t require a caveat or corollary,” she articulated, “They are good and desirable in it of themselves.”

Closing for the negation, Ms. Muldavin re-told the story of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice to illustrate the harms that pride can bring. When no one is willing to sacrifice their pride to give in, the outcome can be worse for both parties. “We grow up in a selfish society that focuses on ‘I’,” Ms. Muldavin noted. “A proud person thinks they are superior to others and closed off from those around them.” Standing on the affirmation, Mr. Wooten argued that Ms. Muldavin and the floor speeches have misrepresented the affirmation to “make an omelette” of the very fine distinctions of pride. “It’s a virtue to aspire for more,” he said.

Mr. Weiner contended that humility is the true virtue, as it encompasses self-respect but recognizes healthy limits in one’s abilities as well. “Pride does not motivate people to seek feedback or improvement,” he said. “Having pride means that you think you don’t have to change yourself.” In the final keynote address of the evening, Ms. Egan emphasized that “pride is a self-reflective quality that does not say anything about one’s relation to others.” Pride is not vanity or arrogance, and it doesn’t require external validation from others. Further, she provided a strong rebuttal of the negation speeches by demonstrating that any virtue “mixed with idiocy” produces bad results. “Groups that practiced temperance in the extreme died of starvation,” she said. “Excessively kind people can enable others to abuse and manipulate them. Diligence in the extreme, and combined with lack of awareness and reflectiveness, also produces negative consequences.” Thus, we should not fault pride itself simply because “pride mixed with stupidity” also produces evil. “Pride makes you hope for more, and makes you look at the stars. This firm sense of self is what allows you to do good and to reach out to others,” she concluded.

The Society voted 26-1-23 to affirm the resolution. Congratulations to Ms. Egan and Mr. Weiner for being inducted as the newest members of the Philodemic Society!

ELD,

Chloe J. Krawczyk

Justice is Served

Greetings from your amanuensis emeritus. We had a thrilling discussion on the topic Resolved: The US criminal justice system should prioritize rehabilitation. Ms. Miller began our last Merrick debate by establishing the framework for our discussion and some key facts to help us answer this question. First, she looked at the high recidivism rates and pointed out that criminals cannot navigate society after they have served their time and how this leads to revolving door prisons. Second, she mentioned how rehabilitation is a long term solution to this problem. She concluded by arguing that this does not mean that we should go easy on criminals; rather, we should allow for them to enter society after paying their debt to society. Mr. Desnick responded by pointing out how our current system is for rehabilitation, looking at the name correctional facilities as an example, to argue that rehabilitation is the problem with our system. Next, he argued that retribution is a fairer model because it is based in proportionality to the crime committed which is the definition of justice. Furthermore, he argued that only retribution can fix the harmony that is lost when a crime is committed. Finally, he concluded that the government’s role is not to fix people and that is what is attempted when rehabilitation is the priority.

Ms. Higbee opened the floor by pointing out that criminals frequently have no one caring for them and that this is the only way they can have that. Ms. Muldavin responded by arguing that principally people must take responsibility for their actions. Mr. Donovan agreed on the point of responsibility but added that we must look at criminal justice as a means of helping society by helping the individual. Mr. Kendrick argued that the state cannot cause change and that the role of the government is to make rights and punishments. Mr. Quinn used the example of his uncle to show that many crime laws are unjust and that anyone who has a chance of redemption should be allowed to do it. Ms. Wynter replied that rehabilitation does not go far enough as there is much more that needs to be changed in society as well. Ms. Marki reminded the Society of the humanity of the prisoners and that rehabilitation allows for people to look inward at themselves. Mr. Edgar focused on the goal of the criminal justice system as safety and argued that criminal justice lacks the tools necessary to fix societal problems. President Prindiville looked at the role of government as ethical and setter of the societal moral standard to argue that rehabilitation is another way of teaching right from wrong. Mr. Wooten replied that the affirmation is actually arguing for the side of justice and fairness. Ms. Grace said that the goal of the criminal justice system is to increase the societal good and make it more productive. Ms. Brosnihan looked at the effectiveness of deterrence to decrease crime. Vice President Christensen framed the debate around incentives and argued that rehabilitation is the most effective means of achieving success. Mr. Carter asked the affirmation for a definition of rehabilitation and prioritized safety over rehabilitation. Mr. Diasti argued that we should give the most that we can to have criminals be able to help society after they serve their term. Mr. Wilson looked at rehabilitation as an extra element of the criminal justice system but punishment as the core of criminal justice.

Tia Baheri (SFS ’16) pointed out how difficult it is to admit one’s faults and how we must help criminals be able to do this. Patrick Musgrave (COL ’16) argued for deterrence by showing how people respond most to losses. Mr. Lim, a self-declared arch-reactionary, looked at the history of the criminal justice system and said that sometimes there are no gray areas, there is just right and wrong. Mr. DiMisa, this post’s author, looked at incentives and argued that rehabilitation is the only way to realign criminals who commit crimes out of necessity. Mr. Spagnuolo responded that rehabilitation cannot work so long as there are societal barriers to criminals that block them from being able to reenter society. Mr. Willis looked at his experience on teen court as a means of showing the effectiveness of rehabilitation. Mr. RisCassi argued that punishment should be the priority because it is most effective as the core of the criminal justice system. Ms. Ringwald looked at the other pillars of the criminal justice system and concluded that only rehabilitation was the one that is able to better society. Mr. Dulik argued that justice/gentleness is the best means of having a good criminal justice system. Chancellor Marsh looked at the success of the Scandinavian model of rehabilitation to argue for second chances. Mr. Mouch replied that the criminal justice system is about taking away freedom. Abby Cooner (SFS ’16) finished the floor portion by looking at the necessity for rehabilitation to improve society.

Mr. Desnick reminded the society of the importance of proportionality. He also used the example of an IR class with three students getting the same grade despite different amounts of studying to show the fairness of the criminal justice model. Finally, he quoted Shawshank Redemption to argue that rehabilitation does not work. Ms. Miller framed the debate by arguing we should look at what should be and not what it is. Furthermore, she looked at the markers of success to show that rehabilitation is the best means of achieving success. To conclude the debate, she quoted Gandhi to argue that we should not lose our faith in humanity, rather, we should try to help humanity.

The Society voted 28-3-11 to affirm.

Merrick Points

Ms. Miller – 5 points
Mr. Spagnuolo and Mr. Desnick – 4 points
Mr. Donovan – 2 points
Mr. Dulik - 1 point

Final Merrick Point Totals

Mr. Spagnuolo – 27 points
Mr. Dulik – 22 points
Mr. Petallides – 16 points
Mr. Snow – 12 points
Mr. Donovan – 10 points
Mr. Askonas – 8 points
Mr. Berryman and Ms. Wynter – 6 points
Ms. Wood, Mr. Whitfield, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Wilson – 5 points
Mr. Desnick – 4 points
Mr. Ahmed and Ms. Ringwald – 3 points
Mr. Taft – 2 points
Mac Dinneen (COL ’14) and Mr. Quinn – 1 point

Our Merrick Keynoters:

Mr. Spagnuolo
Mr. Dulik
Mr. Petallides
Mr. Snow

Congratulations!!!

ELD,

Chris DiMisa

Amanuensis Emeritus

The Prince’s Dilemma

The Society held its tenth debate of the semester on Resolved: It is better for a leader to be feared than loved. In the political treatise The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli argues that a leader should be feared rather than loved, if he cannot obtain both: “It is much safer to be feared than loved because…love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.” The Society took the opportunity to expound upon, reframe, and challenge this classic theory of leadership.

Ms. Anna Hernick (SFS ’16) of Georgia established tonight’s debate as not one surrounding ethical or moral hypotheticals, but rather about essential principles of leadership and society grounded in historical and contemporary sources of analysis. She argued that a leader must motivate people to do things against their self-interest for the sake of society, such as paying taxes, which requires using fear. “People must fear laws enough that they follow the laws, or there is a risk that society will fall apart,” she said. Moreover, she emphasized that despite fear’s negative connotations, the emotion is actually healthy and natural: “Fear isn’t just tied to evil manipulation or intimidation. People can fear their leader because they’re in awe of him or her.”

Ms. Laura Kurek (SFS ’16) of Illinois repudiated the notion that fear is a sustainable method of governance, as ruling by punishments and threats cannot be effective in the long-term. “Fear is a simple tool of manipulation that does not build trust. A truly skilled leader knows how to use love to cultivate a flourishing society,” she said. With the Age of Enlightenment, rulers realized that they must earn the respect of their people. A loved ruler is also trusted, respected, and recognized as acting in the best interests of his people. Therefore, she is much better able to get her people to do what she wants, even if it requires short-term sacrifices. Quoting Robert Putnam, Ms. Kurek contended that “social capital, or networks of engagement and trust, is the best way to build a society.”

Mr. Stephen Taft (COL ’13) of Washington, D.C. applauded the rhetoric of Ms. Kurek’s speech, but argued that it was not even close to an accurate description of the world. Facing the Society, he proclaimed, “All of us think that we were leaders, are leaders, or are going to be leaders. In order to do that, we have to get other people to be men and women for us. Fear of death keeps religion, our government, and authority in general running.” No one follows laws because they are so inspired by their political leader, so usage of fear is the crucial tool for keeping order and function within a society. “In a democracy, you need love to become a leader, but you need fear to get anything done,” he said. “That’s why fear is more important than love.”

Mr. Evan Monod (COL ’14) of Vermont channeled President Dwight D. Eisenhower by describing leadership as “an art of getting someone else to do what you want done because they want to do it.” He contended that love is the only way to achieve that skill, as people will want to do things for you if they feel respected and appreciated. He cited President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Queen Victoria of England as two key examples of rulers who governed effectively through love. Elected for an unprecedented (and unconstitutional) four terms, FDR earned so much respect from his people that they chose him time and time again. Queen Victoria similarly commanded an empire that stretched around the world as she maintained significant popularity at home. “The path of fear might be easier or more seductive, but it’s the beloved leaders who win the most. Leaders are a reflection of humanity as a whole,” Mr. Monod concluded.

Mr. RisCassi (COL ’13) started off the night with a bang by urging everyone to abstain, as any effective leader must use both love and fear to succeed. Ms. Wynter (COL ’14) argued that the previous speeches have conflated respect and fear, when in fact, people respect their leaders more when they love them. They may fear disappointing them, but that is only a result of love. Mr. Willis (SFS ’16) countered that the conflation is actually between fear and hatred — a leader who intimidates can also be loved, as he earns the respect of his people. Mr. Whitfield (COL ’13) performed a dramatic reenactment of Napoleon’s feats, demonstrating how his rise through fear and military conquest allowed him to simultaneously inspire love in his people. In the end, he lost the kingdom he won through love because of the mistakes he made with fear. Mr. Whitfield emphasized, “It’s always better to love because in moments of weakness, love brings us solace.” Mr. Kelley (COL ’13) argued that the discipline of Napoleon’s army was based on fear, which is ultimately necessary to keep a society together. Mr. Wilson (SFS ’15) disagreed, proclaiming that the basis of fear must rest with love: “To gain power, a leader must be loved. Mobilization of people and resources requires trust and love.” Ms. Wood (SFS ’14) retorted that some leaders don’t need to mobilize anything in order to gain power, such as Genghis Khan. Vice President Christensen (COL ’15) pointed out that Genghis Khan could hardly be considered a sustainable ruler, because creating an effective government isn’t killing off everyone one is supposed to govern. She also distinguished between fear of a leader and fear of social disorder. The reason that people follow laws is not due to the former but to the latter: we follow laws so other people will also follow the laws and social stability may ensue.

William Greco (SFS ’15) used the Tea Party and NRA as examples of groups that effectively use the campaign donations as a threat to keep conservative politicians in line. Robin Giles (COL ’14) noted that in a democracy, there’s always a percentage of people that opposed the leader in power which can be as high as 49%. Therefore, a leader must be feared at least by the minority opposition if she wants to be successful in cultivating freedom of opinion. Danny Graff (SFS ’15) contended that true power is getting someone to do what you want them to do, which is only possible through love. Mr. Petallides (SFS ’13) argued that if you can’t have both, it’s more important to be feared. Otherwise, all it takes is a charismatic leader of the opposition party for you to be deposed. Chancellor Marsh (COL ’13) scorned Mr. Petallides’s predictions as “bunkus.” In the long view of history, he said, leaders who are more feared do not do well: “Queen Victoria amassed the largest empire in British history because in her leadership, she inspired in the people a love for her, a love for peace, and a love for nationhood.” Mr. Snow (COL ’13) said that when push comes to shove, love is necessary. “A great leader, not a petty tyrant, can move mountains because they remind us that hope conquers despair,” he maintained. Mr. Dulik (SFS ’13) countered that love does not give us the standard for how to “marshal troops” in a society; instead, fear equips people with a normative structure to get things done. Mr. Spagnuolo (SFS ’14) agreed, “It’s great to have your friends love you, but it’s more important to have your enemies fear you.”

Mr. Monod ended with reference to Yoda, labeling fear as the path of the Dark Side. “Fear doesn’t create anything lasting. Fear doesn’t create a stable society because it has an expiration date, which is the minute you lose the ability to threaten your people,” he said. Mr. Monod advocated for love instead as the light forward to the future. Mr. Taft disagreed, arguing that love alone is insufficient to motivate people. He also pointed out that a leader who uses fear is not necessarily committing an evil of manipulation, for the fear of death and the unknown are always present in our lives.

Ms. Kurek said that rule by fear is intimately linked to the threat of death, which only has sway because life comes to an end. “Leaders who use fear manipulate human existence,” she challenged. “That can only breed resentment, noncompliance and ultimately, revolt.” She illustrated a loved leader as one who manages a society fairly through laws, institutions, and sustainable processes. Ms. Hernick emphasized that maintaining stability is actually achieved better through awe-inspiring leaders who know how to effectively command power and use fear when necessary. Further, she pointed out that love can be manipulated just as easily as fear can, and that leading with love should not be conflated with moral superiority. “For every Brit who loved Queen Victoria, there were scores of people in British colonies who feared and hated her,” she remarked.

The Society voted 22-3-21, resulting in a technical negation. The Society welcomes Ms. Kurek and Ms. Hernick as its newly inducted members!

Merrick Points
Mr. Whitfield: 5
Mr. Spagnuolo: 4
Mr. Petallides: 3
Mr. Taft: 2
Mr. Dulik: 1

Merrick Totals
Mr. Spagnuolo: 23
Mr. Dulik: 21
Mr. Petallides: 16
Mr. Snow: 12
Mr. Askonas: 8
Mr. Donovan: 8
Mr. Berryman: 6
Ms. Wynter: 6
Ms. Wood: 5
Mr. Whitfield: 5
Mr. Wilson: 5
Ms. Ringwald: 3
Mr. Ahmed: 3
Mr. Taft: 2
Mr. Dinneen: 1
Mr. Quinn: 1

The Society will not meet next week due to Georgetown’s Easter break. On April 4, the Society will have its final Merrick Debate, so be sure to join us for what will certainly be a promising event.

ELD,

Chloe J. Krawczyk

Are We Human, or Are We Dancer?

On this glorious Pi Day, the Society gathered to discuss a perennial fascination of humankind — namely, the human condition itself and how we can best understand it. The resolution for the evening was Resolved: Science is the best means for understanding the human condition. This was an especially exciting debate as many of the Society’s alumni returned to contribute to the dialogue.

The Society’s resident physicist Ms. Catherine Murphy (COL ’13) of Virginia began by setting the grounds for the debate, explaining that “the human condition” refers to the fact that we are “rational entities concerned with our own existence by asking questions and seeking to know answers” and “science” refers to “the scientific method, or testing falsifiable hypotheses to draw conclusions.” Ms. Murphy argued that humans invented science to develop theories about the world, so science is an inextricable part of the human condition. Moreover, science gives us increasingly more refined, universal explanations of the world that inches ever closer to the truth — whereas competing explanations driven by theology, philosophy, phrenology, and other disciplines all fall short.

Mr. Jonathan Askonas (SFS ’13) of Illinois said he agreed with everything Ms. Murphy said — but she only presented half of the picture. He contended that the shortcomings of science prevent it from standing as the best means for understanding the human condition: “Science can blind us by excluding fundamental aspects of human engagement from its rational calculations and methodologies.” He contended that the driving force behind our inquisitive nature was passion, i.e., the fact that we care. Understanding the human condition is an activity motivated by the passion we have for knowing humanity through obtaining meaningful answers. Mr. Askonas closed with the voice of his inner poet, proclaiming, “The scientific method cannot appreciate the beauty in a rose because beauty is not repeatable, measurable, or universal. The diametric opposite of science is poetry.”

Mr. Colin Soper (COL ’12) asserted that “the scientific method is about asking questions until you can’t fool yourself into thinking that something false is true,” explaining how people must remove themselves from the context to ask questions about what’s actually there. Ms. Wynter (COL ’14) said that understanding the human condition is appreciating how there’s something more behind the person than just what’s falsifiable or provable through science. “The human condition is more of an enchantment that requires a dialogue, not just monologue, to access,” she stated. Also standing on the negation, Mr. Nicholas Meyers (SFS ’11) argued that love is inseparable from the human condition, and a key element that cannot be explained through science. “What is love? Love is a feeling for a significant other that you can’t define or prove rationally, yet it’s essential to the human condition,” he stated. Mr. Zipperer (COL ’13) challenged the notion of using science to establish indisputable truths: “You can’t prove anything in science. Once you introduce empirical content, you introduce uncertainty.” Mr. Desnick (COL ’13) agreed, obligating everyone to negate because science isn’t supposed to have answers. “Science inherently can’t answer the question of the human condition,” he stated. Mr. Richard Sassoon (COL ’11) contended that the nature of humanity is to build upon ourselves, so science alone is insufficient to explain the human condition.

Mr. Bade (SFS ’14) expanded the discussion to include everyone in the world, arguing that the human condition must include the practicalities of life and be relatable to everyone. Because of the incredible diversity that exists, science is the best means to understand the entire human condition. He added, “Science has brought us to the point today where more of us can ask these essential philosophical questions about the human existence.” President Prindiville (SFS ’14) doubted whether there could be a single best means for understanding the totality of the human condition. Even the two most basic questions to any human — “Why am I here? What is the purpose of my life?” — cannot be probed by science. Mr. Monod (COL ’14) argued that it’s impossible to answer great questions in any discipline without recognizing our common humanity, or the fact that “we’re all made of the same fundamental building blocks.” Without the practical solutions that science offers, we won’t be getting anywhere. As a biology major, Caroline Egan (COL ’15) accused the Society of artificially limiting the concept of science: “Science is a verb, a whole way of approaching the world. Like a microscope, it brings together a combination of lenses to allow us to see better. It is not just one lens.” Patrick Musgrave (COL ’16) also credited science with being able to provide explanations for seemingly subjective concepts, saying that there are even universal standards of beauty that can predict how we tend to judge people and make decisions. Mr. William Downes (COL ’11) posed an interesting question: If science were to stop, would that be bad? He went on to state that embedded within science is the idea that knowledge-seeking must continue, as it is “better to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield to the inevitability of the human condition.” Chancellor Marsh (COL ’13) disputed the idea that it’s always better to know: “The world seems pretty abysmal most of the time, honestly. The human condition is a chaotic mix of insatiable feelings, searching for something but never knowing why.” Mr. Snow (COL ’13) said that the hope for an answer to a universal question is precisely what makes science superior. “Science allows us to compare explanations and stumble through a winding path to the truth,” he said.

Mr. Askonas closed by emphasizing that science cannot tell us why we care about things enough to ask questions about them. There is an essential passion to human nature that science cannot hope to take into account. “Home is fundamentally where the house is. The negation’s point is about your home and the way you find meaning in the world,” he expressed. Ms. Murphy said that even if it’s true science can’t answer questions that are universal or personal, there isn’t another means to answer those questions. Moreover, science gives you a basis and the hope for finding an answer to any question, which is more than what other disciplines can provide. Thus, she concluded that science is the best metric for asking questions about the world: “Your definition of identity and consciousness is its own sort of truth. Science is humans asking the right questions about themselves, but borrowing from universal tools to come up with the best answers,” she concluded.

The Society voted 22-4-29 to negate.

Merrick Points
Mr. Askonas: 5
Mr. Dulik: 4
Mr. Spagnuolo: 4
Mr. Petallides: 2
Ms. Wynter: 1
Mr. Snow: 1

Merrick Totals
Mr. Dulik: 20
Mr. Spagnuolo: 19
Mr. Petallides: 13
Mr. Snow: 12
Mr. Askonas: 8
Mr. Donovan: 8
Mr. Berryman: 6
Ms. Wynter: 6
Ms. Wood: 5
Mr. Wilson: 5
Ms. Ringwald: 3
Mr. Ahmed: 3
Mr. Dinneen: 1
Mr. Quinn: 1

ELD,

Chloe J. Krawczyk

The American Dream is a Propagandistic Dream

The Society convened today to debate a topic that questions the heart of our nation itself: Resolved: The American Dream represents propaganda more than truth. The American Dream, or the ethos of prosperity through hard work and individual freedom, began developing as a method for encouraging early settlers to expand westward into unfamiliar lands and to create their own future. The creed continued as a golden spark attracting immigrants from other countries from the 16th century to modern times. Just how true is the idea that the U.S. is an ideal place to live with the opportunity to succeed for all who work hard, regardless of circumstances of birth?

Chancellor Andrew Marsh (COL ’13) of California began his speech with a provocative statement: “I offer myself as proof of the American Dream representing more propaganda than truth. I stand to inherit eight figures for doing absolutely nothing. I am not an exceptional person — not the most witty, smart, nor charming — but I have money, which directly or indirectly me more opportunities in this country than the average person.” Chancellor Marsh asserted that the American Dream’s assumption that everyone begins on equal footing is a far cry from the society that we have today. The middle class has dwindled along with opportunity, which is nonexistent for some who are no less American than he is. “The luck of birth lands people more opportunities than others,” Chancellor Marsh concluded.

Mr. Benjamin Snow (COL ’13) of Washington countered Chancellor Marsh’s opening by offering himself as an exemplification of truth of the American Dream. “A life handed to you on a platter isn’t the American Dream,” Mr. Snow contended, “We seek a better life; not a perfect life.” He said that there is no one doomed by their birth to be nothing because they have an opportunity to work hard and create a better life for themselves, even if it’s a long and difficult journey. He noted the exceptional quality of the American Dream, as evidenced by its ability to stay alive and thrive as its antithetical notions of fascism and communism had boomed and busted. “Right now, this country is closer than ever to its creed that all men (and women) are created equal,” Mr. Snow said.

Mr. Quinn (COL ’15) argued that the American Dream could not represent more truth than propaganda until every American has equal educational opportunities and can be free from the despotism of hunger. Ms. Muldavin (COL ’15) countered that just because not everyone who works hard achieves the American Dream, doesn’t mean that the ethos is propagandistic. “You need to have a special quality that makes you American to have the American Dream,” she said. Mr. DiMisa (COL ’15) challenged the American exceptionalism espoused by the negation. The American Dream is alive and well for some but dead for others, and “those at the bottom of society — the ones born into poverty — might choose another country to thrive,” he said. Mr. Spagnuolo (SFS ’14) said that the most important fact of the American Dream is that people are not locked into a social strata based on who their parents are. Everything else is nonessential: “The American Dream is not getting everything you want, but being able to have the opportunity to get a little more.” Vice President Christensen (COL ’15) framed the concept of equality of opportunity as “if given the same person, level of hard work, and intelligence, they can be expected to achieve roughly the same amount, then the American Dream would be true.” Mr. Desnick (COL ’13) disagreed, arguing instead that we should be debating whether people can achieve roughly the same amount from wherever they started. Using a marathon analogy for life, he said, “It’s not about whether everyone can get to mile 30, but whether someone starting at mile 20 can reach mile 22, and whether someone starting at mile 3 can accomplish roughly the same in their lifetime.”

Mr. Donovan (COL ’13) contended that some of the floor speeches have lured us into a false sense of security that problems of equality of opportunity in this country have been eliminated. While significant progress has been made, social ills continue to persist. “What propels us through progress is dissatisfaction with the status quo,” he concluded in favor of the affirmation. Mr. RisCassi (COL ’13) pointed out that the incredible progress Mr. Donovan mentioned is evidence that the American Dream is alive and well: “There’s no other place where such rapid socioeconomic growth has been possible. Every country has its problems — what other place has achieved perfectly equal opportunities for everyone?” Ms. Wynter (COL ’14) said that the point is not whether the American Dream exists, but whether we work towards it. “Once it’s accomplished, it’s no longer a dream,” she said, “Dreams are goals we should be striving towards.” Ben Mazzara (COL ’15) took on the concept of propaganda directly, defining it as a lie that we tell people to get them to do what we want. From that, he concluded that the American Dream represents more truth because hope is still alive in this country. Ms. Krawczyk (SFS ’15) finally inserted immigrants into the conversation, pointing out that throughout history, they have been targeted around the world for propagandistic claims about a dreamy life in the U.S. “In the end, many of them were exploited for their labor and unable to achieve a better life for themselves due to widespread discrimination and unacceptably low pay,” she said. “From the way that the American Dream was deployed in recruiting campaigns in India, China, and Mexico, among other countries, it was absolutely more propaganda than truth.” Mr. Wang (NHS ’15) emphasized the focus on relative gains over absolute gains, insisting that the American Dream is true as long as people are able to achieve their relative conceptions of happiness.

In his closing keynote, Mr. Snow stated that a vote for the negation is to acknowledge that the American Dream is real, and that opportunity makes America great. “Immigrants don’t come here expecting it to be easy; they come for an opportunity. It’s a shot to enter the race,” he said. He pointed out that our country is constantly innovating, growing, and improving, despite “the best effort of our politicians,” and this trend is symbolic of the American Dream. Chancellor Marsh compared the American Dream to “a check we’ve written but refuse to fill,” promising equality of opportunity for all but tragically falling short. He emphasized that society does not provide equal opportunities of achievement for everyone who has worked hard, noting how much easier it is for the wealthy to get further in life due to their incredible advantages.

The Society voted 18-1-11 to affirm.

Merrick Points

Mr. Dulik: 5
Mr. Snow: 4
Mr. Petallides: 3
Ms. Wynter: 2
Mr. Donovan: 1

Merrick Totals

Mr. Dulik: 16
Mr. Spagnuolo: 15
Mr. Snow: 11
Mr. Petallides: 11
Mr. Donovan: 8
Mr. Berryman: 6
Ms. Wood: 5
Mr. Wilson: 5
Ms. Wynter: 5
Ms. Ringwald: 3
Mr. Askonas: 3
Mr. Ahmed: 3
Mr. Dinneen: 1
Mr. Quinn: 1

There will not be a debate next week due to Georgetown’s spring break. Enjoy the week off!

ELD,

Chloe J. Krawczyk

Historical Day Celebration: Citizens vs. Soldiers

Philodemicians and guests gathered in the Philodemic Room to explore interesting aspects of Philodemic History. The event began with a reenactment of the second debate held by the Society, Resolved: Whether the Citizen or Soldier is the more useful member of a Republic. Mr. Nick RisCassi argued on the side of the Citizen, and Alex Zajac (COL ’15) argued in favor of the Soldier. Mr. Zajac opened the discussion by giving the compelling example of Sparta and claiming that a nation of solely soldiers can exist, while a nation of solely citizens cannot. Mr. RisCassi responded in his impromptu keynote by citing Costa Rica and Japan as examples of societies without true militaries.

The audience strongly favored the Citizen, as Mr. RisCassi even ended up humorously speaking against his own side to fill a silence on the side of the Soldier. To close, Mr. Zajac quoted that most educational of bands, The Killers, by saying “I got soul but I’m not a soldier.” Even so, all but 3 voted in favor of the Citizen. This followed the original decision, as the Society from 1830 also decided that the Citizen was more useful. After the informal debate had ended, President Peter Prindiville displayed the Hamilton and Merrick medals to anyone interested in viewing them up close. Librarian Emeritus Joshua Donovan and Librarian Michelle Dailey then joined President Prindiville to spread the wisdom of Philodemic trivia. Finally, those present gathered together to toast the Philodemic Society, George Washington, and Poland’s Liberty (most likely referencing an uprising from 1830), using historic toasts gathered from documents from the Philodemic Society’s first Anniversary Celebration in 1832.

ELD,

Chloe J. Krawczyk

Society acquits the Information Age from tarnishing our public discourse

People of our generation are wired. From listening to music with headphones as we take walks to eagerly tapping away on our keyboard as we engage in social media, we seem to be constantly entangled in the virtues and vices of technology. The Society gathered today to debate the question, Resolved: The Information Age tarnishes public discourse, to contemplate how this development has influenced the interpersonal interactions in society.

Mr. Joshua Donovan (COL ’13) of New York lauded the wonders of technological innovation but elaborated on how an information overload has allowed people to cherry-pick their information, such that different people seem to be dealing with entirely separate realities. In such a world, it’s a no wonder we can’t meaningfully interact with each other in public discourse. Propagandistic websites and sources of media can twist basic incontrovertible facts about pieces of legislation passed in Congress, for example. Mr. Donovan lamented this deterioration of interpersonal engagement by quoting from the Gospel of Matthew: “What good is it for someone to govern the whole world if they have lost their soul?”

On the negation, Mr. Constantine Petallides (SFS ’13) of New York demonstrated his love for all of the Internet by hanging a picture of a “Debate Catz” meme to “check for eloquence” in tonight’s speeches. Mr. Petallides praised the fact that media outlets are no longer controlled by an oligarchic few but rather distributed to everyday citizens through the Internet, expanding the scope of “public discourse” to actually include most of the public. Before, the voices of ordinary people could not permeate beyond their neighborhoods and towns. Now, everyone can be a columnist or blogger. Things can spread across the world in minutes. It is now up to the individual to comb through the mass amount of information available on the Web to determine truth.

Mr. Tim Rosenberger (COL ’16) of Ohio argued that this expansion of public discourse is precisely what has degraded its quality. Dialogue has been stifled by the interjection of excessive information backed by dubious sources that cannot possibly all be vetted. Objective quality of public discourse over its quantity must be the priority. Today, even our least partisan news networks feel the need to put on “theatrics” to woo viewers, for fear that the sensationalism of random Internet sources will draw attention away from objective journalistic news reports. “There are steep costs to the explosion of modern media,” he said.

Mr. Agree Ahmed (SFS ’15) of Maryland proclaimed that the Information Age has been not the destroyer but the greatest facilitator of public discourse. The seeds of the Egyptian revolution were sown on blogging websites and chatrooms; the youth were able to realize that there were like-minded people who were equally disgusted with their government’s brutal regime through the powerful connecting force of the Internet. Through those channels, they were able to organize, unite, and revolt. This information revolution has similarly changed the populations of China, Syria, and many other countries around the world, allowing them to be enlightened by public discourse and even to participate in it. “There was monologue when there should have been dialogue. Public discourse can only thrive when there is a marketplace of free exchange of ideas,” Mr. Ahmed emphasized.

On the affirmation, Ms. Higbee (COL ’15) argued that the Internet has facilitated misrepresentation of facts and people taking things out of context. Mr. Diasti (NHS ’14) contended that such problems of information distortion should be blamed more on our political cycle of unfounded attacks and bitter partisanship. The Information Age creates new forms of public discourse that enhances people’s lives, such as an application called MHealth which fosters direct communication between medical experts and communities. Fellow NHS student Mr. Wang (NHS ’15) said that information overload overwhelms and distorts reality — applications like MHealth will breed a new generation of hypochondriacs. Ms. Murphy (COL ’13) retorted that it’s better to overreact to possible signs of cancer than to die of it. She praised the open source communities that have risen with the Information Age, allowing anyone to contribute to programs that are then available to a wider population for little to no cost. Ms. Wood (SFS ’14) contended that the negation has selectively culled benefits of the Internet without addressing how the information revolution has a whole has turned most of a generation into Facebook and YouTube addicts who “amuse themselves to death.” For the most part, people are not adding anything valuable to public discourse, and a vote for the affirmation would be acknowledging and taking responsibility for this unfortunate development. Mr. Desnick (COL ’13) pointed out that if Ms. Wood’s argument were true, then the resolution should be negated because the Information Age is not at fault for these problems. The people are at fault.

Ms. Brosnihan (SFS ’13) believes in the past as a superior time of interpersonal engagement, when people would discuss their opinions in coffeeshops and chat during Sunday afternoon strolls because they were not pulled in every direction by the Internet. “We’re so lucky to have the Philodemic because it’s one evening each week we’re not all on our phones,” she said. Tia Baheri (SFS ’16) noted that public discourse was pretty tarnished before too, when political attack ads were no less personal and conspiracy theories no less prevalent. She challenged affirmation to prove that the discourse was better before the Information Age in order to carry the resolution: “The nature of public discourse has not changed; only the scope of it has widened for the better.” On the contrary, Robin Giles (SFS ’16) argued that the sheer explosion of quantity of information has only prevented us from fully engaging in ideas. We seek brief summaries of sophisticated ideas instead of giving our full attention to them. Mr. Spagnuolo (SFS ’14) contended that we must be our own arbiters of truth in discerning reliable sources, given the rampant availability of information: “The Information Age presents the opportunity for all to access the truth, if you so choose.” Mr. Miller (SFS ’14) argued that society now discusses information over ideas because of the Information Age. Ideas, or the application of knowledge and facts, have driven society for decades, but we are now losing this intellectual exchange. Chancellor Marsh (COL ’13) pointed out that over 90% of the people present in the Philodemic Room could not have even had their ideas considered a century ago, because they were not males from privileged white Protestant families. Mr. Lim (SFS ’13) contended that more is not necessarily better: “Bad discourse used to be limited to those in control of the soapbox; now everyone has their own soapbox to spew anything.”

In closing, Mr. Ahmed praised the fact that billions of people have emerged from the darkness to join in the public discourse. The Internet as a neutral creation should not be held accountable for how people express their discourse, which has been fraught with ad hominem attacks and sensationalism for centuries. The benefit brought to populations of autocratic and corrupt regimes has been enormous, as underscored by the worldwide usage of the Internet to rally people on the side of justice. Mr. Rosenberger responded by saying that the way we use the Internet is part and parcel of the Information Age. It has damaged the way that we communicate and degraded the quality of information available by giving anyone the attention of an audience.

Mr. Petallides ridiculed criticisms of the public discourse expansion by proclaiming that “giving every man a voice is the definition of democracy!” At the very least, the Information Age allows people to rebut “stupid people” who make erroneous contributions to public discourse, especially because “stupid people will always exist.” He suggested that the affirmation’s arguments don’t refute the resolution at hand, but rather alternate ones such as “Resolved: Democracy tarnishes public discourse” and “Resolved: The public tarnishes public discourse.” To end the night, Mr. Donovan emphasized that there can be multiple causes of tarnished public discourse, but the Information Age is one of them because of the way that it has influenced our behavior and consumption of information. It supercharges sensationalism in the marketplace of ideas at the expense of more valuable forms of public discourse. Moreover, political upheavals against oppressive regimes like the American Revolution and the Tiananmen Square protests in China all developed without the Internet: “People can struggle against government without Facebook statuses!”

The Society voted 15-0-32 to negate. The Society welcomes Mr. Rosenberger and Mr. Ahmed as the newest inductees into the Society.

Merrick Points

Mr. Petallides: 5
Mr. Donovan: 4
Mr. Ahmed: 3
Mr. Spagnuolo: 2
Mr. Dulik: 1

Merrick Totals

Mr. Spagnuolo: 15
Mr. Dulik: 11
Mr. Petallides: 8
Mr. Donovan: 7
Mr. Snow: 7
Mr. Berryman: 6
Ms. Wood: 5
Mr. Wilson: 5
Ms. Wynter: 3
Ms. Ringwald: 3
Mr. Askonas: 3
Mr. Ahmed: 3
Mr. Dinneen: 1
Mr. Quinn: 1

ELD,

Chloe J. Krawczyk

Chivalry is in the air

On this blissful evening, members and non-members of the Philodemic Society who had nothing better to do on Valentine’s Day gathered to debate, Resolved: Chivalry is dead. Chivalry was defined as “courtesy shown from a man to a woman based on gender,” and the resolution was framed as a normative debate. Thus, the question was whether chivalry should remain as a social guide or whether it should be disregarded due to its anachronism.

Mr. Warren Wilson (SFS ’15) of Florida opened for the affirmation by arguing that the “benevolent sexism” of chivalry is just as debilitating for women as forms of explicitly denigrating “malicious sexism.” Chivalry as an institution assumes women are the fairer, weaker sex who need protection. It was developed during a time period when women were unequal members of society and widely regarded as inferior to men, so they required such special treatment. “Women do not want to be considered as anything less than equals!” he stated with conviction.

On the negation, Ms. Mary Beth Brosnihan (SFS ’13) of Nebraska re-characterized chivalry as a form of respect and aggrandizement towards women. Acts of chivalry are not about harming or denigrating women, but rather about treating them well. Thus, chivalry is beneficial to both genders: it helps men differentiate themselves from other men by demonstrating commitment, and it helps women feel good about receiving a token of kindness. Ms. Brosnihan told a story of a particularly unchivalrous individual who invited her to drinks and then left her with the bill — how rude! Clearly many men would be at a loss of how to behave without the guiding code of chivalry.

Ms. Melendez (COL ’13) contended that chivalry goes beyond normal courtesy to occasionally unnecessarily inconveniencing everyone involved — such as when she holds a door open for a nearby man who instead of graciously accepting the gesture, insists on holding the door for her to enter first. She said, “The code of medieval knights for chivalry was put in place because violence was rampant on the streets and women needed to be protected on a regular basis. Chivalry allowed men to take care of women and to take them seriously. It accomplishes neither in today’s world. Ms. Grace (SFS ’16) countered that the little gestures prescribed by chivalry are what matters — such as when her doting boyfriend fills up her water bottle each night before she sleeps. These are the acts of love that form her precious memories of their relationship. Said boyfriend Mr. DiMisa (COL ’15) retorted that he does those things not because he subscribes to a code of chivalry, but rather because he recognizes that they are the right thing to do. He treats Ms. Grace well because she’s a person he cares about, not because of her gender. Mr. Diasti (NHS ’14) is proud that his mother raised him to be a chivalrous man who knows how to demonstrate respect, common courtesy, and affection. He does not think women are more vulnerable or less intelligent when he’s performing a chivalrous act, and in fact, he would show that form of respect regardless of whether the recipient were “Andrew or Andrea.” Mr. Quinn (SFS ’15) pointed out that if it were true Mr. Diasti would show such kindness for people of either gender, then by the defined framing of this resolution, it would not be chivalry because his action was not based on gender. Mr. Quinn went on to argue that chivalry discourages women from doing the same respectful things to men that they care about, producing a social harm beyond disenfranchising women.

Mr. Spagnuolo (SFS ’14) claimed that chivalry was necessary so men would know how to do nice because “men are stupid.” He went on: “Women are crazy. Women are crazy because men are stupid! Without a code of chivalry, there is no courtesy.” Mr. Donovan (COL ’13) protested the narrow heterosexual mindset of the previous speeches and the entire framing of the resolution. Men can be nice to men and women can be nice to women too! Further, he underscored the need for people to break free of the “stereotypes of binary sex,” as “social equality is measured by how people perceive one another.” Mr. Dulik (SFS ’13) disputed that chivalry was the equivalent of gender-based affirmative action, arguing that instead it’s about “doing good” — a lesson he was only able to learn after dating a University of Alabama sorority girl over a summer. Instead of southern belles, chivalry reminds Mr. Monod (COL ’14) of John McCain — old and out-of-touch with modern society. Preserving the relic of chivalry for tradition’s sake is meaningless and this imposition of subservience on women must fall by the wayside.

Mac Dinneen (COL ’14) candidly acknowledged that he would hold the door open for any woman a few feet away, but probably not a man, but pushed the affirmation to argue why this “sexism” is necessarily an evil. Georgian native Anna Hernick (SFS ’16) argued that based on the framing, it’s sufficient for the negation to prove that chivalry doesn’t exist, not necessarily that it causes any “evil.” She continued by arguing that chivalry reduces relationships to men doing things for women and notes that she appreciates it when women hold the door open for her too. George Caram (SCS ’15) took a more philosophical stance by portraying chivalry as a virtuous characteristic of the gentleman. “For a man to want to stand out among others, that is chivalrous,” he concluded. William Greco (COL ’15) took on Mr. Dinneen’s earlier challenge: the evil of chivalry is that it’s motivated by attraction but often produces disappointment. “The man might think that chivalry will form a bond between him and a girl, but in reality he just has no chance,” he lamented. Ms. Muldavin (COL ’15) repudiates the argument that chivalry implies inferiority or indebtedness — if men want to get women, including the amazing women of the Philodemic, they better step it up! Mr. Desnick (COL ’13) proclaimed that any woman whose standards were low enough to accept him was a woman he did not want to be with.

Mr. Petallides (COL ’13) argued for the need for chivalry to stand as “the antithesis of the bro code.” Mr. RisCassi (COL ’13) challenged men and women to look beyond any set codes of conduct and to truly understand the person one is with instead — that’s true respect. Mr. Snow (COL ’13) characterized chivalry as setting lines that cannot be crossed, which must remain intact within a society. For example: “If you hit a woman, you are not a man,” he boomed. Mr. Berryman (COL ’13) affirmed the resolution by arguing that if chivalry is motivated because it is the right thing to do, then its justification is derived from moral precepts, not gender. The negation lacks a strong argument for why chivalry must be preserved on gender grounds. President Prindiville (SFS ’14) saw chivalry as more of a mindset than a set of actions. He framed chivalry as a form of atonement: “It’s the epitome of equality because it’s me showing I’ve recognized the faults of my gender in the past,” he stated with humility. Ms. Wood (SFS ’14) argued that killing chivalry would only make it harder to achieve equality for women. Additionally, she contended that it is inappropriate for us to project justifications for others’ acts of kindness onto them — perhaps a man was being chivalrous because he was attracted to someone, or perhaps because he was just raised that way. Everyone is different, so it’s not for us to say. Mr. Wooten (MSB ’13) refuted Ms. Wood’s idea that chivalry could bring about gender equality because its basis relies on the assumption that one gender is weaker than the other.

To close, Ms. Brosnihan protested the idea that chivalry implies gender imbalance with the example of her parents: even though her mother’s income is higher than her father’s, he consistently treats his wife with chivalry. “A chivalrous man does not what he wants to do, but what he should do,” she stated firmly. Mr. Wilson reminded the audience that chivalry stems from a dark age of gender relations, when women were consistently subjugated and enjoyed few rights. Women were the property of their fathers or husbands. A vote for the affirmation is not a vote to do away with acts of kindness that mark chivalry, but rather to erase its forced gender binary. “Courtesy and respect should not be based on gender. Instead, let’s have courtesy based on humanity,” he professed.

The Society voted 23-2-26 to negate. Chivalry lives another day!

Merrick Points:

Mr. Wilson: 5
Mr. Berryman: 4
Mr. Spagnuolo: 3
Mr. Snow: 2
Mr. Quinn: 1
Mr. Dinneen: 1

Merrick Totals:

Mr. Spagnuolo: 13
Mr. Dulik: 10
Mr. Snow: 7
Mr. Berryman: 6
Ms. Wood: 5
Mr. Wilson: 5
Mr. Petallides: 3
Mr. Donovan: 3
Ms. Wynter: 3
Ms. Ringwald: 3
Mr. Askonas: 3
Mr. Dinneen: 1
Mr. Quinn: 1

ELD,

Chloe J. Krawczyk