The Debate That Never Happened! - February 25, 2013

On February 25 at 6:30 P.M. in the University Chapel, the Phi Kappa Literary Society will be orchestrating the 50th year anniversary of “The Debate That Never Happened” between Sam Webb, National Chairperson of the Communist Party USA, and Dr. Greg Morin, a leader within the Georgia Libertarian Party. The topic of the evening shall be “Is Full Employment Possible Under Capitalism? Solving America’s Jobs Crisis.” To understand why this is such a special occasion, a bit of history is necessary.

50 years ago, in 1963, the University of Georgia was a much different place than it is today. Deep in the throes of the Cold War, and still in the wake of the McCarthy Era, geopolitical tension was palpable in ways unimaginable in our day and age. At the height of the ideological battle between communism and capitalism, the Phi Kappa Literary Society of UGA attempted to hold a debate between Arnold Johnson, director of the Information and Lecture Bureau of the Communist Party USA, and Dr. David Wright, leading economic authority at the University of Georgia. This attempt, however, was squelched by a unanimous vote of the Faculty Committee on Student Affairs. Then-President Aderhold went even further, accusing the Society of attempting to “incite riot.” In the spirit of free speech and debate that has guided the Phi Kappa Literary Society since its inception in 1820, we will recreate this debate on its 50th year anniversary.

The Phi Kappa Society also invites all guests to proceed across the North Campus quad to Phi Kappa Hall at the conclusion of the main debate to participate in another that shall be conducted solely by the members of the Phi Kappa Society. We will be hearing debate on the topic “Was Jesus a Communist or a Capitalist?” Guests are encouraged to take the floor to speak at this debate.

***While tickets are free, they are limited and in high demand. Please contact Ben Woodard at bpwood@uga.edu for information on how to reserve tickets.

https://www.facebook.com/events/401068403320755/

Debate February 7, 2013 BIHR: Brutus was justified in killing Caesar.

Come and join the Phi Kappa Literary Society for our annual historic debate where we will be taking on the question “Was Brutus Justiified in Slaying Caesar?”. Each year the Phi Kappa Literary Society digs through the annals of our history, and recreates a debate that we’ve held in years past. This year, we are revisiting a topic that was originally discussed in 1823.

Debate January 17, 2013 BIHR:Personal privacy is more important than national security to the interests of society.

Come join us for our second debate this semester as Brother Giordano and Brother Wheeler tackle the question of what is more important: the individual or the state? Brother Giordano will be affriming the resolution and the debate will be starting at 7:00 PM at Phi Kappa Hall. 

Definitions are as follows:

“Personal Privacy” – preventing intrusions into ones physical space or solitude. It is the idea of hiding or protecting ones body or possessions from sight or knowledge and can be achieved by walls, bags, partitions, etc. It prevents unwelcome searches and unauthorized access to restricted areas or information.

“is more important” – of greater significance or value

National Security – the requirement to maintain the survival of the state through the use of economic power, diplomacy, power projection, political power, and military power.

“interests of society” – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Debate January 10, 2013 - BIHR: Mental healthcare is of greater importance than gun control in preventing mass shootings in the U.S.

Our first debate this semester will be held Thursday January 10, 2013. Brother Mattew Tyler will be presenting the resolution BIHR: Mental healthcare is of greater importance than gun control in preventing mass shootings in the U.S.

If mass shootings can be curtailed more cheaply by providing mental health care to a range of people relative to the cost of implementing strict enough gun control to meet the same reduction in mass shootings, then one would vote in the affirmative. Thus, just because we find the provision of mental healthcare to be “good” for other reasons, this debate will strictly focus on mental healthcare’s impact on mass shootings. That being said, the fact that mental health coverage does have positive externalities outside of preventing violence could be used as a tangential argument—it just shouldn’t be the main topic of debate. Similarly, in order for gun control to be effective, it must be enforced. If there is no constitutional way to effectively enforce a “gun free school zone,” or it would require the employment of an extra police officer for every school in the nation (at a cost of tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars) to prevent one mass shooting every ten years, it may not be worth the public investment.

The definitions are as follows:

By “mental healthcare,” I mean the provision of medical services and products related to mental health (talk therapy, psychiatry, psychoactive drugs, etc.) and the ease with which someone may receive these service; “ease” includes stigmas associated with receiving various forms of psychological and psychiatric treatment.

By “is of greater importance,” I mean that is would be more effective and, perhaps more importantly, it would be more efficient. 

By “gun control,” I mean the creation and implementation of policy that would reduce the number of guns possessed by citizens or would make it more onerous to possess or purchase a gun of any type. Practicality should also come into play; if a law is too strict to stand scrutiny on the grounds of the 2nd amendment and would probably be struck down by the Supreme Court (or a lower federal court), then it would be an ineffective piece of gun control legislation. This certainly leaves a lot of room for interpretation, but I merely expect this to be a delineator between an assault rifles ban and taking away handguns from every single person in the U.S.

By “preventing,” I mean proactively stopping. Evidence for this could be supported by historical examples, although it is important to note that most major shooting events are anomalies, and causal inference is most tenuous when based on aberrant events.

By “mass shooting,” I mean an event in which someone illegally shoots numerous people with any type of gun, not in self-defense, regardless of whether or not the victims die. I am not going to place a specific number of shots, people, deaths, etc. on this. Rather, I will use the Supreme Court’s obscenity threshold test established in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964): “I know it when I see it.” Use your reasonable discretion.

By “in the U.S.” I mean in any of the 50 states or U.S. territories’ that fall under the jurisdiction of U.S. law

Phi Kappa's First Video