R: End the Death Penalty

It is a perennial debate among conservatives: is the death penalty justice? Or a crime? Proponents of the death penalty support it for four main reasons. Rehabilitation, defense, deterrence, and retribution. Those who are handed the death penalty never reintegrate into society. Proponents argue that this knowledge stimulates conversion in a way that lifetime imprisonment does not. Some argue that while we all do not have the benefit of knowing the date we will be called home, those on death row do. Cardinal Dullus at Fordham university argues this can be a powerful tool of conversion for those who have committed the most serious crimes. 

Most commonly, proponents of the death penalty will argue that it allows the state to act on the doctrine of self defense. For those criminals whose criminal history makes them a severe danger to society, the death penalty can be the only way a society can protect itself. If one takes this position, however, one finds it difficult to find any justification for the death penalty in the developed world. This is the view expressed by Pope John Paul II in Evangelical Vitae where he made clear that “reasonable people may disagree.” This is also the view expressed by Aquinas and later Calvin during the reformation. Proponents will also argue that capital punishment deters crime. There is conflicting science as to this claim and as Camus points out in an essay, little logical evidence either. Why would someone willing to commit moral suicide ever shy away from physical death?

Finally, from a scriptural standpoint, retribution is used as justification. In principle, the graver the offense, the more severe the punishment. St. Thomas argued death can be a kindness because it prevents the wrongdoer from committing further sins. 

However, as Christians, we value life, and the intentional taking of another’s life is a grave matter. How, since the state possesses neither omniscience or omnipotence, can we both undertake such a grave matter and deprive someone of the time needed to make amends with God. Depending on your theory of justification, to be sanctified or justified takes time. The death penalty de facto strips time away. Additionally, the state has committed grievous errors in its administration of capital punishment. Can we really defend it?

R: Trust the Experts

Trust the Experts! Whether we are told to trust the science, seek out reliable news sources, or use studies that have undergone peer review in our research, we are constantly deferring and delegating decisions, research, and trust to those who are more highly trained, and educated than us. But what happens when the experts become complacent— or worse— betray the very end towards which their expertise points. One of the more cogent examples of this comes in the area of journalists and the truth. As Alexis De Tocqueville observed in the early days of American democracy, “The most enlightened Americans attribute the little influence of the press to [the] excessive dissemination of its power; and it is an axiom of political science in that country that the only way to neutralize the effect of the public journals is to multiply their number” (AT Democracy in America ch. 11). As newspapers have become radio stations have become cable news have become Instagram posts, is this not exactly what has happened? Has the power of what was a vital aristocratic institution been disseminated to the point where the institution is impotent? If the journalist— the truth-teller— is impotent, is not then truth effectively impotent? 

The same could be said for doctors and other scientists. The end of medicine should be the heath of the body but today we see commonly doctors violating that end and killing others— both the old and the young. Even so, nobody in this body would presume to say they possess the same skills as a medical professional. Dwight Schrute says it  est when explaining that he doesn’t tip his barber, food delivery boy, or taxi driver because he can do the tasks they do. He did, however, tip his urologist because he cannot pulverize his own kidney stones. This satirical expression exposes an important truth. Experts can only be as trusted as people are  willing to trust. A nonsensical lack of trust in expertise is a grave cancer in our society that devalues expertise generally. Should more of us not take the Dwight Schrute approach? Should we not be blindly deferent to those who have outpaced us in education, experience, and training?

A further complication of Dwight’s method arises when we consider that studies show patients oftentimes have far higher standards of care when they are actively involved in their healthcare decisions. The “annoying patients”— those that ask questions, seek second opinions, and demand more information from their provider— have higher chances of survival, recovery, and higher quality care. Maybe then, a healthy questioning of expertise is always good. 

There are essentially two angles one could take on this debate. We can all agree there is a crisis of trust in the experts of today. So, one could examine the situation at the present day and consider whether we should work to increase confidence (aff position) or continue to question our experts (neg position). Alternatively, speakers could trace this current crisis back to its origins and conclude whether the initial crisis in confidence of expertise was specious (aff position) or justified (neg position).

R: Cut Down the Law to Get at the Devil

It is in vogue to rage against the institutions that govern us. Laws, procedures, and rules generally provide us with order and the liberty we value. Very rarely do we hear arguments against one’s right to legal counsel, the institution of the Supreme Court, or our systems of checks and balances. However, many times, these very systems can provide us with or exacerbate the worst cancers in our society. Criminals are found not guilty, the court perpetuates immorality, and our government is rendered impotent against the challenges against which it is built to rise. Packing the court, abolishing the filibuster, and the passing of policies that have the effect of suppressing votes may have temporary, potent positive effects for the parties enacting the policy, but possible disastrous consequences down the line. Most conservatives would bristle at the idea of court-packing, and abolishing the filibuster now, but what if the tables were turned? Would we hold to these same convictions if it advantaged us not to? Should we adopt this as a principle?

If one is inclined to say yes, one must examine the example of slavery, and the secession of the south. There is a large consensus that the southern states had a right to secede from the Union. Yet, the issue of slavery was so important that the north took up arms to stop the south. They cut down the law to get after the devil. When faced with the prospect of legal intervention or military intervention, they chose the latter. It is easy to look back on the war and see that it obviously was the correct choice. What we forget is that the devil almost won. If it had, what recourse would be left? 

How then are we to think about this issue? Is there a certain gravity threshold one must pass to justify cutting down laws? Or conversely, should we be more wary of destroying institutions when the stakes are higher? After all, high stakes mean high consequences and low stakes mean low consequences. Still further, does the destruction of one institution weaken confidence in all institutions?

R: Tolerate Extremism in the Academy

It has become an almost universal rally cry of conservatives: “we demand academic freedom.” The number of tenured positions at major universities— positions that protect academic freedom— are falling sharply. It seems all too common that public outcry over a professor’s justifiably or unjustifiably branded “extreme” remarks leads to a firing and a fall from grace. It seems that complete academic freedom, even insofar as it tolerates extremism, is utterly essential in the Academy. Yet, is it not that very freedom that has led it to this moment? Was not the extremist philosophy that calls ideas injurious, words violent, and friendly colloquy painful born in the Academy? Was this philosophy not the beneficiary of academic freedom? 

At the time this resolution was proffered, the debate surrounding the teaching of “Critical Race Theory” primary public educational institutions was raging. This theory was itself born in the University and was a beneficiary of academic freedom. The bioethical theories that have allowed and encouraged embryonic stem cell research were developed in the University. Much of this research itself has also been conducted primarily in academic institutions. The reason so many philosophy departments in universities across the country have been able to reject the study of the ancients and medievals in favor of the moderns is this extensive academic freedom. A requirement that universities teach the classics and scholastics would certainly limit academic freedom, but it would eliminate the extreme steps some universities have taken to destroy their classics departments and drive out their Thomists with a fire poker.

Even so, perhaps the Academy should protect and tolerate extremism at all costs. Or is it the case that the unencumbered freedom to cast away the old is itself responsible for the chilling effect on us Federalists in the Academy?

R: Defund the MoMa

Let’s get something off the table right away. The Museum of Modern Art in New York does not currently accept any federal funding. That, however, does not affect the central premise of this debate. Centrally at issue here is whether we as a party would issue a normative statement that financially funding an institution that curates, propagates, and praises the broad category of “modern art.” As Federalists, we know that aesthetics are incredibly important in a society. Many members of the body have commented that our last two debates, held in a traditional, (stuffy?) room with stained glass and wooden tables, have been far more enjoyable than the first two held in varying forms of modern, “sleek,” and “innovative” spaces. Some members of the body believe that aesthetics influence culture. Others believe that aesthetics are a product of our culture. In any case, our aesthetic tastes— our art— can reinforce the goodness of our culture or warn us as to its downward trajectory. Is the art produced in today’s world an example of the former or the latter?

In a scriptural sense, God has clearly created the world to satisfy the needs of many different souls. He has imbued us with the ability to create and we have. We have built marvelous churches glorifying God and painted marvelous frescos. In their day, however, these new developments were seen as garish and vain when juxtaposed to the ancient practice of writing an icon. Yet now, we would be ecstatic to visit a church in the United States with a Madonna painted in the traditional style with the formally disavowed reds and blues. Well, some of us would… This begs the question, will the modern art of today become the traditional art of tomorrow? Is our tendency to critique the art of today founded on first principles? Or is it simply an unfounded attachment to tradition? Are there pieces of modern art today that deserve preservation, curation, and praise?