The Story
The Raft Debate
A long standing tradition at The College, the Raft Debate took place on the night of September 30th, in the Commonwealth Room of the Sadler Center.
As the single-man life raft was carried onto the stage, three men and a woman stood waiting, speaking in a calm, almost friendly manner, despite the forthcoming battle of knowledge and wit.
The woman, Giulia Pacini, is one of the French professors in the College's Department of Modern Languages and Literatures. Chosen to represent the Humanities, Pacini aimed to prove that her discipline was superior because of its contributions to “creat[ing] a more peaceful, just, and beautiful world.”
The professor most easily spotted on stage wore a teal Hawaiian-style shirt. I assumed (correctly) that he was the Physics professor, David Armstrong, who was asked to defend the Natural and Computational Sciences. Before the debate, I received a statement on his survival strategy.
Admitting that he was to “start off at a terrible disadvantage- lacking the eloquence and rhetorical skill of [his] colleagues,” he planned to utilize his expertise in “intimidation, and its kissing cousin, proof by obfuscation” to secure his seat on the orange blow-up raft.
The two remaining gentlemen sported suits. David Feldman, an Economics professor at The College, was representative of the Social Sciences.
In the midst of economic turmoil, Feldman’s work was cut out for him to get the one-way ticket back to civilization. However, he was always “up to launching a few good natured zingers at [his]…colleagues.”
Jeremy Stoddard, donning a banker’s suit and red tie (what else to encompass so much evil?), was the last man on the stage. He was the Devil’s Advocate, claiming that not one of the professors actually deserved to return to society, but that the world would be a better place without them.
He declared that the “fact that the representatives of the disciplines are an economist, a nuclear physicist, and someone who studies French culture makes my task that much easier.”
At 6:30 sharp, judge-for-a-night Laurie Sanderson, Dean of Graduate Studies and Research (Arts and Sciences), formally introduced the “brave and fool-hearted” participants in the debate.
Two rounds were to take place: the first, a plea to the audience, was allotted seven minutes for each of the four, and the second, a rebuttal, was to last three minutes apiece. The audience would participate at the end of the debate by vote via clapping and cheering for their candidate of choice for survival. Whoever received the loudest roar would be declared the winner by student judges.
After the explanation, the first round began with Armstrong.
Beginning with lyrics from the theme of “Gilligan’s Island,” Armstrong made a firm base for his argument that the “real” scientists should survive because they can benefit humanity with medicine, practical physical science, and general knowledge of how the world works.
Feldman quickly made his main point (after taking off his blazer for added effect) that economics is vital to humanity because it shows how “incentives shape behavior” and that the science provides society with the “tools to make progress.”
Following the economist, Pacini made her plea that the Humanities are essentially “all things human.” She pitied the “misery of life underwater” that Feldman and his lot were condemned to at this moment in time, and emphasized how natural scientists such as Armstrong focused too much on the “material quality” of life (indeed, the physical sciences do seem a bit shallow after hearing about the meaning that the Humanities add to our daily lives).
After the debate at the reception, student Julianne Sicklesteel ('11) said that she was “impressed with Pacini” overall.
Who else to end the first round than the Devil’s Advocate? For his argument, Stoddard handed each debater a large sign bearing a visual for his argument.
The first was handed to Armstrong. “Greetings, Mr. Ahmadinejad!” it stated. The audience roared with laughter (I among them) as Stoddard approached Feldman with the next poster depicting the rate of unemployment as the recession has continued rising upward. Again, laughs as the last sign was handed to Pacini. There was something about the rising rate of STD’s on hers…
Generally, the second round went by very quickly. Feldman made a point (to the listeners’ amusement) of how the Humanities provide the world with such encouraging novels as Golding’s Lord of the Flies and works by Dickens. The most profound statement came from Stoddard, however: “they are all equally worthless!”
A question and answer session followed the second round. One student suggested his “own idea of a solution,” to leave them all on their island to live in peace. A good idea indeed.
The judging commenced with thunderous applause for the Natural and Computational Sciences, then on down the line. It was hard to tell at first if the Humanities’ cheer usurped the Natural Sciences’. Once the five judges decided on a winner, Sanderson declared the Natural Sciences the champion!
While at the reception after the debate, I interviewed a mother who home-schooled her two sons. She thought that the whole experience was “just wonderful” and that she would definitely attend other events at The College that were advertised to the public.
“It will be a great topic for tomorrow morning in class,” she stated with a grin.