2008 Woodie Awards
Rollins Student Debate the Patriot Act
Robert Hoffman
Issue date: 11/13/06 Section: News
- Page 1 of 2 next >
The evening of Tuesday, November 7th, saw the second debate of the semester facilitated by the newly formed Philosophy Debate Club. The topic for the debate, run and moderated by students and judged by members of the faculty, was the controversial USA Patriot Act.
The students involved in the debate formed three separate teams: a Pro team offering support for the Patriot Act, a Con team arguing against the law, and a Synthesis team that sought to propose amendments and revisions that would in effect create a different, better Patriot Act. As always, the debate carried a disclaimer that let audience members know that the students were placed on teams regardless of their personal beliefs, and that the positions that argued might be completely contradictory to what they themselves hold to be true. Both the Pro and Synthesis teams were comprised of student members of the Philosophy Debate Club, whereas the members of the Con team were representatives of the Rollins College chapter of Amnesty International, an international organization that has as its mission the global protection of human rights.
The Philosophy Debate Club is a very young organization; it was formed several months ago, and its faculty advisor, Dr. Eric Smaw, is himself a new addition to the philosophy department faculty this year. The first debate conducted by the club was last month's debate over the college's new honor code. Using these debates, and those upcoming next semester, as practice, the Philosophy Debate Club hopes to hone its abilities so that it can compete in intercollegiate debates next fall.
In the debate, there are three speaking positions for each team: the opening, the rebuttal, and the closing. For the Pro team, these three positions were filled by Alicia Floria, Matt Tonner, and Amy Testa, respectively. The main arguments posited by the Pro team focused on the necessity of the Patriot Act for national security. The Act, the team claimed, is an efficient update of existing laws that has helped agencies arrest terror suspects and prevevnt another 9/11 style attack.
The students involved in the debate formed three separate teams: a Pro team offering support for the Patriot Act, a Con team arguing against the law, and a Synthesis team that sought to propose amendments and revisions that would in effect create a different, better Patriot Act. As always, the debate carried a disclaimer that let audience members know that the students were placed on teams regardless of their personal beliefs, and that the positions that argued might be completely contradictory to what they themselves hold to be true. Both the Pro and Synthesis teams were comprised of student members of the Philosophy Debate Club, whereas the members of the Con team were representatives of the Rollins College chapter of Amnesty International, an international organization that has as its mission the global protection of human rights.
The Philosophy Debate Club is a very young organization; it was formed several months ago, and its faculty advisor, Dr. Eric Smaw, is himself a new addition to the philosophy department faculty this year. The first debate conducted by the club was last month's debate over the college's new honor code. Using these debates, and those upcoming next semester, as practice, the Philosophy Debate Club hopes to hone its abilities so that it can compete in intercollegiate debates next fall.
In the debate, there are three speaking positions for each team: the opening, the rebuttal, and the closing. For the Pro team, these three positions were filled by Alicia Floria, Matt Tonner, and Amy Testa, respectively. The main arguments posited by the Pro team focused on the necessity of the Patriot Act for national security. The Act, the team claimed, is an efficient update of existing laws that has helped agencies arrest terror suspects and prevevnt another 9/11 style attack.
Be the first to comment on this story