Mr. Warren Wilson and Ms. Emily Siegler, making her induction, spoke on the affirmation.  Mr. David Edgar and Ms. Anais Carmona, making her induction, spoke on the negation.

Ms. Siegler began the evening by painting a picture of the terrible atrocities committed under Saddam Hussein, reminding the Society to examine the issues from a utilitarian viewpoint. While conceding that there were no weapons of mass destruction, she argued the United States’ real goal was to create a sovereign, stable state–and in that matter, we were successful. She concluded that the war was worthwhile because we preemptively stopped the creation of WMDs that would have occurred Hussein’s reign of terror and created a stable state. Ms. Carmona then reminded the Society that both of the US’s purported reasons for invasion-Hussein’s ties to Al Queda and the existence of WMDs-both proved to be untrue. She argues the US did not make itself safer from terrorists, did not create a stable democracy in Iraq, and did not increase our respectability in the international community. She reminded that the debate is not that Hussein was a bad ruler, but that the war was worthwhile. Since the US hurt the Iraqi citizens and our own country, by utilitarian standards, the war was not worthwhile. Mr. Wilson asked the society to truly listen to what was being said, not to be blinded by preconceived notions and biases. He argued that Hussein was a genocidal dictator and regardless of how poorly we may have handled some issues, Hussein would have done worse. He concluded that the lower violence rates and higher stability of the police forces show the good we have done, and thus that the war was worthwhile. Mr. Edgar told the story of a freshman walking in a blizzard from Darnall to Leo’s on a Friday night, only to find that there is no Late Night on Fridays, then trudging to Lau to find books for his Contemporary Terrorist class, only to learn they were not in the stacks. Using this as an analogy for the War in Iraq, he argued the US was uninformed and ill-prepared, expending resources and energy only to come back empty-handed.

Mr. Taft began the floor speeches by asking: do we, the US, have a right to police the world? Mr. Arber responded that no, we do not have that right. During the war we imposed our beliefs and even more, were unsuccessful, mismanaging issues we simply failed to understand, hurting the Iraqi citizens in the process. Brett Perry (SFS ’15) argued that at least we made progress and our military is finally equipped to fight a 21st century war; to which Mr. Monod responded that the “we learned lessons because we screwed up” argument is allowing for mistakes that cost not only money, but human lives. Ms. Revier argued if debt is the price of ending genocide, it is worth it. She concluded she would stand on the negation if someone could prove the Iraqi citizens aren’t better off now. President Marsh then responded that while they are better off now by our Western ideals, by observing the patterns of history, we can see that this imposed progress will not last. Ms. Green added that we have been attaching some type of moral significance to the way one died that does not exist; a life lost is a life lost. We cannot say that the worth of the possible lives saved is greater than the worth of all the lives lost. Mr. Dulik presented a “choose your own adventure,” offering the Society three reasonings-humanitarianism, geopolitics, and the presence of Al Queda in Iraq-all of which, he argued, lead to the affirmation. Mr. Medina added that the rights of humanity should be extended to all and he was proud of America for invading Iraq to do that. Mr. Askonas argued we are blinding ourselves to the injustices we perpetrated by covering them under “noble” motives. From working in the State Department, he said Iraq is unstable. Mr Manchester reminded the Society of the history leading up to the war and, using the CIA blowback reports, argued that the United States has been looking for a situation to take Hussein out since our attempt to make him a puppet leader. We acted for ourselves, not human rights or WMDs, as proven by our lack of intervention in other countries that do have WMDs or violate their citizen’s rights.

Mr. Edgar then argued we instituted a Hobbesian state of nature: “We killed a stable country and left what will become anarchy.” Mr. Wilson then responded that Iraqi democracy is simply different from American democracy and so far, Iraq is stable with an emerging national identity. Ms. Carmona concluded we achieved nothing and common wisdom will lead to the negation. Ms. Siegler began, “You know what I like more than shoes? Justice.” She argued that the war was worthwhile in the short-run and, using the example of El Salvador, we can bring lasting justice and democracy to a country.

The best speakers of the evening as selected by the keynoters were Mr. Stephano Medina and Mr. Evan Monod.

The Society voted 18-5-40 to negate the resolution.

The Society inducted Ms. Carmona and Ms. Siegler.  Huzzah!

ELD

Emily R. Coccia

Mr. Stephano Medina spoke on the affirmation.  Mr. Samuel Dulik spoke on the negation.

Mr. Medina began by commentating on the dichotomy of the heroic figures presented in American history classes with the often less than moral lives these men led in private.  He continued, bringing up Aristotle’s idea of public and private virtues as two separate and distinct concepts, reminding the Society that the Affirmation still values character.  Quoting Machiavelli, he argued that in leadership, some virtues lead to ruin while certain vices can lead to success.  Ultimately, he concluded that the confusion between public and private life have held back our progress as a society.  Mr. Dulik then admitted that the Affirmation had strong ideas, but ideas that do not hold up in the real world.  He presented a thesis that virtue—who we are—is most genuinely manifested in public spheres and cannot be switched on and off from public to private.  Summarizing Plato, he argued that virtue is the basis of society and can best be found in the private lives of politician’s.  Thus transparency is necessary and a conduct must be relevant.

Mr. Miller began the floor speeches by responding that if we accept virtue as holistic and unable to be switched on and off, then private becomes only that which does not need to be known or seen by others.  Ms. Marki, speaking on the Negation, discussed the idea of branding and concluded that when an official steps into public office, s/he sacrifices the right to privacy.  Mr. Manchester responded using the example of Christopher Hitchens, an alcoholic still influenced and inspired many with his writing, to show we need to judge people for the job they were appointed to, not irrelevant matters.  Mr. Lim reminded everyone that judgment doesn’t happen in a vacuum; it comes from what one feels.  Ms. Melendez countered that private life becomes relevant when it becomes public and even without the media selling us scandals, we could still discover truly troubling character flaws through politicians’ records.  There followed much argument over whether the debate was normative and if the question was “is” or “should.”  Mr. Dulik concluded that it is in the public where we see virtue, or a lack thereof, manifested and that is why it does matter.  We need to empower voters by making them privy to the information then allowing them to assign a degree of relevance to the issues.  Finally, Mr. Medina argued that by allowing private life to enter into the issues, we exclude those not raised as future senators, those who have made mistakes.  After reading Hoover’s letter to Martin Luther King Jr., he pointed out that often, we arrive at wisdom and success through our mistakes.

The best speakers of the evening as selected by the keynoters were Ms. Abigail Smith and Ms. Katie Bolas (COL ’15).

The Society voted 25-57-2 to negate the resolution.

ELD

Emily R. Coccia

President – Mr. Andrew Marsh

Vice President – Mr. Peter Prindiville

Corresponding Secretary – Ms. Colleen Wood

Membership Secretary – Ms. Amanda Wynter

Librarian – Mr. Joshua Donovan

Amanuensis – Ms. Emily Coccia

Treasurer Jacob Arber will also be completing his term.

Congratulations to all our new officers!

ELD,

ERC

Mr. Constantine Petallides and Ms. Claire Zeng, making her induction, spoke on the affirmation. Mr. Christopher Stromeyer and Mr. Oltan Akin, making his induction, spoke on the negation.

Mr. Petallides began by showing his poetic wit to the Society, pointing out that all Philodemicians would be excited for Christmas “knowing that President Iacono would be there.” Mr. Stromeyer, anticipating frivolity from his dear opponent, argued that “this is the Philodemic Society of Georgetown University. This is a serious debate.” He went on to equate being naughty with defection in the Prisoner’s Dilemma, an argument that was lost to many MSB students and would confuse multiple floor speakers later. Ms. Zeng argued that “naughtiness is perfection” and that they “give sticks [instead of coal] in Belgium because they’re less advanced,” after equating coal, and thus naughtiness, with wealth. Mr. Akin argued: nice=gifts, gifts=money, money=good, therefore: good=nice. He also pointed out that coal causes climate change, so we should be nice to save the planet.

A seemingly lighthearted floor debate ensued, with slight exception that will not be recounted here. Mr. Spagnuolo confessed to the Society that he enjoys stealing candy from small babies, throwing it on the ground, stomping on it, and laughing. He’s “trouble.” Mr. Garosshen, in a philosophical line of thought, argued that naughtiness would “destroy the fabric of Western Civilization.” Mr. Prindiville argued that naughtiness or niceness does not matter if one desires to do good. In a common undertone of the evening, Mr. Prindiville and Ms. Murphy “rang the Iacono bell” thanking our dear president for his service.

The Society voted 51-32-7 to affirm the resolution.

The best speakers of the evening, as chosen by the keynoters, were Mr. Mike Manchester, and Ms. Emma Green.

The Society inducted Ms. Zeng and Mr. Akin. Huzzah!

And now, dear Philodemic, this Amanuensis lays down his pen for the final time.

ELD,

Peter A. Prindiville

Amanuensis

Vice President Henderson and Ms. Julia Christensen, making her induction, spoke on the affirmation.  Mr. Scott Garosshen and Ms. Emily Coccia, making her induction, spoke on the negation.

Ms. Christensen began by arguing that the sacrifice of that which makes us distinct is the dystopia of Brave New World.  She then outline four trends through which our society is moving toward the dystopia of Brave New World.  Ms. Coccia focused on the role of doublethink in 1984 and the American ideal of meritocracy.  She also discussed the role of scientific modifications on life.  After asserting that “you need not fear tyrants,” Vice President Henderson suggested that hope is a requirement for a dystopia and that Brave New World presents the more stable dystopia.  Mr. Garosshen discussed different historical examples of violent revolutions and the resulting lack of stability.  He then argued that we must think outside a world that is sex-filled and pleasurable.

Mr. Arber began the floor portion of debate by discussing the ability for citizens to flee the dystopia asserting that only in Brave New World can we run away from the dystopia.  Beginning a common thread, Mr. Miller discussed the role of information in our lives.  Mr. Rinaldi continued by addressing the role of technology.  In a change of pace, Ms. Winter, quoting the great Tocqueville,  maintained that Brave New World shows us that only through action can we progress.

The Society voted 37-36-5 to negate the resolution.

The best speakers of the evening, as chosen by the keynoters, were Mr. Stephen Taft, and Mr. Rich Rinaldi.

The Society inducted Ms. Christensen and Ms. Coccia.  Huzzah!

ELD,

Peter A. Prindiville

Amanuensis

Mr. Rich Rinaldi and Mr. Warren Wilson, making his induction, spoke on the affirmation. Ms. Emma Green and Mr. David Edgar, making his induction, spoke on the negation.

Mr. Wilson began by establishing definitions and pointing to specific points in history where religious belief hindered progress.  Mr. Edgar countered by showing that religious belief is different from religion, and that there are two basic ideas that define religious belief in the Abrahamic tradition: an omnipotent God and the Golden Rule.  Mr. Rinaldi discussed the role of religion on social and scientific progress.  Ms. Emma finished the keynote portion of the evening by warning the Society against commencing on a “bucket debate.”  She proceeded to discuss the role of religion and society, arguing that “faith is a permanent condition.”

Mr. Miller began the floor portion of debate, arguing that ideas have not truth value, whereas belief is static and influenced by truth values, and thus hinder progress.  Mr. Arber countered by discussing the role of religion on the real world, citing the development of political theory.  Ms. Lexi Cotcamp (MSB ’15) argued that religious is what drives us to action, and thus drives progress.

The Society voted 28-40-8 to negate the resolution.

The best speakers of the evening, as chosen by the keynoters, were Mr. Chris DiMisa (COL ’15), and Mr. Scott Garosshen.

The Society inducted Mr. Wilson and Mr. Edgar.

ELD,

Peter A. Prindiville

Amanuensis

Mr. Sam Biesiada and Mr. Adam Governale, making his induction, spoke on the affirmation.  Mr. Robert Silverstein and Ms. Hannah Miller, making her induction, spoke on the negation.

Mr. Governale began by arguing that our country values equality of opportunity, not outcome, and that Wall Street is the epitome of a meritocracy.  Mr. Silverstein countered these arguments, citing recent corporate greed cases to prove that Wall Street, in fact, is antithetical to American values.  Mr. Biesiada then considered the workers on Wall Street and their goals and aspirations.  Ms. Miller, in a fantastic induction keynote, discussed the diversity of the Occupy Wall Street movement, their participation in the democratic process, and the role of free and fair competition, arguing that these were three primary American values.

Floor debate was heated.  Mr. Prindiville began by discussing the role of small businesses and investment capital from Wall Street.  Mr. Bade reflected on his recent experiences with the Occupy DC movement, and informed the Society of its egalitarian and effective organizational structure.  Without fail, Vice President Henderson submitted that, in fact, we are created twice.  Countering questions on the floor about the goals of the Occupy movement, Ms. Green attempted to redirect the debate.  She argued that the movement’s dreams involve their government, and not a redistribution of wealth.  In the final speech of the evening, Mr. Manchester passionately argued that the money of Wall Street “runs the wheels of this country… and spurs innovation.”

The Society voted 29-45-6 to negate the resolution.

The best speakers of the evening, as chosen by the keynoters, were Mr. Mike Manchester, and Mr. Scott Garosshen.

The Society inducted Ms. Miller and Mr. Governale.  Huzzah!

ELD,

Peter A. Prindiville

Amanuensis

Mr. Jonathan Berryman spoke on the affirmation making his induction, and Mr. Jesse Whitfield spoke on the negation.

Mr. Berryman began by submitting a very specific definition of transhumanism, the use of technology to surpass the species homo sapien. He then went on to argue that transhumanism is immoral for both deistic and non-deistic theorists.  He then addressed the health concerns of scientific developments and issues surrounding wealth and transhumanistic advancements.  Mr. Whitfield proceeded to address religious arguments in favor of transhumanism, bringing biblical texts and other theological reasoning to the debate.

Mr. Lim launched the Society into floor debate by bringing biblical examples to counter Mr. Whitfield, arguing that Augustine’s thesis was correct: we cannot form the City of God on earth.  Mr. Garosshen brought more theoretical issues to the floor, discussing the role of population growth on the future of humanity.  Mr. Rinaldi countered previous arguments by examining the role of Social Darwinism in the debate.  Ms. Green proceeded to discuss the reality of transhumanism, arguing that we cannot say it is moral or immoral because we have not experienced it.  Mr. Stromeyer submitted that life’s greatest invention is death, echoing Steve Jobs’ 2005 commencement address at Stanford University, and that transhumanism hinders our ability to die, and thus is immoral.

The best speakers of the evening, as selected by the keynoters, were Mr. Soper and President Iacono.

The Society voted 32-23-3 to affirm the resolution.

The Society then joyously inducted Mr. Berryman.

ELD,

Peter A. Prindiville

Amauensis

_________________________________

Join us next week on Thursday, November 3, as we debate:

Resolved: Wall Street, and not its occupiers, better represent American values.

The Philodemic Room, Second Floor, Healy Hall

_________________________________

Ms. Wynter, Mr. Medina, and Ms. Wood at the Debate

The Society met on October 20 to consider the question Resolved: the United States Should Block the Takeover of T-mobile by AT&T.

Mr. Gavin Bade and Mr. Kent Carlson, making his induction, spoke on the affirmation. Mr. Michael Manchester and Ms. Heather Regen, making her induction, spoke on the negation.

Mr. Bade began by arguing that AT&T is not investing in infrastructure to increase service, and that the takeover is an example of classic corporate greed.  He then invoked a common (and ne’er defined) word of the evening: spectrum.  [Amanuensian Note: Spectrum is a term referring to a  range of radio frequencies that communications companies use to transmit data.  These companies can buy rights to different ranges of spectrum from the government, or, in this case, consume a smaller company that has rights to other spectrum.]  Ms. Regen focused on the scientific and technological impact of the proposed takeover, arguing that it would result in greater technological innovation, especially in rural America.  Mr. Carlson focused on the social and political implications of the takeover, arguing that it will not encourage innovation and endangers the American Dream.  Mr. Manchester asserted that duoopolies have helped America, and that “T-Mobile has rolled over is waiting to die.”

Mr. Miller argued that AT&T is attempting to lie about the facts of the deal.  Ms. Marki countered her mentee by arguing that America is built on the idea that the biggest guy should come out on top.  In an attempt to redirect debate, a common theme of the evening, Ms. Wood discussed the effects of the takeover on innovation.  Ms. Anais Carmona (SFS ’14) asserted that we shouldn’t baby competitors, and allow the free market to prevail.  Closing the floor debate with his typical pizazz, Mr. Spagnuolo contended that “our generation has to pay for the hippie burnout CEOs,” and that these companies outsource jobs abroad anyway, and thus we should not support the claims that the takeover will create more jobs.

The Society voted to affirm the resolution 35-29-5.

Mr. David Edgar (SFS ’15) and Mr. Andrew Carter (SFS ’13)were selected by the keynoters as the best speakers of the evening.

The Society inducted Ms. Regen and Mr. Carlson with much jubilation.  Huzah!

ELD,

Peter A. Prindiville

____________________________

JOIN THE SOCIETY ON OCTOBER 27 IN MCNEIR AUDITORIUM (NOTE CHANGED LOCATION) AS WE DEBATE:

RESOLVED: TRANSHUMANISM IS IMMORAL.  

____________________________

I am pleased to welcome you to the re-designed website of the Philodemic Society.  Over the next few days, I will continue to update the site and incorporate new design elements.

I welcome your comments and suggestions during this transition and re-design phase, and will be sending a survey to members within the next week to solicit design thoughts and to measure website usage and effectiveness.

I hope these changes will allow the Society’s website to continue to be an integral part of our public relations, communication, and recruitment efforts.

ELD,

Peter Prindiville

Amanuensis