Photo by William Jewell College via LinkedIn.

Over the weekend of March 14, the William Jewell Speech and Debate team competed at the National Parliamentary Tournament of Excellence  (NPTE)and became the new national champions. Third years, Patrick Terry and Trent Dixon, spent the academic year competing against some of the most renowned debate teams in the country. For Terry and Dixon, their previous summer was filled with preparing to compete against the country’s best and they walked away as the first William Jewell National Champions since 2007. Both will be returning to the team next year as seniors and are hoping to look at an undefeated season. 

“We are hoping to maintain our NPTE championship,” Terry said.

They are wanting to make the community of debate more welcoming . Parliamentary is an impromptu style of debate that gives the competitor 30 minutes to prepare for the entire round. Once the round begins, the teams aren’t allowed to engage in research or search through their files. Therefore, the competitors have to be prepared for any possible outcome. This skill set can take months to years to master, and many debaters can still struggle with this version of the event. As stressful as this may seem for those just starting, Terry explained that the upperclassmen are always ready to help. 

“We love coaching just as much as competing,” Terry said. “It helps build a spirit of success.” 

With the season now at a close, the duo is now looking forward and focusing on what is to come. They have already started to concentrate more effort into the team building and structuring it for next year. William Jewell is continuing to find ways to support its students with the resources they need but the team’s passion has never stemmed from obtaining money. Terry described their feelings for debate as a “love for the game” and something that he wants to grow more in the upcoming months. 

“We have a dedicated team and a great staff,” Terry said.“It’s a great way to build a community.” 

As the team known as Jewell DT, or team Dixon and Terry, goes into its last year at the college, debate teams all across the country are ready to see what they accomplish next. With a winning streak hot on their heels, Terry and Dixon are excited to see what comes next for their debate careers. 

“We are hoping for an undefeated season next year,” Terry reiterated “That would be the dream.” 
The team plans to hold on to their coveted title earned with unwavering dedication in the year to come. With this spotlight being shone on the William Jewell Debate Team, the hope is that they can continue to grow and high school students will continue to come after hearing about the program. Head coach, Mason Remaley, will continue to lead the team next year and, through the dedication of Terry and Dixon, the college is able to add another national championship under its belt and expand its horizons once again.

Earlier this month, the two leading candidates in the 2024 United States Presidential Election faced off on the debate stage for the first, and likely only time. The event, hosted on ABC,  lasted 1 hour, 45 minutes and was watched by over 67 million viewers across major TV networks according to Nielsen TV ratings. Democratic candidate Kamala Harris and Republican candidate Donald Trump debated over the economy, immigration, foreign policy, healthcare and more, while also attempting to use their time in the spotlight to display their visions for the future of America, visions that will shape the world into which we as students will enter.

This article is a brief summary of the debate’s major themes and moments, and of the effects the debate has had on polling data and on broader culture in the ensuing few weeks. A debate transcript is available from ABC News and all debate quotes used here will follow the ABC transcript.

The Talking Points

Former President Donald Trump’s main talking point throughout the debate was immigration, specifically his claim that Democrats’ weak border policy had let waves of criminals into the country to wreak havoc. These claims often soared into the extreme (such as claiming that Haitian immigrants were eating cats in Springfield, Ohio, which the Springfield Police Department quickly denied), but in total painted a dreary picture of an America overrun by criminals as a result of inaction on the part of the Biden/Harris administration. When pressed on his own policy positions, Trump rarely explained his policies in detail. When questioned about Obamacare, he railed against it as a disaster while claiming he had “concepts of a plan” for replacing it. His explanation of how he would create the “greatest economy in the history of the country” was similarly nonexistent. 

Vice President Harris had a broader suite of major points, and she focused more on how to change the future than on the challenges of the present. She put particular emphasis on her proposed economic policies, intended to create what she termed an “opportunity economy.” Her proposal included providing tax rebates to small businesses, increasing the supply of housing, and working on cost caps for medication and other necessary consumer goods. Where Trump mostly attacked the Biden/Harris administration’s record, Harris turned to the past where needed to deflect those attacks, including her retort that she and Biden had spent the last four years “clean[ing] up Donald Trump’s mess.”

The Barbs

Harris’ main line of attack on Trump throughout the debate was to tell the audience that they were going to hear an endless barrage of lies from Trump, a point she returned to repeatedly when attacking several of Trump’s more outlandish claims. Her jabs highlighted Trump’s claim that Haitians were eating cats in Springfield and his assertions that blue states allow post-birth abortion, particularly when the moderators themselves corrected Trump. Trump’s attacks against Harris were more varied, but one common thread was claiming that Harris’ lines either were “incorrect statements” (as he said in reply to her calling his plan a national sales tax) or that her points had been given to her in advance. His attacks, however, often fell flat, especially against Harris’ requests that the audience research Trump’s platform themselves.

Another zone of conflict that wasn’t recorded in the transcript but dominated the live broadcast was their body language and use of space, particularly when listening to their opponent. Harris dominated this field from the very start of the debate, marching directly to Trump’s side of the stage and intercepting him before he could get to his podium for a pre-debate handshake. From then on, Trump appeared nervous, and he almost never looked in Harris’ direction for the rest of the debate, even when directly speaking about or to her.

Harris, on the other hand, took every opportunity she could to exploit the cameras. Every time Trump spoke, Harris spent the time looking incredulously towards his side of the room, and several of her expressions have since become memes. Her early assertions about Trump’s lying had primed the audience to expect lies; her facial expressions ensured viewers would both pay attention to those lies and react with the appropriate bafflement.

Harris’ focus on Trump’s lying did not stop some of her phrasing from falling under scrutiny for stretching the truth. In particular, NPR notes her claim about unemployment rates under Trump and about the lack of American troops in active war zones as being misleading. Harris’ statement that “there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty… in any war zone around the world” is technically true, but US troops are still under threat, and in January of this year three US service members were killed in a drone attack in Jordan.

The Visions

While the debate is intended to let candidates discuss policy and leadership, both candidates also used it as a chance to promote their visions of America and the perspective they would take as president. Nowhere was this more evident than in the closing statements. Harris’ closing statement focused on her own policies, her ideals for the future, and her leadership, with only a single reference to her opponent. She further described her career history and experience that she would bring to the table, recounting her journey from “prosecutor… (to) now vice president” and explaining that throughout her career she has “only had one client: the people.” Harris’ debate work portrayed her as an experienced leader seeking to be a President for all Americans who will protect their fundamental freedoms while working to provide actual policy solutions.

Trump’s closing statement, on the other hand, focused entirely on Biden’s record as president and Harris’ record as vice president, and on the current state of the nation, which he depicted as disastrous. He called America “a failing nation… that’s in serious decline” and described Harris as “the worst vice president in the history of our country.” The only policy achievement from his previous term as president that he listed in his own statement was a brief claim that he  rebuilt the military, a claim he explained in no further detail. Where Harris portrayed herself as a candidate of progress and the future, Trump portrayed himself as a candidate who seeks to return America to a past that he treats as a lost golden age, without providing a roadmap for that proposed revitalization.

The Impact

Vice President Harris was overwhelmingly ruled the winner of the debate, even among conservative media outlets. However, it’s unclear if the debate performance has been influential on the electoral race more broadly. Politico polling analyst Steven Shepard argues that the debate had minimal impact, with polling averages barely changing in the wake of the debate. Pennsylvania saw a 1% shift in the FiveThirtyEight polling average from before the debate to afterwards, but that shift was the largest jump Harris saw among any swing state. Polls in Wisconsin actually shifted away from Harris, with the FiveThirtyEight polling average shifting from +2.4% for Harris before the debate to +1.9% for Harris afterwards. The cultural and media impact of the debate is undoubtedly significant, especially when coupled with Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Harris in the immediate aftermath of the debate, but it remains to be seen whether the media frenzy will amount to anything at the voting booth at the beginning of November.

Certain places on this campus strike chills in my very innards. Surely everyone can feel this presence of the abyss, this savor of sweet, ancient, festering danger? These places that repulse but somehow draw one inexorably closer? In such a place lies the Perilous Sofa of Prokoptas. At times, one needs a nap, urgently, immediately, and I found myself in such a situation not long ago. Wandering the dusky corridors of the classroom on Curry Hall’s lowest floor, I came, as in a dream, upon a sofa that looked so inviting, so soft, so comfortable that I could not but take a nap on it behind the small stage. But in the middle of my pleasant sleep, a dark shadow fell over me, and I awoke to a man in blacksmith’s attire holding an enormous iron ax in one hand and a thick, twining rope in another. “How disappointing. You’re exactly 3 cubits, 15 1/3 fingers long,” he muttered, and faded into the gloom. Immediately, I knew. It was Prokoptas, the ancient Greek bandit supposedly defeated by the hero Theseus long ago. If you are taller than 5’ 5 1/2”, do not nap upon the Perilous Sofa, lest you wake up to find your height very unpleasantly changed. Resist its cushions, its glorious curtained twilight, its deep, soft embrace, and find some less haunted site to rest from your afflictions. 

Some rooms are not so diabolical, and it may take some time before you realize they are inhabited by ancient terrors from wilder times. The evil of the Chamber of Contemplation is not so easy to miss. Each time I walk by it to get to class, I wish I hadn’t, and each time it lies behind me instead of before, I put it out of my mind. I suppose this is the reason why none of us have thought to question it; we forget before it can drive us to very madness. The Chamber of Contemplation is usually located on the second floor of Jewell Hall, and it houses – well, what it houses should have been obvious. It is a very small, doorless room containing two chairs that face each other. What could it be for except the staring contests of doppelgängers? Late at night, walking from the empty study room, I saw them sitting in the chairs, leaning in, mere inches away from touching, exact mirror images. Each gazed steadily into the identical pupils of the other, moving not at all, toothy grins on their faces. I ran for my life, and I saw no traces of them in the morning, but I know what I witnessed that night and I warn you sincerely: do not go anywhere near the Chamber of Contemplation. I do not know the customs of the Gemini, but their malicious eyes are sharp and their ravenous teeth are even sharper.  

The last dark secret that you must know about the treacherous haunts of William Jewell College is the most mournful, the most melancholy and tragic. Hazardous, yes. Life-threatening, undoubtedly. It invokes a certain visceral pity that may drive you to an untimely end, for deep within a certain building there lies a clutch of rooms that have been set apart forever, consecrated to the rite of Debate. Glittering trophies adorn the tables. The scent of victory laurels lingers in the air. But behind a wide gray door lurks a dark, cavernous recess, and in that dark, cavernous recess reside the Spectres of Debate. Cross not that threshold! Their anger is aroused; the debate room is impure! Those who have not completed the sacred ritual have entered and polluted its sacrosanct forthrightness! At midnight we have heard them vengefully clatter and bellow in the dim light of the cave, and indeed even in the afternoon, when I took this photo, I very nearly was grasped by their cold hands and dragged into the abyss, although I had completed the rite of temporary passage. Even still I feel their phantasmal fingers and shudder; my mind can no longer be at peace until they have achieved that final rest for which they yearn, until they have reconciled their grief and outrage by ritual sacrifice. Let this be a warning to the curious, to the seekers of thrill and excitement: go not into the ghastly cavern unless the debate team members permit under the ordinances of the ancient oracle, or the Spectres may devour you in their pursuit of justice breached so long ago. 

If I should disappear mysteriously in the near future, I beg of you, dear reader, consider my warnings and take them to heart. Fear the Perilous Sofa, avoid the Chamber of Contemplation, and by all means, leave the Spectres of Debate in peace. Take care of your safety; the world is wide and dangerous, and there is much we do not know, much that hungers with an insatiable hunger in the deep darkness of William Jewell College’s untamed places.

On Nov. 8, Missouri voters will have the opportunity to vote “yes” or “no” on this year’s midterm election ballot in response to a proposed amendment to the Missouri constitution. 

A vote “yes” on the proposal would effectively amend Section 21, Article X of the Missouri Constitution and allow the Missouri General Assembly to increase the minimum funding required for police forces that are established by a state board of police commissioners. The amendment would create an exception to Section 21, which otherwise forbids funding increases of services unless the state specifically pays for that increase. Because the Kansas City Police Department is currently the only state-controlled police force in Missouri, the proposed amendment would only affect the KCPD and Kansas City for the time being. The primary outcome would be an increase in the KCPD’s minimum funding by 2027 without reimbursement to the city. A vote “no” would veto this proposal. 

Advocates of Amendment 4 suggest that this bill would prevent further attempts to defund the KCPD, as explained by Sen. Tony Luetkemeyer (R-34) who sponsored the measure.

“This [amendment] ensures the brave men and women in the KCPD have the resources they need to keep our city safe,” Sen. Luetkemeyer said.

Other advocates for the amendment express concern that our local officials are not equipped to make these decisions themselves: “The actions of the mayor and city council last year raised tremendous alarm regarding the stability of funding for something as important as the Kansas City Police Department,” Rep. Doug Richey (R-39) said.

However, critics of Amendment 4 argue that the proposal would be an overreach of government power, noting that every other city in the state maintains lo CXCV cal control.

“It just makes absolutely no sense that the state legislature would dictate how our local government should allocate its resources – all for the protection of the police in response to a false narrative of defunding,” Gwen Grant, president and CEO of the Urban League of Greater Kansas City, said.

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas weighed in on the matter earlier this year, expressing a similar sentiment: “I do not support anything that takes away our ability to work with our local police department and neighborhood leaders in terms of how we get to better solutions for violent crime.”

While the common talking points appear to mirror a two-sided debate between Republican and Democratic parties, some argue that the issue should be a place of common ground between parties.

“This is not a Black or white issue,” Vernon Percy Howard Jr., adjunct professor of at William Jewell College, said. “This is an American issue, symptomatic of a democracy in crisis and under siege, where state overreach is rampant in the stripping of voting and governance power from the people.” 

Howard – a Jewell graduate (‘86), pastor at St. Mark’s Church in Kansas City and President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Kansas City – continues: “[Amendment 4] further erodes democratic principles by stripping from local communities the voice and power to determine their own policies and budgets which impact the well-being of their children, families and communities…Don’t local communities reserve the right to self-governance on key local issues?”

In 2020, Howard was also the recipient of Jewell’s Invictus Social Justice Award and the Harold L. Holliday Civil Rights Award from the Missouri branch of the NAACP for his work in organizing and educating Kansas City communities about civil rights issues and activism. With proposals such as Amendment 4, Howard emphasized that voters should be aware of their historical and local implications.

“Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr….called this kind of overreach ‘interposition and nullification,’ citing the early mid-twentieth century movement among states to disrupt and turn back the rights of Blacks to vote and gain access and inclusion within the mainstream of American prosperity,” Howard said. “Critical thinkers and 21st century global leaders own the moral responsibility to remain awake on these issues. Particularly, the Jewell educated scholar, who takes seriously one of the critical questions of our core curriculum, which is, ‘how shall we live?'”

Election Day is on Nov. 8. Registered voters in Clay County can find their polling place here, and check their registration status here. For more voter resources, click on the link here.