Dozens of posters that looked suspiciously AI-generated covered campus this week, inviting male students to attend an AI debate sponsored by the Men’s Debate Society. The debate’s resolution: “The building of data centers in America is beneficial to the country.”  

The parliamentary-style debate took place on Sept. 11 from 5:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. in the St. Leo Room of the J.C. Williams Center. About two dozen men gathered for pizza, masculine community and intellectual sparring.  

After reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, the audience declared their initial votes for and against the resolution. Two men voted “yea,” supporting the construction of AI data centers, 11 voted “nay,” and five abstained. Next, the men stood, faced the east, and sang the “Salve Regina” in resounding baritone strains before officially beginning the debate.   

Emmanuel Marculewicz (addressed during the debate as “the Leader of Government”) led the affirmative side, defending the construction of AI data centers, along with his colleague Colin Reitmeyer. Maximilian Jones (addressed as “the Leader of Opposition”) led the negative side, contesting the resolution with his colleague Daniel Alva. All debaters donned long, flowing white wigs, evoking Parliament.  

The debate followed a strict structure: an affirmative opening speech, a negative opening speech, cross-exam questions, another affirmative and negative speech, audience questions, audience comments, and a final speech for each side.   

Marculewicz and Reitmeyer built their case for AI data centers on one central premise. Citing Thomas Aquinas and Pope Leo XIII, Marculewicz explained that science and technology are natural extensions of the rationality with which God endowed human persons. Therefore AI, and the data centers required to power AI, are goods for rational human society.  

Jones, on the other hand, countered that AI is destructive to society. He began his speech by describing the decrease in marriages, faith and physical injuries in the United States, and he argued that Americans have morphed from romantic daredevils to asexual wimps.  

Jones blamed this shift on the “massively wealthy technocratic class,” who rank profit and efficiency above the common good. Currently, AI is the pet project of these technocrats, and Jones declared that building data centers would only hasten the technocrats’ amoral vision for society.  

Following cross-exam, Reitmeyer contested Jones’ premise. Reitmeyer argued that AI actually undermines technocrats, since entrepreneurs can use AI to build their businesses and compete with “large liberal corporations.” Reitmeyer concluded that “AI is the best tool for democratization in our time.”  

Alva conceded that, if used correctly, AI could be a useful tool. However, he argued that Americans are too foolish and sinful to use AI without terrible consequences. According to Alva, “AI requires knowledge and discretion that most Americans don’t have.”  

After questions, comments and concluding speeches, the audience voted again on the resolution. Six men voted “yea,” nine voted “nay,” and two abstained. With the debate concluded, the men stood again, faced the east, and sang “Christus Vincit.” 

Although the debate was heated, it provided a wonderful opportunity for fraternal community among male students.                 

(From left to right) Colin Reitmeyer, Emmanuel Marculewicz, Nathan Ryan, Max Jones and Daniel Alva. Photo credit: Lilia Tokar