LMCS debaters tackle tough topics

Social studies class tries new approach to learning

By Osei Helper | Manor Ink

Livingston Manor, NY – Livingston Manor Central School student Anthony Rivera stands behind a makeshift podium in front of his classmates. Behind him is a smartboard with a presentation slide projected onto it. Its title reads “Why Eminent Domain Should Remain” – “eminent domain” being the phrase that describes the right of a government to take private property for public use as long as there is just compensation. And Livingston Manor Central School’s senior Government class is about to debate whether or not eminent domain should stay.

The exercise is part of Joseph Clarke’s effort to educate his students about the complexities of managing the rights of the many as opposed to the rights of the few, an issue that is common in contemporary government.

Clarke is a social studies teacher at LMCS. He’s a recent addition to the staff, having joined the school at the start of the 2021-22 school year. In an effort to give his “students a chance to voice their opinions formally,” and “be able to see both sides of an argument,” Clarke has started having class members debate each other about topics related to social issues, his first time doing structured debates in a classroom. “I want students to understand that there should be civility in how they talk to and treat each other, even if they disagree,” Clarke said.

Clarke explained how the debates work. “Students vote on topics and then get randomly assigned to debate teams. Each team consists of four debaters with specific roles. Each debate has four rounds in which the teams can make their statements and counter points pertaining to the argument,” Clarke explained. “Winners are voted on by audience members, which consist of students and sometimes other staff in the building. All debates are moderated by a student who is tasked with keeping both sides on task and on time.”

The first debates were about First Amendment rights, the issue of free speech. “Specifically, if violent or vulgar music and art should be allowed, whether or not it leads to violent individuals, and how far personal expression is allowed,” said Clarke.

That debate was generally well received by the students, though some of the public speaking and teamworking requirements weren’t loved by all of them. The formatting for the debate had some issues, but the preparation and teamwork was good.

Government versus the individual

Fast forward a couple of weeks, and the topic of the second debate was chosen: eminent domain.

The students had just finished their unit on the fifth amendment, and eminent domain was one of the aspects discussed during it. The government’s ability to take private property for public use is obviously controversial. On one side, people argue that property is the owner’s and shouldn’t be taken; on the other side, people acknowledge that the government should be able to take property for the public good if necessary, such as for a road or other utility. This disparity made this a perfect debate topic.

The teams were randomly assigned, and a round of rock-paper-scissors determined which team took which position. The teams then got to work researching the topic. Each had a Lead Debater to present their overall argument; a Rebutter to counter the other side’s points; a Responder to continue the rebuttal and restate the side’s points; and Summarizer to reaffirm the side’s position.

The pro-eminent domain team was composed of Anthony Rivera, Lead Debater; Braeden Green, Rebutter; this reporter, Responder; and Peyton Darling, Summarizer. The anti-eminent domain side consisted of Jasper Karpowicz, Lead Debater; Kevin Bear, Rebutter; Uriel Cortes-Hidalgo, Responder; and Dakota Wilson, Summarizer. There were other students in the audience watching, and Clarke acted as moderator.

Arguments for and against

As mentioned above, Anthony Rivera first explained the argument in favor of eminent domain, listing the essential roads, hospitals, railroads and water supplies it has created. These utilities make it possible for society to function, and benefit the vast majority of people.

Jasper Karpowicz followed and explained that eminent domain often adversely affects the poor, racial minorities and the politically weak, those who can’t defend themselves. Many poor people rent, so they don’t receive compensation when their residence is taken. The government also sides with major corporations, causing people to lose their homes to private organizations.

After a two minute recess, Braeden Green and Kevin Bear went up against each other. Their main argument involved the Kelo v. New London case, in which private ownership was transferred to another private owner rather than to the government. The rebutters focused on whether such action is in the public interest and should be covered by eminent domain. The points for this argument fell a bit short, but they were picked up in the next.

Following another two minute recess, and Uriel Cortes-Hidalgo and this reporter faced off. The segment was more heated and intense, building on the previous discussion. It focused on the ethics of displacing of people from their homes, and issues such as homelessness, job opportunities and the working class were hotly debated. The segment ended with both sides coming out strong.

A heated summary

A final two minutes were allotted to each side to ready their Summarizers. Peyton Darling and Dakota Wilson stepped to the podium and gave their final arguments. Darling argued eminent domain is for the greater good of the society, while Wilson averred that the practice leaves people lonely and displaced. This segment kind of derailed a bit – and got surprisingly personal – but it marked the end of the debate.

The general consensus from Mr. Clarke was that while some of the arguments were lacking, and the frequency of eminent domain usage was overstated, the debate was good and equally competitive.

“Debates will become a staple of the government class moving forward,” Clarke said. “The students enjoy controversial and relevant topics. I feel it’s a worthwhile way to learn about important issues while developing communication skills at the same time.”