Sumeet Khanna & Violetta Nikolskaya

Co-Presidents McMaster Debating Society

 

Q: Should course drop dates be moved later in the term or are the current deadlines sufficient?

 

S: Add/drop dates. Although I've personally never added or dropped a course after the "financial penalty" deadline, I've spoken to peers who tell me that one could have dropped a second term course without academic penalty up until March 9 of this year. What comes to my mind, at least, is how close this date is to exams. In fact, it's so close to exams, that it might as well be pushed right-before exams (roughly April 3).

As a caveat, I don't want to be talking about courses that have no written examination during the formal exam period. I'm talking about the Chem 1A03s of the McMaster world. And the first point I'll offer Violetta to begin this debate, is that I think hope is something that lasts longer than the Mac admin want to admit. A student can pass March 9, be failing a course, and still cross his/her fingers for the exam to "save them". And then, right before the exam, while embroiled in exam-prep, I think some students finally realize that their efforts will be to no avail. They've neglected the course material, and that neglect cannot be resolved in the span of a few days cramming for an exam. So if this is the case, let them drop the course without penalty. The alternative is to have the student write the exam and fail the course; not only is this demoralizing for many, but it also looms over academic transcripts FOREVER (or at least for a while).

 

V: Hold on, Sumeet. March 9 is how close to the exam period? Oh yeah – a month. A solid month of midterms, assignments and content that has been prepared by the professor. This period in the academic semester offers two very important opportunities; the first is an improvement in one's standing in that course. The second is the possibility of developing an interest in the course. I think we do not give enough credit to the merit behind University and academic commitment. When we make a decision to take a class, there are many possible motives: "bird course" to improve CA or SA, required course, interesting elective, passionate course of exploration, the list goes on. However, in regards to the decision to take the class purely to get an easy mark is the one on the list that should be critically analyzed. When did we decide that in University it should be glorified to take the waters in an 'easy course' and then drop it once we realize we can't cheat the system into easy grades. This is University. Buckle up and commit to what you took.

 

S: Okay, let's buckle up. Vio, recognize that a lot of courses throw a lot of their heavy assignment material in the last month. So let's run a thought experiment. We have student X. Student X wants to continue in this course, even though he knows he's not doing so well. It's March 9th. He drops the course, because he knows that the heavy assignments are after March 9th, and he doesn't want to take the risk. On my side of this debate, student X doesn't feel the pressure to drop. He can take the course, develop "interest" in the course, as you put it Vio, and then drop the course if he’s finding it difficult. We maximize learning with my resolution Go in there, learn, and have the option to drop if you don't want to doom your transcript with a fail.

 

V: Sounds like your student X is auditing the course. As this student is not supposed to be just there, that develops two problems; the very first is that student C is filling a seat that someone else who either needs the course or would want to be in the course should be filling, and secondly, this student will be delaying what you imply is an inevitable process. There are a lot of students who find themselves in the awful position of not finding a seat in a required course and then having to either take an expensive summer course or to wait an additional year. For some this could mean delaying their graduation by a semester, or even an entire year. All so that one person can get an expensive ride through a course that will yield no credits? How is this at all beneficial for student X or those affected? Furthermore, this student clearly needs to talk to an academic counsellor and make plans for their own graduation and degree audit fulfillment rather than staying in a class that is draining precious time. Maximize learning? Your side only creates more problems and does not even begin to address the ones that I outlined.

 

S: Wait, this makes no sense. If student X is enrolled in the course, he is not auditing the course. That seems pretty clear to me. So if students can't find a seat, it isn't student X's fault; the admin has overbooked the course, or students are informally switching core class times to suit their needs. Listen, I get one last shot to prove my point for the paper, until September. Here I go.  March 9th adds stress to students, and hurts their ability to succeed. Moving it to right before exams allows students to try, then fail, and learn from their failure, rather than worry about a big omen on their transcript. To sum things up in debate terms: I'm right, and you're wrong.

 

V: This all amounts to a mere strawman argument. I did not say student X auditing the course; I said that his behaviour is like that of auditing a course but it does not have the benefits that auditing the course has. Again, now you go on to absolve their guilt in causing the course to be full for others students. We have a responsibility to ensure that students who should be in the course access that opportunity, and this is made more challenging with suggestions like yours. Give more credit to University students. We are not children. We are adults and we should be treating our commitments like adults. Things are tough, but we cannot always afford to leave everything to the last minute. To sum things up in debate terms: Yield to the master debater.

 

 

Meghan Booth & Hasheel Lodhia

McMaster Debating Society

Q: Is a strict curfew an acceptable response to the London riots?

M: In light of recent events, namely at Fanshawe College in London this past weekend, the idea of a curfew on minors has been put on the table as a means of curbing delinquent behaviour. This, though, presents the problem of how a curfew would be implemented. Any child under the age of 18 would have to be accompanied by an adult outside of the home between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. This is on the basis that much of the petty crimes, vandalism and unwelcome loitering are committed by minors. In addition to society not being burdened by despondent youth, there would likely be positive externalities that would occur as a result of a curfew. With less time spent in parks and in front of the local Tim Hortons, more focus would be put towards things like homework. Furthermore, families would be able to enjoy more time together; building stronger bonds between parent and child paves the way for more responsibility and accountability in our youth. For these reasons, and many more, a curfew is an idea that would prove to be beneficial to youth themselves and to society in the long run.

 

H: The main reason behind the curfew laws in London is to set an example of bad behaviour. Perhaps curfews might do those students some good at this point, but it doesn’t make sense to impose it over all of Ontario, essentially punishing every individual for the acts of a few. This has never happened before, and never will. Besides, imposing a curfew isn’t in any way going to reduce the amount of crime that takes place; it will simply relocate it (in this case, indoors). For the rest of the kids, keeping them indoors every night will only develop their false sense of security. Think of the ‘boy in the bubble’ scenario. Suddenly turning ‘legal,’ they will be exposed to public nightlife too quickly. Being isolated from the entire world, including peers, is bound to lead to psychological problems later on in life. The burden of proof lies on you to show exactly why keeping kids in the dark will be beneficial for them or for society.

 

M: While I see your point about the ‘boy in the bubble’ issue, I think the fact that we abolished Grade 13 in 2005 demonstrates the regard the government has for rushed exposure to adult life, which is none. A curfew is furthermore not indicative of a false sense of security; if being at home with your family, or at a friend’s house with their family, is a ‘false’ security, then I don’t know what real security is. A curfew will not eliminate petty crime and vandalism, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. Kids crave stability and accountability, which can surely be better provided if they are in a home setting. With teachers having their classroom hours scaled back more and more, kids are left to their own devices. As for this type of incident not having happened before, this may be an isolated event in terms of its scale, but broken bottles, vandalism and general debauchery is a drop in the bucket of youth acting out. If anything, a curfew is an option to be explored seriously. The permanence of it can be left up to its level of success.

 

H: I still don’t understand how forcing kids to stay indoors will solve anything. Someone who wants to vandalize property will just do so in hiding or during the day when no one is looking. This “general debauchery” you speak of isn’t going to suddenly stop when you take away the right to leave any sort of shelter at night time. In fact, it will probably give kids another reason to get fake IDs, which means even more kids going out into the danger of this so called “cover of the night.” If not, then they’ll just have more house parties, more internet crime and of course more sex (unprotected, of course). Some children who spend their evenings outside their home have a reason for doing so. They could be living with abusive families or need to work in the evenings to pay for their education. Should we be forcing these kids to stay indoors? All of us have a right to a standard of living that is adequate for the health and well-being of ourselves and our families. This ‘solution’ doesn’t solve anything. What you are proposing is a cop-out for the government to actually spend any real effort on controlling crime on our streets. By moving everything indoors, where the government has no real jurisdiction, the police are now the ones to say “not in my backyard.”

 

M: My opponent highlights the possible benefits of a provincial curfew. While the proposed curfew doesn’t claim to eliminate crimes and shenanigans committed by youth, it is an idea with no immediate foreseeable ​downside. Kids getting fake IDs and trying to get into bars may happen, but most of the time they are caught and turned away anyways (provided the bar isn’t crooked in its dealings). As for unprotected sex, that’s an educational thing. It’s the province’s responsibility, as well as parents at home, to preach the benefits of either protected sex or abstinence. Kids are less likely have sex if parents are upstairs. Furthermore, it’s not about forcing kids to stay indoors; it’s about exploring alternatives for letting kids with boundless energy loose with nothing constructive to do. As you also pointed out, there is the issue of kids with abusive families. If a kid has to spend more time at home because of legal constraints like a curfew, then they will be more likely to speak up and want to change their situation. Lastly, if you’re proposing that we do not enforce a curfew because there’s no governmental jurisdiction over what happens in the home and that we should just let kids roam the streets in the night like hoodlums, then I say that that is pure baloney. For these reasons, I resolve that a curfew on minors would likely be a beneficial thing for society if it was able to be enforced.

 

H: This motion is unconstitutional, plain and simple. Everyone has the right to paid work, mobility and other essential freedoms. You mention that parents should be responsible for preaching values. I agree! They should also be responsible for keeping their own kids in line. I know mine did. Once again, you assume that all kids are good for nothing “hoodlums” with “nothing constructive to do.” I for one remember my evenings filled with debate club, band practice and Kumon (thanks, Mom), not filled with running around with boundless energy, hollering in Timmies parking lots, spray painting nearby dogs and pushing over old people. The only message we will be sending out to these kids is, “You cannot be trusted as individuals in society.” Yes, there are certain restrictions we put on underage children and youth such as driving, drinking and voting, but you are going one step too far. We don’t simply ‘experiment’ with drastic regulations such as this. You haven’t even mentioned how the government plans on enforcing this. If anything, it will be more money and resources spent on useless measures such as this. This is just another case of the older generation blaming the younger for things that they are completely innocent about. This resolution must not and will not stand.

Karthicka Suthanandan & Andrea Tang

Members At-Large in McMaster Debating Society

 

K: Last week, Invisible Children released a video that went viral instantaneously. The video documented personal testimonies and accounts of issues in Uganda, specifically the crimes of Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army. The heinous nature of Kony’s crimes essentially appeals to the viewer’s emotional side, outlining the crimes of abducting innocent children from their homes and turning them into soldiers. Though Kony has terrorized Uganda for years, the Stop Kony 2012 campaign has actually brought it to youth attention. Not only inspiring hope, the campaign encourages individuals to do something about the issue and stop the tragedy from spreading.

 

A: It is indeed nice to see youth paying attention to things other than their so-called “first world problems;” however, what it is essentially promoting is the idea that merely joining a Facebook group or re-tweeting a video can cause real social change. It can be easily agreed upon that justice for Uganda is not even close to a simple matter. The injustices occurring in Uganda and its neighbouring countries cannot be reduced to the faults of Kony alone, nor can true justice be brought to victims through simply catching one man. If youth don’t direct their positive energy toward implementing a set of workable solutions, they may be disappointed when the justice and change they’re expecting does not occur.

 

K: It is important to note the aims of this video. They specifically talk about “changing the conversation of the media that influences us everyday.” Facebook and Twitter are everywhere, but even the smallest step towards social change is more purposeful that status updates about Snooki’s pregnancy. First and foremost, this video is about awareness and a first step to action. It is a good start and certainly directs the focus of the world to Kony’s crimes. Problems may not dissolve with the single arrest of Kony, but with the world paying attention, they can be changed.

 

A: A campaign titled “Stop Kony” promotes youth to put to justice one man involved in starting a complicated problem in Uganda. Unfortunately, even with such a start, the majority of youth that has not actually researched the complexities behind this issue believe that stopping Kony is equivalent to stopping all the problems presented in the original video made by Invisible Children, which we all know is not actually true. When the Globe and Mail interviewed some of the actual victims of the Ugandan war, they indicated two things that were needed for true justice in their country. First and foremost, government leaders need to be responsible for the victim’s suffering (as government soldiers are alleged to have committed serious crimes against civilians such as rape and murder as well). Secondly, victims of atrocities should be compensated by those responsible. This really proves that capturing Kony is only a small part of what really needs to happen.

 

K: Maybe the campaign needed to be simplified. If you want people to get involved and make a difference, it isn’t exactly convincing to make the goal seem impossible. By telling people they have to simply pass on a video, spread awareness and get the government involved, two benefits result. One, it reaches the ears of everyone and results in discussion like this, which gives government officials incentive to intervene, analyze the situation and find a suitable course of action. Second, if something actually happens in a situation that has been ignored, the benefits of Kony being indicted certainly outweigh the harms. Can’t partial justice be better than none?

 

A: There are some potential harms in simplifying a complicated situation such as this. Firstly, it is actually counterproductive to make youth believe we have all the answers. Youth are better off being taught the real complexities and truths surrounding political issues such as this. Invisible Children is trying to make the war that Kony has started known to youth, and oversimplifying it may not be the right way. The recent energy brought out in youth will be a waste, and a great opportunity will be lost if it is not directed toward a real solution. When youth see that they are not making a real difference, won’t they be discouraged? Perhaps Stop Kony is a campaign with good intentions, but is not very well thought-out.

K: I will agree that the Stop Kony campaign does not provide a comprehensive solution to the issue at hand. However, that is simply not the point. The campaign does not expect youth around the world to come up with a well-developed political strategy to end civil dispute in Central Africa. The point is to inspire awareness; how viewers choose to define their involvement is another concern. Stop Kony is a chance to truly dedicate oneself to an issue, rather than just acknowledge it and walk away. Many catastrophes reach the news and become forgotten once they are out of the headlines, becoming an “out of sight, out of mind” situation. The difference is that this video inspires action and involvement. Non-profit organizations like Free the Children show that when emotion is channelled into action in a manageable way, it makes a difference. Building schools, donating a few dollars, these things don’t make nations educated, they don’t end poverty. However, they do build on situations that need repairing, just like Invisible Children’s campaign is using the power of awareness to build involvement that did not exist otherwise.

 

A: The Stop Kony campaign has brought extensive awareness to the situation, and there is value in what the campaign has done thus far. However, only time can tell if this campaign will actually bring change, and what value this campaign has for the actual victims we are trying to help – the people of Uganda.

Violletta Nikolskaya & Meghan Booth

McMaster Debating Society

 

Q: Should we pursue and prosecute the people behind the robocalls, or is it politicals as usual?

V: Voting is a democratic right that people have fought for through multiple civil movements. Unfortunately, there have always been, and always will be, election scandals. They are so common that most international electoral watchdogs tend to discuss whether levels fraud during an election season is either at ‘normal’ levels or moderate by comparison. It is personally difficult for me to stomach how a scandal, associated with a right that women before me fought to secure, could be so candidly dismissed. It vitiates the democratic process. Most recently, the Harper government has been under fire for an alleged robocall scandal. It is claimed that a fraudulent use of robocalls (computerized autodial calls with a recorded message) was committed when individuals received messages that attempted to dissuade citizens from voting by telling them that the polling stations had changed locations. The RCMP is investigating the matter. If it were to come to light that a member of the Harper government allowed this, I believe that the government should be charged for attempting to corrupt the democratic process and for electoral fraud. Dissuading citizens from accessing their facilitated right is bad for the country.

M: Let me first say that all parties involved (excluding the perpetrator of course) know that it is fundamentally and morally reprehensible to tamper with the electoral process. There has always been some level of questionable behaviour in Canadian elections. Hiring a company to call certain voters several times and direct them to the wrong voting stations is not only annoying but wrong in a moral sense. The media likes to remind us that this situation is certainly above and beyond normal political shenanigans and calls into question the very sanctity of our democratic system. But first of all, it seems that we are unable to nail down a perpetrator in this case. Secondly, we cannot take back the past. Finally and most importantly, when these types of things take place they most often happen without the knowledge of the head of the party. The party leader doesn’t have the time or the scruples to pull a stunt like this at the cost of their campaign. For these reasons, I don’t feel that Harper and his government should be charged criminally for the actions of some unknown perpetrator.

V: I agree that PM Harper probably didn’t have the time to pull off a stunt like this at the cost of his campaign, but someone in his party may have in certain ridings in order to get the edge. As the party leader, Steven Harper is responsible for the actions that take place under his rank. It is his responsibly to ensure that his campaign and parliamentary members are adhere to the same rules and laws that he must. “Every vote counts,” after all. In the last election, many ridings were separated by only a couple hundred votes. Thousands of complaints (31,000 reported) were made by voters who received these messages and received other harassing messages by robocalls.Many of the ridings were so affected that it has been brought to question whether the outcome of the election would have been the same had this issue not occurred. Thousands of individuals were wronged in their ability to exercise their right to vote. This is significant, considering that we live in a representative democracy. Our voice and our vote affects the policies implemented locally, federally and internationally. Changing the overall outcome of the election means that Canadians were not fairly represented.

M: By all means, this is an important part of our government system, to get to the bottom of the matter. Realistically, though, there are way too many people who have a motive to rock the election boat. Sure, the Conservatives had an election to win; that’s an easy motive. The Liberal Party was clinging to life during this last election and could have just as easily done something as underhanded as this – using a Canadian calling company, not an American one, I might add. What really hasn’t come to light yet, though, are the revolutionaries responsible for the riots in British Columbia not too long ago. As for the “level of security in the voting process,” well, in addition to the United States recount fiascos of past elections that point to the failures of security and technology, I would also like to point to a press release by NASA that discloses how often their systems get hacked. I don’t think that Canadian election security measures are so far superior that something like a hacking on the part of a revolutionary is out of the question. This is exactly something that would be right up their ally. While I don’t dismiss the need for the Conservative Party to be thoroughly patted down, I do think that all parties should be considered equally.

V: No one person is above the law. To excuse a fraudulent act by the government is to contradict the fairness and justice of our country. Canada was quick to condemn other international leaders that were elected despite alleged acts of electoral fraud or corruption (think back to Iran’s election and the most recent Russian elections), but has found itself in the same mouse trap. At the very least, if the government has nothing to fear, a transparent and public inquiry should be held to conclusively determine the outcome of the alleged claims. However, in this case, if the conclusion is that the government is guilty, then immediate action must be taken to ensure that a precedent is set so that any Canadian governmental body cannot act in such ways and expect to get away with it.

M: Looking at the world’s events in recent years, I have never been more proud to say that I am a Canadian. With the economies around us imploding, fiscal policy and budget-balancing has proved an effective tool in keeping us all relatively safe and comfortable in our standard of living. This was one of the key platforms of the Conservative campaign and one that was certainly delivered on. We cannot take the past back, and throwing our “gracious leader” and his cronies in jail is not going to fix the problem. Mr. Harper and those in his upper echelons are most likely too busy with more important matters that if it was someone in his party that caused this uproar, then it was probably some hooligan who wanted the support of the winning party on his resume who pressed a couple of buttons and started this whole thing up. The Conservatives won by a sizable amount, and the ridings of Guelph and Windsor only cemented further the majority. So, not only do we have no idea who actually did this, but I believe the Harper government won by enough of a majority that this situation is a minor technically that points only to the bigger issue that is national security. This is not to mention the even-keeled governance he has actually been able to provide. Furthermore, if it was some bottom feeder election campaigner or a radically left leaning communist, then they, if found guilty, should be punished to the full extent of the law. They’ll be released within a year any way.

Matt Martorana & Karthicka Suthanandan

McMaster Debating Society

 

Q: Is the Balanced Refugee Reform Act going to be too damaging to future immigration?

Matt: Immigration Minister John Kennedy recently introduced Bill C-31, which will reform Canada’s refugee policy. A refugee is a person living outside their country of origin or habitual residence because they have suffered persecution on account of race, religion or political opinion. According to Kennedy, Canada’s immigration office is flooded with “bogus” refugee claims, where many people who seek refugee status are not in “serious danger.” To solve this problem, Kennedy intends to label certain countries as “safe countries” and thus make it more difficult for individuals from these countries to obtain refugee status.
Kari: The changes incurred by the Balanced Refugee Reform Act are to the benefit of those claimants with founded claims because it ensures them faster and more inclusive support. These reforms are simply that – reforms to a system that remains fundamentally the same, simply working faster and more efficiently. Currently, the number of unfounded claims unnecessarily slows down the system. The matter of people abusing the system at the risk of others in serious need is no small matter. For individuals in need, this is a hindrance to the new life they wish to begin, while for those abusing it, buying time is all they want. The proposed bill has the ability to cut wait times for hearings with the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada from 19 months to 60 days, removing failed claimants within a year as opposed to several. With these changes, the Canadian Government is even now able to increase the annual refugee target resettlement from 2,500 to 14,500.
Matt: The Balanced Refugee Reform Act puts too much authority into the hands of the Immigration Office, and specifically into the hands of the Immigration Minister, allowing them to be the judge, jury and executioner of determining who will qualify as a refugee. Rather than allowing the people whose job it is to help refugee claimants decide which countries are safe, politicians become the ones in charge of the decision. This is a serious problem, because determining which country is “safe” becomes a political question.
Kari: The system is still the same and will take into account the same humanitarian beliefs, though it uses authority to create structure and protect itself from corruption. Assuming that unfounded claimants cannot be distinguished from those with legitimate claims simplifies and underestimates the hearing process. The new bill comes out of a strong understanding of the system. The fact of the matter is that there are people who abuse the system and it is done so in correlation to certain areas, making the new policy’s regulations about safe zones necessary. For instance, claims from Hungary nearly doubled between 2010 and 2011, even though the rate of acceptance is only about two per cent. Consequently, these high rates of rejected claims contribute to the worsening backlog that is slowing the system to a halt.
Matt: The focus on the “bogus refugee claims” is nothing more than a political tactic that Kennedy wants to use to ensure that this bill passes. I do not deny that there are individuals who are abusing the system, but we have seen this tactic used by the Harper government before. Either you are on board to resolve the problem of bogus refugees or you are not. Suddenly, not supporting this bill means not solving the problem. While we should solve the bogus refugee problem, Bill C-31 has serious flaws, such as authorizing to strip refugees of their status and deport them years later if the government figures that the refugee no longer faces a risk of persecution. People who have already been approved as refugees might be deported even after years of living in Canada. This bill will also give the government the authority to detain any non-citizen as an irregular citizen for up to a year without any judicial review.
Kari: The current system negatively affects the claimants themselves, as well as Canadian taxpayers, with failed claims costing $50,000 of social service expenses. The reformed system cuts costs to $29,000, will allows for savings toward other areas. The Canadian government also announced increasing Resettlement Assistance Program funding to $54 million. They aim to promote more successful integration into society for refugees, because contrary to this idea that the government will begin arbitrarily deporting refugees, the humanitarian value of helping these individuals is still inherent to our practices.
Matt: I acknowledge that Bill C-31 may not only be faster for our immigration system and cheaper, but we should be careful if we are valuing human lives in terms of dollars and cents. For instance, think about what this bill would mean for European refugees. Any country in Europe would be considered a “safe” nation. Only five per cent of Europeans who apply for refugee status ever attain it, yet it is apparently fair to turn that five per cent away because the majority of Europeans may have made “bogus” claims? My point is, there are still families who legitimately require refugee status, even if their country is labeled as safe, and we would be wise not to overlook them. Yes, our current refugee policy needs reform, but replacing it with a more imperfect, corruptible system, which Bill C-31 supports, is not a better idea.
Kari: Someone has to make the tough decisions, and there is really no evidence to say that the immigration minister will use political influence to make poor decisions. It is an exaggeration to assume this bill will create some overly formatted system that does not make exceptions or recognize individuals in need on an unconventional basis. Even this proposed small five per cent can and will be heard. If anything, the example of only a small minority of EU applicants qualifying is exactly the problem. There is no reason to promote an old sloppy system that is to no one’s benefit. Instead, we need to continue to be progressive and adapt our system to the changes that affect us.

Hasheel Lodhia & Amanda Mihoub Wright

McMaster Debating Society

 

H: In almost every society, there exist celebrity role models. Particularly in North America, there are hundreds of celebrities that are looked upon by millions of people of all ages. It is even more evident that younger generations are constantly bombarded with impressions of what to be and how to act. However, with this power should come a high level of responsibility and consequence. Kate Moss, Whitney Houston (R.I.P.) and many other high-profile stars have a history of cocaine use. Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears and several others have a history of drinking and driving. In many of these cases, little or no action is taken. They can expect fines (which don’t put a stress on their wallet in the slightest) and occasionally a custodial sentence. In the rare case that they are condemned as equals to the rest of society, their high-paid lawyers have no problem settling things out for them, and they continue doing what they do best – flaunting their lifestyle. What message does this send out to our youth? What internal and international image does it give of our country for placing people above the law due to their wealth and fame? Celebrities need harsher and more realistic punishments to show the public that their crimes are in no way acceptable.

 

A: I do not agree with Hasheel’s argument that celebrities, due to their status as “role models” and the fact that they tend to have more resources than the average person, should be punished more harshly. First of all, I take issue with the blanket use of the term “role model” when referring to celebrities. A role model is someone that people look up to, that they want to emulate in a positive way. Celebrities who have problems with the criminal justice system are not role models. These celebrities have displayed socially inappropriate behaviour, and even if they are not punished harshly for their offence, they are not given positive affirmation for their actions. In fact, it is always the opposite; their behaviour is deemed unacceptable. Also, though the media is a powerful force of socialization, people have many other influences in their lives, such as teachers, parents, peers, etc. It is more likely that a person steals a car because all of their friends are doing it than because they see a celebrity, who has done the same thing, receive a fairly light sentence for their actions. The celebrity is still being punished if they are fairly tried and convicted of a criminal offence. Celebrities aren’t the only ones with more resources than the average person. Wealthy people who are not in the public eye do too, and they also have access to better lawyers etc. Shouldn’t they be punished more harshly too, according to Hasheel’s argument? But, that doesn’t seem fair. This is a slippery slope, as every person is supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law.

 

H: Yes, celebrities who have problems with the justice system shouldn’t be considered role models, but the fact remains clear that they are. No pre-teen saw Lindsay Lohan in any less of a light after she got a DUI. Nor did their opinion change of her when she was given less than two hours of jail time, a small slap on the wrist, for a repeat offence (something that would not have been the case had any layman done the same). The purpose of the law is to reprimand those who have wronged society in a way that is proportional to the damage that has been done. I think it is extremely safe to say that an unknown homeless man doing crack in a back alleyway does not do nearly as much damage to society as a star of Jersey Shore snorting lines of coke on a hooker’s belly at a party, driving home drunk, feeling fly like a G6, and then having the details and pictures of their night plastered all over the media by the paparazzi. Yes, there are more influential roles in an adolescent’s life, such as parents and peers, but it is extremely ignorant to say that celebrities aren’t role models regardless of the bad personal decisions.

 

A: I disagree with Hasheel’s argument about the purpose of law. Laws are integral to the functioning of society; they facilitate social order. The concept of punishing someone in a way that is proportional to the damages that they have caused to society is not necessarily compatible with the idea of punishing celebrities more harshly for their crimes. The drug dealer who strategically befriends a vulnerable person just to hook them on drugs, or the drug cooker who actually created the drugs, is just as much, if not more, responsible for drug-related deaths and criminal offences than a celebrity who gets caught on camera taking drugs. Punishing a celebrity more harshly because they are in the public eye creates two different justice systems, which is detrimental to the functioning of society.

 

H: A celebrity is anyone deemed to be a national or international phenomenon, the world “celebrity” and “media” go hand in hand. The International Narcotics Control Board has openly stated that when celebrities take illegal drugs, it glamorizes them. Celebrities are not “normal” people. They are elevated above everyone else by choice. They enjoy greater benefits of society, but as a result, do more harm by condoning certain actions. However, it is not only the act that is important when deciding punishment, but the surrounding issues and context of the crime. A woman who takes drugs in front of her children is not only committing a crime, but setting a bad example, and should therefore be reprimanded further. Punishing individuals proportional to the damages to society is very much relevant to celebrities, who choose to live a life under the public eye. Just like how politicians are often scrutinized for their every action, past or present, the same goes for celebrities.

 

A: While some celebrities may glamorize drugs, others also demonstrate the horrors of addiction and drug use, and serve as powerful examples of the horrors of drug abuse. “Celebrity” is also a term that is hard to define; would it apply to everyone in the public eye? Locally known people as well as internationally known people? What about a popular teenager that everyone else in the school imitates? A two-part justice system would be difficult to implement; one could not come up with a fair criteria to make the distinction in every case between celebrity and non-celebrity, or to distinguish the level of influence that a particular person is exercising on others. It just simply shouldn’t be relevant whether or not a person is a celebrity or not; the punishment should fit the crime. When judges sentence a criminal offender, depending on the charge, there are certain guidelines that they must follow. The legal system has to remain fair and unbiased for society.

Sumeet Khanna & Violetta Nikolskaya

Mcmaster Debating Society

 

S: Think what you may of Newt Gingrich, but he sure knows how to be radical. ‘Let’s colonize the Moon!’ Okay. I want to first look at the practical benefits of a purely scientific colony. If we place astronaut-scientists on the Moon, build them a base, and allow them to take observations and operate technology specifically made for the Moon, a host of scientific avenues open up in terms of space discovery. Many point to the ample source of materials available on the Moon that we can use for the construction or fueling of a spacecraft. A Lunar base could more easily launch rockets to Mars due to the Moon’s lower gravity. Sending a human to Mars has been an aspiration for quite some time now; if a Lunar landing marked human progress in the 20th century, a Mars landing could certainly mark it for the 21st century. There are other benefits to be had as well. We could use a Lunar base for an observatory; high frequency telescopes wouldn’t be hindered by diffraction due to the lack of a sizable atmosphere. The list goes on, but I’ll pass it over to Violetta.
V: Of course, Sumeet would present the most captivating argument to open up his case. However it falls short on certain areas. Firstly, the resources that the Earth is truly in need of do not reside on the Moon. Resources like helium, which is used to cool down an MRI machine, are found in space but not in sediment. Secondly, the Mars exploration missions are coming to a close: the ExoMars program, a joint effort between NASA and the European Space Agency, is near collapse due to the withdrawal of NASA’s support. Lastly, a mission to Mars from the Moon is not a logical step. Descending onto and coming from the Moon would be a poor use of fuel. Currently the world’s finances are not in a position to fund specific space exploration programs that will not conclusively provide us with the resources needed in the immediate future. The resources that the Earth needs are helium and other simple resources that can easily be found not too far into space. The funding that would be pooled into this project will not be transparent, as are few things under NASA’s classified jurisdictions, and will not benefit us at this moment in time.

S: Well, Vio, the moon’s soil is actually rich in helium-3, highly sought on Earth for nuclear fusion. And the moon is vital for us to get to Mars, as many scientists see it as a fuelling station for spacecraft; it may also help to get some data on long-term human health on the Moon before we go to Mars. As for space agencies, I need only point you to Virgin Galactic and the now booming commercial space industry. But I want to extend the reach of this proposal now. I think there’s a case to be made for generally colonizing the Moon. Politicians and scientists alike have a moral imperative to prepare for end-of-Earth scenarios. Asteroids pass-us by all of the time. Earth is over-populating, and resources are dwindling. A lot of countries still have nuclear weapons. Given these variables, a Moon colony would not only allow humankind to hedge against these risks, but would also be a natural step in the evolution of humankind. The preservation of our species, I would argue, is an ultimate good, and every measure possible needs to be taken to ensure our survival.

V: How did we end up in a position where we are conceptualizing ‘end-of-the-world’ scenarios? We ended up in this position on our own accord due to mass consumerism, tactless globalization, a disregard for living within our means and a disrespect of the planetary natural processes. For example, the citizens in the UK throw away around 30 per cent of their groceries due to excess consumerism. Clearly there is an issue with the way that people on Earth understand the resources we have and the amount of waste we produce. We use resources improperly. Until we understand how to conserve energy and resources, we should not be able to branch out and destroy more resourceful areas. That is why we have natural wildlife and rain forest sanctuaries; we are attempting to save what we have left. Furthermore, on a more economist stance, exporting materials to the Earth would be incredibly problematic due to the cost of transportation. Issues like solar wind, fuel and human resources will cause the price of these resources to increase drastically, some estimates say. Before we ask ourselves ‘where can we go for more resources?’, we must answer the question of ‘how can we survive on less?’

 

S: How can we survive on less? By learning, innovating, moving forward and not sticking ourselves on one planet. Vio’s right to list off our global tendency to waste, but even if we magically reverse our habits and become ultra-sustainable as a population, resources will run out. Further, imagine what we could learn from living on the Moon; imagine what innovation, what energy-saving, what sustainable practices we would learn from this adventure? Space exploration is most certainly our next evolutionary next step. If Vio wants to save the environment, down the road, that may involve moving people and industry to space, which is a reality we have to accept. Finally, though, on a more theoretical note, I think we have a moral imperative to spread the life and beauty of human civilization throughout the universe - a universe that we usually characterize as cold and barren and frightening. So let’s colonize the Moon, and let us prove to ourselves once again that we are capable of taking another giant leap for humankind.

V: Moral imperative? I could understand and engage with your arguments until this point. The human civilization has stripped the very foundation of anything it inhabits. We would not be inhabiting or colonizing the Moon to do anything but, once again, strip it of all of its essential resources and minerals. How is that in any way beautiful or moral? If we run out of resources, it will have been on our own accord and an issue that we must come to terms with and address. Furthermore, we must recycle our resources because we still have retained a large portion of our minerals.Funding a project to gain resources that will inevitably only become accessible to the rich is a true form of supporting a dynasty. Funding a project with money that could be used to build infrastructure and environmentally sustainable projects is a true form of supporting a simplistic and problematic endeavour. How about we try to fix the problems we’ve started before we go on to create bigger problems we have no right to create in the first place?

Wendy Chi & Amanda Mihoub Wright

McMaster Debating Society

 

Wendy: Statistics about what students are doing after university are painting a less than optimistic picture of the future of undergrads across North America. In many cases, recent grads find themselves in one of three scenarios: unemployed, working in a field unrelated to their education, or returning to school for another degree. As a result, students have begun to question whether the knowledge garnered during their time in university will translate to finding a career and performing well in it. Sadly, for a large proportion of students, it won’t.  At a certain fundamental level of the current system, this actually makes sense. Students often forget that most universities are, first and foremost, research institutions. Teaching undergrads is only a secondary function of these schools and a side job to professors.  What does this mean for students? Aside from the fact that their needs are not always a top priority, there is also an inherent bias in what they are taught that favours theoretical concepts over real world applications. Course content and skill development are presented from a research perspective because that is what professors do for a living. It’s no wonder that more and more people end up pursuing graduate studies, since that is the natural path to follow in a university setting.

Amanda: Wendy is correct when she says that a university degree no longer guarantees employment; however, I do not agree that it is a result of universities failing to teach workplace skills or the theoretical nature of university material. Rather, the devaluation of academic credentials is due to many other factors, such as the expansion of universities since the 1970s. Even though universities are geared towards research, students do develop skills that are necessary for workplace success and employment. Universities offer programs such as internships and co-ops with the explicit goal of fostering students’ workplace skills and to give them concrete, hands-on experience in the career field that they wish to pursue.  As well, universities simulate workplace settings; students learn that they must attend class for a certain amount of time in order to take notes and to succeed, they must respect deadlines or they will be penalized, and they must develop a certain level of skill in order to obtain their university degree. Most importantly, they learn that this must all be done on their own initiative, and that the responsibility for the quality of their work is theirs alone.

WC: I agree that internships and co-operative education programs can be an excellent way to supplement education with practical work experience. The problem is that at many universities, McMaster included, not enough students are participating in these programs. Enrollment in co-op programs is limited to only a privileged few students who can reap the benefits of the experience. In addition, the fact that the co-op schedule disrupts extracurriculars and other year-long commitments can be a major disadvantage to some. As for Amanda’s claim that university simulates a workplace setting, my answer is yes and no. Yes there is a certain structure to the university experience that translates to the workplace (deadlines, schedules, etc.) but is it enough? Although basic organization and time management are important, the relevance of other heavily emphasized skills, such as essay writing, conducting secondary research and test taking, is often limited to academia. It is equally important for students to acquire the interpersonal, communication and leadership skills that are prerequisites for success in the real world.

AMW: I agree with Wendy’s assertion that students need to acquire interpersonal, communication, and leadership skills in order to succeed in the real world. However, these skills can be acquired at university through the group work that goes on in classes, club membership, and involvement in student life. As well, a lot of the skills developed through school work, such as effective writing and communication skills, are actually very transferable and extremely important in many workplace settings. Students have agency, they are not simply passive actors, and they cannot expect to be guaranteed skills and abilities by simply attending a post-secondary institution. Students must actively work on their employability. Yes, there are not as many co-op’s and internships available to students as there should be, but that is not the universities fault but rather the result of the current economic climate. Choosing between club involvement and co-op may be a tough decision for some, but it is a sacrifice that students must be willing to make. It is a tough and competitive job market, but it is not solely universities’ responsibility to ensure that students are prepared.

WC: Amanda makes a good point that students have a role is seeking out their own personal development. However, that doesn’t change the reality that students spend years of their lives in school and thousands of dollars on tuition with the expectation that a university degree will make them better off in the job market. Although the transferable skills gained from group work and extracurricular involvement can help accomplish this, these activities usually come second to the independent study required to perform well in classes. Regardless of their autonomy and initiative, students can only operate within the constraints that the university places on them. Consequently, it is up to the faculty and administration to make changes if they want to produce graduates who are ready for the challenges of the workforce. Programs and services such as co-op, internships, career fairs, career counselling, and other workshops are a great start, but they have to be expanded to serve more students so that they are provided every opportunity to develop their employability.

AMW: A clear-cut answer to this issue does not exist. The current employment market requires an improved effort by both universities and students to increase the employability of students. Students need to be aware of the fact that a university degree does not guarantee them employment and take initiative to improve their own employability and transferable skills. Universities should also offer more career services and place more emphasis on the importance of employability to students; however, universities are a place of higher learning, academia and research and it is unreasonable to expect them to make students’ employability their main focus above all else. The devaluation of credentials has already occurred and it is unlikely that the times of merely having a undergraduate degree and obtaining guaranteed employment will ever return.

Matt Martorana & Andrew Terefenko

MacDebate & the Silhouette

Q: Will Research in Motion be able to survive the year in light of its recent struggles?

Matt: With Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis stepping down as Research In Motion’s co-CEOs, RIM hopes to send a message to its investors that it is ready to make the necessary changes that will turn the course of the company around. Despite this change in leadership, I argue it is unlikely that RIM will actually have renewed success. The main problem that RIM faces is their failure to innovate against their competitors. RIM’s Blackberry and Playbook offer nothing to consumers that other smart phones and tablets – from Apple, for example – do not already offer. This poses a serious problem.

If RIM cannot increase its customer base, it will not be able to survive in the competitive market. In the case of Apple products, users have access to millions of “apps” that can perform almost any action. RIM’s competitors are making further innovations to their products while RIM is not. In the case of the Blackberry, one may argue that BBM is unique to RIM, but BBM alone is not enough. (iPhones now have a feature called iChat that does many of the same things as BBM.)

Others may argue that RIM has now created a number of apps for the Blackberry, but the selection of apps for the iPhone is much wider. It is difficult to see how RIM can innovate its products to make them more attractive to the consumer, and hence why I feel that they will not be able to turn the fortunes of their company around.

 

Andrew: As a company, RIM has had a lot of trouble dealing with the innovations of their competitors, but I feel that their chief executive board was aware of this in their most recent choice of CEO. By promoting industry-veteran Thorsten Heins, they know full well their need to draw upon his extensive R&D experience to come forth with a new flagship product. Having risen from his starting position to CEO in only five years, coming from his highly relevant previous position as Chief Technology Officer at Siemens AG, he will be a great asset for a company that desperately needs to reinvent both their public image and their core product. In a recent video he posted to the web, he outlined a few key concrete plans he has for the company, which bodes well for a CEO who has to take the reigns of a fairly tumultuous corporate entity.

 

Matt: The appointing of the Thorsten Heins to be the new CEO may be a great short-term solution, but I am skeptical about how this will impact RIM in the long run. Besides luring customers away from Apple and other competitors, RIM also needs to ensure that its own clientele will not switch from using RIM products to Apple products (or products of any other competitor). This has proven to be a difficult task, especially in the last year, in which RIM experienced two network failures. These network failures have created great disdain and mistrust between consumers and RIM. The Blackberry was supposed to be a dependable phone that the businessperson could rely on, but these failures have tarnished that image. This trust with the consumer is especially difficult to gain back when RIM’s competitors do not have a track record of network failures. Although appointing a new CEO may seem like a step in the right direction, I question whether this CEO will be able to do anything different than what Balsillie has already done.

 

Andrew: The recent three-day service outage was certainly inexcusable for a device that many rely on for day-to-day activities. On that note, RIM sincerely realized the failure on their part to ensure a reliable product and, to that end, offered $100 worth of free apps to affected customers as a gesture of goodwill. Additionally, it can be speculated that the CEO change was a response to that same outage and poor fiscal year. If their Board is willing to go as far as replacing the two co-founders of the company, they can be counted on to make drastic changes for the better future of the company.

 

Matt: RIM has always been a leader and innovator in targeting the business community. I would agree with anyone who claims that there is no better phone for business than the Blackberry (although I am sure some may disagree). But in the last year and a half, RIM has tried to expand their products from the business community to the consumer market. So far they have failed to reach the consumer in the way that many of their investors had envisioned.

I see no reason why in 2012 RIM should be any more successful in reaching these consumer markets. Many of RIM’s competitors have bigger budgets and more human capital so that they can put out a better product. Thorsten Heins may be aware of the problems that currently plague RIM, but this does not mean that he is equipped to solve these problems.

 

Andrew: It was not premature for RIM to try to enter the highly congested consumer market, but it was clear that their marketing model did not succeed. That being said, it is clear through Heins’ initial ascension statements that he has big plans for the company, as far as a decade away. He wants RIM to go back to what it became famous for, and also its namesake, that being of research. Under his leadership, the company will put a far greater focus on R&D and quality assurance if his plans come to fruition.

Despite that, 2012 will still be a difficult year for RIM, as they come to terms with bad press and unknown leadership, but it is because of their renewed drive to innovate that I believe their future may not be so grim. They conquered the business world with their aesthetically professional, compact and surprisingly durable device, and with many consumers’ aversion to using touch-screen devices, the Blackberry will still see many years of use in light of their competitors’ extreme focus on removing buttons altogether.

They may have fallen behind in the communications race, but clearly have the right set of ideals needed to get back to their former glory.

Sumeet Khanna, Co President, McMaster Debating Society

versus Andrew Terefenko, Opinions Editor

 

Which system of voting is better, first-past-the-post or proportional representation?

 

SUMEET: First-past-the-post (FPTP) is a system of democratic voting that has recently come under a lot of scrutiny in Canada. Operating as the primary voting system at the provincial and national level, critics allege that FPTP is an unfair method of electing representatives to their respective legislative bodies, because it is not proportional to the numbers of votes cast for each party. Although this criticism is fair, it fails to take into account the ways in which FPTP balances pragmatic and democratic ideals in order to produce – more or less consistently – majority governments that are more stable and effective at passing legislation.

 

ANDREW: Proportional Representation (PR) is another method of determining the make-up of a representative body, and one that I feel  better encompasses the collective needs of the voters. With a FPTP system, we may have a greater representation of the exact government that the voters elected in a literal sense, but the votes that did not go towards the elections’ victors go completely unheard.

 

SUMEET: There are many variations of PR as an alternative system to FPTP, but they all share the same fundamental flaws. The first myth surrounding PR is that it is more representative of voter choices in terms of actual seat-distribution in Parliament. Indeed, PR does allow for smaller parties to secure seats in Parliament, and if there are not enough seats won by a single party, a minority government must be formed. Several parties may need to form a post-election coalition in order to exert majority voting power in the legislature. Independently, these parties may represent their electors, but as a coalition, they do not enjoy any type of definitive support, in that voters did not initially vote for a coalition government. Contrast this with FPTP, where governments like the current Conservative federal government enjoy a clear majority via winning a majority of regional seats. On the topic of constituencies, with most types of PR, citizens vote for parties on the ballot, and the parties then proportionally distribute seats based on a pre-determined list of representatives. This system eliminates the traditional MP-constituency relationship; without this relationship, there is no MP accountability, and further, constituencies lose MPs as advocates on the national stage.

 

ANDREW: The greater flaw present in FPTP is the idea that voters are forced into choosing between the two most popular political parties, because they know full well their vote will be wasted otherwise. It encourages them to vote against the party they dislike, even if they do not fully want the leading opposition in power either. In this sense, the incumbent party would greatly benefit from people voting for minority parties in a FPTP system, as any vote cast to a “throwaway” tertiary party is a vote not cast for their main opposition. The MP distribution under a theoretical PR system may be flawed to a degree, but if a region casts a vote for a party, for the principles they stand for, then the representative can be counted on, to an extent, to work towards fulfilling the party promises in his or her region as best as they can, just as much as a representative that the voters knew beforehand.

 

SUMEET: Minority governments, which are often the product of PR systems, pose their own inherent problems. Without a majority party, smaller parties can stymie the ruling party and effectively bring the house to a state of non-confidence in order to trigger an election. This state of constant flux can lead to an unnecessary amount of elections held within a short period of time, even when public opinion has not necessarily changed. The slew of elections since the Martin minority in 2003 highlights this fact. Moreover, smaller parties that hold swing votes can effectively hijack legislative debates with extremist points of view. Take for example the general trend in Israel's PR system, where the center-right Likud party has traditionally been forced to turn to right-wing and religious parties in order to obtain coalition governments. These coalitions are dominated by extremist politics because of the influence of these smaller parties, leading to more ideologically charged, gridlocked legislative assemblies. Proponents of PR hail these coalitions as a "triumph" for democracy and pluralistic representation, when in fact they foster gross inefficiencies.

 

ANDREW: While proven to be flawed in practice, the same can be said of any theoretically beneficial idea. Communism, at the ideals, is a system that everyone can agree is beneficial to each person equally, yet is negatively portrayed because of its poor execution elsewhere and in the past. While PR is prone to extremism at the minority levels, FPTP is just as easily a victim of problems that the theory could not anticipate. A FPTP system inevitably leads to a two-party struggle, where one is constantly working to undermine the other, with no third or further parties to break ties and help quash the petty bipartisan antics that plague an otherwise civilized nation.

 

SUMEET: PR may be more ideal than FPTP in a purely democratic sense, but it certainly increases the likelihood of producing ineffective governments that are drowned-out and watered-down by smaller parties that may not hold more than a tiny fraction of the popular vote. FPTP is by no means a perfect system. However, it does manage to infuse the democratic principle of majority voting with a sense of pragmatism, in that it tends to produce more stable, action-oriented majority governments.

 

ANDREW: While I agree with the need for stability in the representative bodies of a nation, I also feel that each and every voter should have a voice in parliament. If every vote literally counted, and your wishes would be somewhat effectively represented, the youth and other non-voters would likely feel more compelled to show up to elections and we might escape the measly 49 per cent voter turnout of this recent provincial election. Both systems have merits and flaws, but I feel that PR is the best fit for any nation that grows as fast as ours does in both population and cultural diversity.