Jacob Wu ‘27
Staff Writer and Web Editor
The Benedict Fenwick Debate Society, the oldest campus organization on campus (est. 1846), held its first debate of the semester on February 3, 2025, in the Levis Browsing Room of Dinand Library, where debaters discussed topics concerning the moral duty of billionaires and the potential harm of artificial intelligence. Judges presiding over the debate included Professor Karsten R. Stueber, chair of the philosophy department, and assistant professor Justin Mooney, also of the philosophy department.
The first debate prompt was titled, “Resolved: Billionaires have a Greater Moral Duty.” The affirmative were Sam Fortier ‘27 (opening remarks), Ian Sykes ‘28 (interrogation), and John Zimmermann ‘26 (concluding remarks), while the negative consisted of Daniel Capobianco ‘25 (opening), Muataz Abtan ‘27 (interrogation), and Ella Murray ‘27 (closing). Those in the negative argued that billionaires broadly pay an oversized proportion of money in taxes, provide societal contributions through private charities, and that institutions, not the wealthy, were largely to blame for economic disparities. “Ladies and gentlemen, you have all been fooled, deceived, hoodwinked, and tricked,” Capobianco declared in his opening remarks. The affirmative, by contrast, argued that billionaires have a moral obligation to give back to the society which made them wealthy, a duty they have largely failed to uphold, and that billionaires have been able to circumvent taxation while indulging themselves in luxuries. Neither judges reached a verdict on a winning team.
The second debate prompt was titled, “Resolved: the Growth of AI is Harming Society.” The affirmative was comprised of Liam Murphy ‘25 (opening), Nora Kelly ‘27 (interrogation), and Nicholas Gobo ‘28 (closing), while the negative consisted of sophomores Julia Wheeler (opening), William Ulterino (interrogation), and Maggie Baughman (closing). In their opening remarks, the affirmative pointed out that AI has enabled a number of widespread unethical practices, ranging from cheating among students to the creation of sexually-exploitative material, and has been promulgated by only a handful of ambitious corporations. The negative argued that AI has opened multiple new frontiers of innovation, including those crucial to advancements in healthcare, and that governments may issue regulations on artificial intelligence to counteract malicious usage of it. While Judge Stueber found technical grounds for the negative, Judge Mooney found technical grounds for the affirmative.
Featured images courtesy of Juan Cortes-Hernandez
Leave a Reply