Re: [Philodemic Society] Re: Resolutions for consideration at the September 28 Business Meeting

Resolved:  It's Okay to Eat at Chik-Fil-A

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Nick Iacono <iacono.nicholas@gmail.com> wrote:

Josh - Believe me, I wish that too, haha. And yeah, I'm sure we would, but that's what it's all about, right? 

Jacob - I see what you are saying and I agree, they are two distinct debates with their relative merits. I just think picking one of them allows us to focus on the merits of our social welfare policies and their long term effects on our political process/discourse. With so much attention in the media being paid to the idea of dependency and the future of Medicare/Social Security, I think the wording I proposed is the best way to get at the "red-meat" of this controversy, though I certainly see where you are coming from. 

I'm still trying to rap my head around the Money, Speech, Citizens' United discrepancy. Because in essence I think the debate we want to have is: What are the a) consequences and b) normative value of equating money and speech? Just trying to find the best way of doing that. Am I making sense? haha

Also, gotta do Obama/Romney on Nov 1. I mean ya just gotta!

On Monday, September 24, 2012 7:33:00 PM UTC-4, Jacob Arber wrote:

Hey Nick,

I think we're actually discussing two different debates. By comparing the New Deal with the Great Society, I was thinking that the conversation would be more geared toward what kind of government spending is more appropriate: essentially mass employment programs vs. building safety nets. I think both mine and yours are worth consideration, albeit separately.

As for money is speech, I know that Money is Speech is going to be predominantly associated with Citizens United, but the Chik-Fil-A controversy and consumerism in general goes into the broader and underlying Money is Speech question. If money is in fact speech, then buying a product or spending money on an advertisement is not only protected constitutionally, but also representative of an individual's value system. So, whenever one spends money, one is making a statement, which is, I think, a more interesting question than the legal issues entangled in Citizens United.

On Monday, September 24, 2012 4:00:34 PM UTC-4, Nick Iacono wrote:

Jarber,

I thought of comparing the New Deal to the Great Society, but I think that would be like saying the egg was more beneficial than the chicken. Rather than spend too much time officiating (in keynotes and on the floor) between the finer points of these two important periods in what is arguably a distinct progressive movement, I think it would be better to pick one. Basically I'm trying to find the easiest way to debate "The benefits of the social welfare system have outweighed the harm of having a "third rail" in American politics that prevents us from addressing our debt and entitlement spending"

Also, 100% on board with the money is speech debate. I think you could make it:

Resolved: Citizens United has harmed our electoral process. ...everyone knows Citizens United and the name itself evokes a strong response that I think would draw a lot of people.

On Monday, September 24, 2012 3:51:24 PM UTC-4, Jacob Arber wrote:

Resolved:
Frankenstein, and not his monster, was the greater villain.
The economy, not the military, is the greater source of American power.
The Doctor has done more harm than good to his companions.
Elizabeth should not have waited for Mr. Darcy.
A distinct American culture does not exist.
Money should be considered speech.
Religiosity is incompatible with democracy.
Democratization as a foreign policy has failed.
We should lament the decline of print media.
The people of Israel were justified in making the golden calf.

And a few alternatives to debates already posted:

The Great Society benefited the United States more than the New Deal.
American universities have failed their students.

On Monday, September 24, 2012 2:04:21 PM UTC-4, Amanda Wynter wrote:

Please post resolutions here before NOON on Friday September 28!

Thanks,

Amanda

On Monday, September 24, 2012 3:11:13 PM UTC-4, Oltan Akin wrote:

Resolved:  Private Equity is moral.

Resolved:  The war on drugs has done more harm than good.

Resolved:  Congress should have term limits.

Resolved:  Deficit reduction is a more pressing issue than short-term unemployment.

 

On Monday, September 24, 2012 2:04:21 PM UTC-4, Amanda Wynter wrote:

Please post resolutions here before NOON on Friday September 28!

Thanks,

Amanda 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Philodemic Society of Georgetown University" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/philodemicsociety/-/N86MUGe8JiUJ.

To post to this group, send email to philodemicsociety@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to philodemicsociety+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/philodemicsociety?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Philodemic Society of Georgetown University" group.
To post to this group, send email to philodemicsociety@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to philodemicsociety+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/philodemicsociety?hl=en.