By definition, a debate is a “contention by words or arguments; the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure.”  The debate I watched last Thursday barely fit the meaning of the word.
        The Apollonians and the Dionysians argued the issue of putting a pub on the Centenary campus for those of legal drinking age.  First, introductions were made.  Debating for the Apollonian side were Dr. Alexander, Dr. Brayford, and Dr. Demerath, all dressed and groomed conservatively.  Dr. Labor, Dr. Nicoletti, and Dr. Schlatter constituted the Dionysian team.  Their appearance was consistent with the Dionysian ideal of liberty--Dr. Labor flaunted long red hair, and Dr. Nicoletti was dressed on the liberal side.  After the reading of the resolution, the Choruses from both sides proceeded into the auditorium.  The Dionysian Chorus wore loud wigs, makeup, and clothing, and their entrance was chaotic and noisy.  The Apollonian Chorus, clad in maroon academic jackets, appeared pompous and scholarly.
         The Apollonians spoke in favor of the pub--they had plans to call it the “Olympus Bar,” to supervise drinking and monitor attendance, and to integrate it into the fitness program on the basis that, when used in moderation, alcohol is beneficial to one’s health.  The Dionysians replied, pointing out that the Apollonians want to control yet another aspect of our lives and that to moniter the use of alcohol would be to convert pleasure to duty.  Dr. Nicoletti summed up their views nicely: “Euphoria anytime, anywhere, anyplace!”  The Apollonian Chorus chimed in, quoting passages from the Bacchae and the Centenary Alma Mater.  Dr. Alexander led the first rebuttal by claiming that the Dionysians do not celebrate release, but chaos.  Dr. Schlatter, on the other hand, maintained that “health is only important when exiting to get to the next bar,” a statement which met with cheering and applause.  After that, the Choruses went to war, which was amusing.  In the second rebuttal, Dr. Brayford pointed out that health is indeed important; it is a prerequisite for pleasure.  Dr. Nicoletti scoffed, saying that the bar would be boring, that the Apollonians were “emotionally constipated,” and that pleasure is “not a place but an attitude.”  Dr. Demerath once again reinforced the idea that the pub would create unity and bring all the groups together.
        Dr. Shelburne, who mediated cleverly, called for the audience to vote.  The Dionysians won by a landslide and were presented with potted ivy plants.  Dr. Nicoletti proceeded to roll a joint from the ivy leaves, graciously sharing with the rest of her team and even her opponents.  What sportsmanship!
        I thoroughly enjoyed the debate.  I ended up voting for the Dionysians simply because they were more fun.  In regards to the real issue of having a pub on campus, I personally do not approve.  A bar would only encourage students to drink and provide easy access to alcohol.  The issue at hand was not how the pub would be controlled, but whether or not to have a pub at all.  If passed, the pub could just as easily be a wild drunken party as it could a controlled place to unwind.  I thought both sides had several solid arguments, and I agreed with some and disagreed with others on both sides.  I suppose this only proves my pure genius according to F. Scott Fitzgerald who wrote, “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time—and still retain the ability to function.”  (Just kidding!!)