Kate Santini ‘27, Editor-in-Chief
The Benedict Joseph Fenwick Society (B.J.F.) debated critical questions confronting today’s society including the inevitability of AI consciousness and the ethics underlying America’s presence in Iran. Judging the event was Professor Fasial Baluch from the Political Science Department, whose areas of expertise include, yet are not limited to, political philosophy and Islamic political thought.
For the first prompt, “Resolved: AI Consciousness is Inevitable,” the B.J.F. executive board moderated a debate amongst themselves. Co-Chair Juan Cortes ‘27 and Secretary Nora Kelly ‘27 argued in favor of AI consciousness while Co-chair Kate Santini ‘27 and Treasurer Will Hansen ‘27 argued on behalf of the negative stance. The affirmative side highlighted the evolutionary development of humans and their intellectual capacity, arguing that artificial intelligence can develop in the same way as its technology advances. The negative side focused on human singularity, arguing that while artificial intelligence may be able to perform highly specialized tasks, it cannot replicate human passion and exert itself beyond what it has been programmed to do.
“AI may become more capable, persuasive, and useful, but those achievements alone do not establish consciousness,” Hansen said in his closing statement. “Before we call a machine conscious, we need evidence of an inner life beyond the words appearing on a screen.”
Professor Baluch ultimately sided with the negative, yet felt both sides did an impressive job sticking to the prompt. In debate, it can be easy to lose track of the fundamental argument being made, Baluch said, yet both teams paid special attention to the specific wording of the prompt, specifically identifying what “consciousness” and “intelligence” entails. Baluch’s major critique was that citing authoritative figures should be avoided. Instead of appealing to the pope, debaters should focus on why the pope’s argument is correct.
Given that members of the B.J.F. executive board have been working behind the scenes for the past few years, “it was fun to get back on the stage together,” Kelly said. “It was good practice for our Villanova debate” that will be taking place later on in the semester.
For the next topic, “Resolved: America is a Greater Threat to the Iranian People than their Government,” Clayton Annis ‘27 and William Ulterino ‘27 argued in favor of the affirmative stance while James Condon ‘30 and Maxim Tereschenko ‘29 argued on behalf of the negative stance.
While “team affirmative” agreed that the Iranian government has a history of endangering its people, it argued that the United States’ recent invasion jeopardizes Iranian safety and interferes with the people’s ability to determine self-government to a greater degree. The negative side, on the other hand, contended that the Iranian government’s negligence toward its people and disregard of their needs is more damaging to their wellbeing than foreign intervention. In the end, Balcuch sided with the negative team, who he felt did a better job of incorporating evidence into their argument. The audience, however, remained split on which team won.
The B.J.F. Society will be hosting two more events this semester, with its next event taking place on November 17, 2026 with Professor Stephanie Yuhl from the History Department and Professor Dana Smith from the Economics Department serving as guest judges. If you are interested in participating or attending a future event, reach out to bjfdebatingsociety@g.holycross.edu for more information.
PHOTOS COURTESY OF PETER MURPHY ‘30
Leave a Reply