Debates aren’t only taking place at a national level anymore. It’s becoming something more personal to SFCC. The Debate Club, led by student Frederick Van Pallandt is currently in the process of becoming official again. It had closed up shop years ago after club meetings were poorly attended. But interest in the club has returned.

The Debate Club recently moved through to the Senate with a unanimous vote after presenting their constitution and budget on Tuesday, Feb. 11, at the Activities Board meeting.

Previously, the Debate Club had not received funding by the Associated Student Government. Debate Club plans on using their budget to possibly tour high and middle schools and present debates or talk about the importance of listening to different opinions, according to Van Pallandt.

During a podcast hosted by The Communicator, Van Pallandt spoke about how the Debate Club is an environment in which students can come to socialize while engaging in civil discourse and learning new ways to critically analyze ideas.

Nicholas Jackson, the treasurer of the Debate Club who was also in attendance at the podcast, said that Debate Club is “meant to be a space where students can feel comfortable speaking their mind and hearing new topics they might not have heard before.”

One of the main goals of the Debate Club is to promote civil discourse, according to Van Pallandt. They also hope to diminish social tensions and polarization that has been seen all throughout the country.

Even though these are the main goals of the club, Van Pallandt stated that the rules of Debate Club do not allow slander or bullying of fellow students. According to Jackson, the club aims to “foster communication amongst everyone who shows up.”

The topics covered by Debate Club can range anywhere from pop culture to heavier topics such as theology. Topics are decided largely by the students in attendance at each meeting, after being vetted through the leaders of the club.

In the podcast, Van Pallandt and Jackson engaged in a mock debate using dating apps as their topic of discussion. Van Pallandt argued against dating apps, saying “how they promote hedonism and weaken social structures,” such as marriage. He also mentioned how dating apps encourage people to “use others as tools,” rather than people.

On the other hand, Jackson argued in favor, stating that as long as no one is being hurt and everyone is a consenting adult, there shouldn’t be a reason to be against dating apps. He also argued that many long-term relationships have been formed out of meetings on dating apps.

If you’re interested, Debate Club meets every Wednesday at 2 p.m., in Room 303 of the sn-w’ey’-mn building (Bldg. 24). Refreshments and snacks are provided, and in addition to this, Debate Club would look great on your transcript.