“I’ve never seen any society engage in a debate like this before,” said Dante Vignuzzi, vice-president (academic) of the public affairs and policy management (PAPM) student society.
This past week, students gathered to attend the PAPM debates. The student-run event, held Nov. 6, allowed students to apply their skills beyond the classroom.
Students were drawn from all years to argue their stance on topical, real-world policies for up to six minutes at a time, on two different issues: whether Canada should cooperate with China and whether Canada should adopt a universal basic income (UBI).
“PAPM is full of people who have strong opinions,” said Vignuzzi, on the importance of creating this event. “I think it’s very beneficial to allow PAPM students to come forward, practice rhetorical skills, as well as let themselves be known in front of their peers.”
Vignuzzi, who moderated the debate, said his role as vice-president (academic) is to make sure students have an opportunity to apply and engage with their course material in a critical way, and he believes a moderated debate was one of the best platforms to do so.
The pre-debate voting poll forewarned the close debate at hand, with those in-favour of Canada cooperating with China coming in at 52 per cent, and those against at 48 per cent.
Mhanna–Sandoval, a debater in favour of cooperation, argued it would not be a good idea to “alienate a country that has seven per cent of the world’s population.”
Jami McElrea, the second debater in favour, addressed Canada’s responsibility to cooperate with the world’s superpowers, to gain their support in combating imminent global issues such as climate change.
She claimed although the opposition denounces cooperation with China, they fail to explain how to proceed if their plan was to be enacted.
The opposition’s first debater, Cooper Mendelson–Grasse, enforced his position that participation in China’s economy is a bad idea financially for Canadians as China has recently incurred debt at an increasingly alarming rate.
“China’s economy is fundamentally broken,” said Mendelson–Grasse.
He also referenced some of the hindering laws that brought China to where it is today, including their one-child policy which ended in 2015 and resulted in a dramatic gender imbalance and economic issues within the country.
Harris spoke to the imperialistic nature of Chinese politics and economy, arguing Canadians should not submit to a country that opposes our morals.
“China doesn’t care about climate change,” said Harris in the closing remarks, rebutting the opposition’s claim that cooperating with China would help prevent climate change.
Post-debate polls showed the in-favour majority persisted and won at 54 per cent, with against cooperation at 46 per cent.
The second debate topic merited a much more distinctive preference in the pre-debate vote. 72 per cent of the audience were in favour of UBI, while only 28 per cent were against it—signalling a hard-pressed battle for the opposition.
Natania Olusanya, the first speaker in favour of UBI, argued the freedom UBI grants is necessary, as the procedure for applying for financial help from social programs is a humiliating and intrusive process, whereas UBI provides the means to provide for oneself without bureaucratic interference.
“People know the most about their own self needs,” said Olusanya in the rapid-fire round.
William Dunstan, another advocate for UBI, argued while the welfare state works, UBI is the best option.
“It’s difficult and time-consuming to apply for these social programs,” said Dustan.
Those opposing UBI supported the social programs Canada’s welfare system has put in place to aid those in need.
“UBI is not the way to assure social or financial security,” Amin Ali, the first opposition debater said.
Ali added although it has social benefits, it would not economically solve poverty and it is also unaffordable for the government.
Ali Al-Saady, the second opposing debater, said although UBI is efficient, it is not effective in the long-run. Al-Saady also noted UBI was never tested on a nation-wide scale and that this uncertainty was troubling.
In closing remarks, Ali said Canadians should not simply depend on a “blanket policy that gives everyone 20,000 dollars.”
Overall, the audience was still in favour of UBI with a finishing percentage of 61 per cent, and those against at 39 per cent, meaning those arguing against were still able to convince 10 per cent of the audience to change their minds.
Featured image by Saarah Rasheed.
