The UL Lafayette Debate Team returned from a competition at Georgia State University with two first place awards.
The GSU National Debate Tournament hosted more than 150 debate teams in the Fall semester’s first and largest policy debate competition.
UL Lafayette students competed in two days of intense preliminary debate competition; and a third day of elimination rounds against teams from University of Miami, Liberty University, Vanderbilt, Emory, Florida State, Northwestern (Chicago), Harvard, Wake Forest, Georgetown, Whitman, Samford, and Baylor.
UL Lafayette debaters earned first place speaker awards in both novice and junior varsity debate. Freshman debater Brettly Wilson of Breaux Bridge won first place speaker in novice division debate and Chapman Matis of Lafayette won first place speaker in junior varsity division.
The UL Lafayette debate team of Chapman Matis and Dustin Domangue of Breaux Bridge placed third overall in their division.
The team of Brettly Wilson and Ezekias Mondesir of Lafayette advanced to octofinals in their division and Alease Scott of Monroe and Dustin Chastant of New Iberia advanced to octofinals at their very first tournament.
Policy debate remains a research-intensive activity that favors hard work over merely speaking well. This year's topic asked whether the United States should cut farm subsidies and commodities tariffs.
UL Lafayette debaters contended that cotton subsidies were driving millions of Third World farmers into abject poverty. From a "Feminization of Poverty" philosophical perspective, they argued that the only hope for resolving many of the Earth's problems (instability, overpopulation, environmental decline) rests in bringing women out of poverty.
In elimination rounds, UL Lafayette debaters argued that the United States' support of industrial agriculture in the Klamath Basin bioregion of southwest Oregon is resulting in the mass extinction of Pacific salmon species and the destruction of five remaining Native American tribes who depend on the salmon for their subsistence and cultural heritage.
Students had to explain the nuances of Deep Ecological versus Social Ecological perspectives toward environmental sustainability. When debating on the negative side of the topic, students argued that cutting U.S. subsidies would drive Brazilian deforestation into overdrive and foster the international use of monoculture crops. The ecological implications of these disadvantages often overwhelmed the advantages presented by opposing teams.