Kate Santini ‘27
News Editor
On Friday, February 20th, the Benedict Fenwick Joseph Debate Society (B.F.F.) held its first debate session of the semester. The night’s prompts included “Resolved: International Law is Ineffective” and “Resolved: Suarez AI has No Place at Holy Cross.” With Father Nyugen guest-judging and audience members voting, debaters were judged on their rhetorical skills, ability to think on their feet, and their collaboration with team members.
The night began with the debate on international law. The affirmative team consisted of Jaden Stainforth ‘27 and Maxim Tereshchenko ‘29 while the negative team consisted of Harry Courts ‘26 and David Luigs ‘26. In his opening statement, Stainforth claimed that international law’s ineffectiveness stems from the fact that it is established by and directly benefits the “larger powers” at play. Lugis, on the other hand, opened with the argument that no legal system generates perfect compliance and that international law, established by organizations like the United Nations, generally “promotes human rights and accountability.” Following an intense period of interrogation between the two sides, Father Nyugen and audience members voted in favor of the negative. Nguyen attributed the negative’s victory to their use of clear and concise evidence.
For the debate on SuarezAI, Bryce Maloney ‘26, Peter LaBorin ‘26, and Samuel Fortier ‘27 represented the affirmative side while Ashwin Prabaharan ‘26, Alana Collins ‘29, and Catlin Wiffler ‘27 constituted the negative side. Fortier began with the argument that the use of artificial intelligence in institutions of higher education “inhibits creativity and work ethic” and undermines “critical thinking.” Wiffler countered this with her assertion that artificial intelligence platforms can “amplify productivity” and promote “technological literacy,” helping students stand-out as internship and job applicants.
During the interrogation period, LaBorin argued that AI’s implementation creates dissonance between using technology with “unprecedented ease” and achieving a true liberal arts education. Prahabaran, on the other hand, claimed that SuarezAI aligns with the College’s mission statement in supporting its goal to remain at the “forefront of our technological revolution.” Collins added to this, insisting that by providing all students with a subscription to SuarezAI, the College places them on a level playing field and upholds the concept of education as the “great equalizer.” Maloney countered this by referencing his experience using SuarezAI in a Russian Studies course and citing its shortcomings working with non-English texts.
In his closing speech, Maloney caused a great stir when he used The Spire’s very own, Ashwin Prabaharan’s, words against him. Maloney playfully quoted Prahabharan’s article titled “A Critical Look at the AI Taskforce’s Final Report” where he took a not-so-affirmative stance on the use of AI in higher education. While the audience got a good laugh out of this, they, along with Nyugen, ultimately ruled that the negative made the more compelling argument.
The Benedict Fenwick Joseph Debate Society will be hosting its next debate session on March 21st which will follow the British Parliamentary format in preparation for intercollegiate debates. If you are interested in joining the mailing list, contact bjfdebatingsociety@g.holycross.edu or register via MyHC.
Featured image courtesy of Google Images
Leave a Reply