Marijuana For All!

On Thursday, September 29, the Society convened to consider the question Resolved: the United States Should Legalize Marijuana.

Mr. Pat Spagnuolo and Mr. Stephen Wooten, making his induction, spoke on the affirmation.  Mr. Peter Prindiville and Mr. Colin Soper, making his induction, spoke on the negation.

Mr. Wooten began by discussing the economic impact of marijuana and the country’s failed judicial system.  Mr. Soper countered by arguing that the Society’s debate should focus on the public health consequences of widespread marijuana use.  Mr. Spagnuolo, as per usual, brought an air of humor to the debate.  He discussed the historical context of the marijuana debate involving “Mormons and Mexicans.”  He also argued that “laughing was illegal during Prohibition.”  Mr. Prindiville argued that the role of government is to control harmful substances that pose undeniable risk to “social tranquility and productivity.”  He then went on to argue that marijuana posed excessive risks to these two areas.

Ms. Kikeri began the floor portion of the debate by stating that both marijuana and alcohol have negative effects on the body.  Vice President Henderson proposed that the discussion of alcohol was misleading, as the drinking age is about reducing deaths by drunk driving.  He then argued for decriminalization, a common theme of the evening.  Mr. Rosenthal, a 2010 alumnus, proceeded to draw comparisons from his current job at the Cato Institute, arguing that decriminalization would lead to a police state.    Ms. Green, the standing amanuensis, then noted the distinction between decriminalization and legalization and helped orient the Society on the issue.

Mr. Prindiville began his closing by continuing the discussion of decriminalization, arguing that this was a better alternative than legalization.  He ended with a dramatic reading highlighting the dangers of a society in which marijuana became prevalent.  Mr. Spagnuolo submitted that decriminalization is “sketchy,” and that police would be lax on crime.  He closed by insinuating that the negation was smoking, as “their points don’t hold up.”  Mr. Soper asserted that laws are valuable, even if people break them.  He finished by stating that legalization would set a scary standard for Society.  Mr. Wooten closed the Society’s debate by maintaining that the negation places too much faith in the government.

The best floor speeches of the evening were awarded to Ms. Mia Di Stephano and Ms. Anais Carmona.

The Society voted 52-2-30 to affirm the resolution.

Special thanks to Ms. Emma Green, reigning librarian, for standing in as amanuensis.

ELD,

Peter A. Prindiville

Society Decides: Art Can Exist for its Own Sake

On Thursday, September 22, the Society convened to consider the question Resolved: Art Cannot Exist for Its Own Sake.

Ms. Colleen Wood spoke on the affirmation, and Mr. Stephano Medina spoke on the negation.

Ms. Wood began by arguing that there is a clear link between art and utility, and that this utility is often communication.

Mr. Medina began by asking the philosophical question, “Can happiness exist for its own sake?”  He likened this question to the resolution of the evening.  Responding to Ms. Wood, he argued that civilization is “about uselessness.”  He then recounted his love of poetry, informing the Society that he prepared for this debate by reading poetry all day.

Definitions abounded in the floor portion.

The debate began sharply, as Mr. Manchester argued that it is hard to define art.  According to his definition, our esteemed reigning librarian, Ms. Green, is art.  Vice President Henderson called the negation a part of a “post-modern dandyism” in which art has lost meaning and definition.

Ms. Revier countered by giving her own definition of art, namely that art is self-expression.  Referring to a painting of a young boy (or girl) on the back wall of the Philodemic Room, Ms. Cleary expressed her belief that art does not exist

Mr. Garosshen went on to argue that art exists despite its creator and that “art uses the creator as much as the creator uses art.”

In his closing arguments, Mr. Medina argued  that one need not believe in God to appreciate art as having a purpose beyond itself, rather, one must only believe in him. Ms. Daniels was pleased with the clarification.  Mr. Medina went on to discuss William Wordsworth and the role art plays in society.

Ms. Wood argued that art pushes us further, but it is the human who makes the final decision.  She also argued that beautiful moments are not art.

The Society voted 35-1-36 to negate the resolution.

Join us next week as we debate Resolved: the United States Should Legalize Marijuana.

ELD,

Peter A. Prindiville

Tough Moral Questions

On Thursday, September 15, the Society convened to consider the question Resolved: Celebrating Osama bin Laden’s Death was Justified.

Mr. Jonathan Askonas spoke on the affirmation, accompanied by Ms. Amanda Wynter, who made her induction.  Mr. Benjamin Snow spoke on the negation, after a slight auto accident, and was accompanied by Mr. Joshua Donavan, also making his induction.

Starting the discussion, Ms. Wynter argued that the desire to feel relief and happiness is inherent to the human condition, and that bin Laden’s death caused these emotions to come forth in many.

Mr. Snow discussed the impact of bin Laden’s death on the United States’ efforts to combat terrorism, arguing that the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are worse off now, which is not a cuase for celebration.

Mr. Askonas noted that this was not a “referendum on ourselves,” but rather a moral discussion of past events.  He expressed an American “tidal wave of joy” at the news of bin Laden’s death.

Mr. Donovan finished the keynote portion of the debate by contending that the United States’ actions were not in accord with the Geneva Convention, and that the victims of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 were denied the right to see bin Laden charged guilty by a legitimate court.  He argued that the United States could have shown principles and justice, but opted instead for “cowboy vengeance,” which, he asserted, was not worth celebration.

A  heated moral discussion with intermittent personal anecdotes characterized the debate.  Mr. Medina noted that Americans treated bin Laden as a symbol, and not as a man.  Mr. Rinaldi argued that because justice was served to those who suffered as a result of the terrorist attacks, celebration was justified.

The Society narrowly voted 56-3-52 to affirm the resolution.  The Society then proudly inducted Ms. Wynter and Mr. Donovan.  Huzah!

ELD,

Peter A. Prindiville

The Society Enjoys Tea & Crumpets: the Tea Party Debate

The Philodemic convened on September 8^th in the Philodemic Room to address the question, Resolved: the Tea Party is Bad for the United States.  The Society mingled and welcomed many new non-members before the debate began.

Ms. Green delivered the affirmative keynote address, noting that the debate should focus on the financial aspects of the Tea Party’s platform.  She went on to discuss the movement’s grassroots spirit, or rather, its “Astroturf” nature.  She then argued that the Tea Party does not want to help the average American, and that the Party is defined by divisiveness and is against compromise.

Mr. Arber, speaking on the negation, informed the Society that the “Big Bad Tea Party is coming to blow down your house of liberalism.”  Although he pointed out that the Tea Party has no formal leaders, he noted that its members share one common ideal, namely, that “the government should be shrunk at all costs.”  He also addressed the role of populism in the movement.

Floor speeches from members and non-members focused on the role of the Tea Party in U.S. politics.  Compromise was a common theme of the evening.  In response to the argument that the Tea Party does not reflect the demographic makeup of the United States, Mr. Medina noted that “our civilization comes from old rich white people in Greece,” and Ms. Heather Regen (SFS ’14) informed the Society that her own grandmother was an active, albeit non-believing, member of the Party.

Amongst other arguments, ranging from specific policy questions to broad philosophic dilemmas, Mr. Bade did not fail to inform the Society that, “Ms. Green looks dashing.  That’s all I’ve noticed this entire debate.”

After President Iacono closed the floor, Mr. Arber noted that this was an “invigorating topic.”  He proceeded to wow the Society with his slant rhymes and rapping.

In her closing remarks, Ms. Green referenced the famed tea parties of Alice and Wonderland, invoked the hallowed name of Mrs. Nancy Reagan, and gave the Society a full rendition of a West Wing script.

The Society affirmed the resolution 60-29.

ELD,

Peter A. Prindiville