Godkin Debate: This House Believes Too Many People Go to University

uni

 

The 8th meeting of the 165th Session of the Literific took place on the 21st of November in the Senate Room. Despite what President Kydd says, it was in fact our 3rd annual Godkin Debate and not our 165th.

Emma Chadwick, Connor Hogan and Aisha Sobey were battling for maiden speaker on the proposition. Emma argued that encouraging everyone to go to university would be bad for those not suited to it, those that are and responsible for the economy which we are currently seeing. He claimed that university degrees are becoming worthless and that they are not required for economic growth. Aisha told the House that university shouldn’t be a social expectation and that life skills are heard in the work place, not in lecture theatres.

Ben Murphy, Aaron Toleman and Harry Adair argued for the opposition. Murphy claimed that universities should change to suit everyone but as it stands it doesn’t allow a lot of people to go. Toleman said that you are more likely to get a job if you have a degree than if not and that there is a causation between going to university and having a healthy diet, exercising and not smoking. Adair explained that the only reason we have an established academic nature is because university is open to all and it should remain so.

The debate then went to the floor.
We went to a vote and the motion passed.
Paul Shannon, our eternal leader, then went through everyone’s speeches and the winner announced was… Connor Hogan! Congrats!

 

This House Believes the United States is So 20th Century.

usa

The 7th Ordinary Meeting of the 165th Session of the Literific took place on the 14th of November in the Canada Room (boo Canada).

Julia Andrade-Rocha, Vincent Wooding and Andrew Carruthers spoke for proposition. Ms Andrade-Rocha felt that the US is pushing people away by spying on them and that no one is taking it seriously anymore. Wooding listed all that was wrong with America. ALL. He told the House that the US is still in the 20th century as far as civil rights go. Mr Carruthers explained that although the US has soft power and the substance has changed, that the US remains in the Cold War mentality of the 20th Century.

Dr Stefan Andreasson, Cormac Manning (UCC) any Mr Tyler McNally opposed the motion. Dr Andreasson paised the US on its continuity and on its formidable influence which is seen through mass immigration, unrivalled military capacity and social media. Mr Manning talked about America’s power in trade and politics and how these two factors are recognized worldwide showing its international power. Mr McNally told the House that he didn’t just hate America but if fact hated the whole world, that the US may be backwards politically but so are all other countries.

The debate then went to the floor.
Both sides summarised and we went to a vote. The motion was defeated.

This House Would Ban Designer Babies

designer

The 6th Ordinary Meeting of the 165th session of the Literific took place on the 7th of November in the Senate Room. We were joined by the University of Ulster for a war between universities!

Professor McClure ‘set the scene’ by explaining a bit about genetics. There was a little bit of UU hating.

Representing QUB on proposition were Patrick Mallon, Aisha Sobey, Nathan Cantley and James McAlister. Mallon urged the House to embrace natural differences as designer babies would doom our society. Sobey went on to explain that designer babies would only be an option for the rich, resulting in an elite ruling class. Nathan Cantley asked the House how far? He explained that since many genetic disorders are connected to the environment it would not be possible to fully get rid of genetic disorders. McAlister commented that these designer babies would either suffer from low self-esteem or would have a false sense of superiority, e.g. a generation of douchebags.

Representing University of Ulster on opposition were Greene, Catterson, Thomas and Smyth (first names have…disappeared, sorry!) Greene spoke of the advantages of legalising it for medical uses for carriers of a disease who may choose not to have children for fear of passing it on. Catterson talked of our right to freedom and that we could not force a decision on a parent. Thomas highlighted the need for genetic engineering for medical use as it would be a great tool to prevent future suffering. Smyth explained that genetic engineering could remove some of the strain on the NHS in the future and would also prevent pain and suffering.

We then got to hear from Professor McClure again who was really kind of mean to everyone, it was beautiful and sassy. The motion then went to a vote and passed 34 to 32.