Abigail Clark ‘26

News Editor

Julia Wheeler ‘27 makes her case
Image courtesy of Owen Whaley ‘24

On March 26, the Benedict Joseph Fenwick Debating Society hosted another round of debates, encouraging students to participate in discussions relevant to Holy Cross and the nation as a whole. 12 students engaged in debates revolving around two resolved prompts: That Holy Cross should no longer use the Crusader moniker and that the United States should ban TikTok. Showing both sides of each argument, the debaters presented opening and closing arguments, cross-examinations, and rebuttals. With each debate, students had the chance to learn more about their respective issues and explore all sides of the argument, even those that do not reflect their personal beliefs. The BJF Society was fortunate to be joined by two guest judges, Congressman Tim Bishop ’72 and Attorney Peter Flaherty ’87, both Holy Cross alumni and current professors at the College.

     The first debate of the afternoon considered whether Holy Cross should drop the Crusader moniker. While Holy Cross has already eliminated the Crusader mascot, the College still refers to itself as the Crusaders. For the affirmative side, the debaters focused heavily on the monicker’s link to the historical Crusaders and their violent, discriminatory nature. The three students argued that as a college, we should break ties with the name. Conversely, the negative side argued the name is appropriate because Holy Cross students are crusaders for social justice and change. The negative came out on top, despite the debate being well-matched and argued by both sides. 

     The proposed U.S. ban of TikTok is a heavily debated topic, which made the discussion on this prompt highly relevant and important. Ashwin Prabaharan ’26 delivered the opening statement for the negative side, arguing that TikTok should not be banned. Having participated in past debates, Prabaharn enjoyed another opportunity to debate with friends, adding that it gave him “the chance to learn more about the issue itself, going beyond the mental health effects of social media but also the role of government regulation of free speech.”

     For Marc Marandola ’26, a member of the affirmative side in the TikTok discussion, this was his first debate with the BJF Society. The rebuttal from each side is the most crucial part of the debate, as Marandola said, “it allows both teams to ask difficult questions, challenging the opposing side by forcing them to think on their feet.” The students who gave each rebuttal brought up statistics and important points about China, mental health, the economy, and more. The negative side won the debate by only one vote from the audience.

     Both debate prompts were meaningful to the students on many levels and were highly appreciated by the guest judges. Congressman Bishop and Attorney Flaherty both shared their praise for the engagement of every student and the importance of having these debates.

     The Benedict Joseph Fenwick Debating Society will be hosting its final set of debates for the year on April 16 from 4-5:30 p.m. in the Faculty Room (2nd Floor) of Dinand Library. Professors Alex Hindman and Stephanie Yuhl will serve as guest judges for debates on the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade and institutional neutrality. All students are welcome to spectate.