Tuesday, Oct. 28, the College of William and Mary held the annual Raft Debate in the Sadler Center’s Commonwealth Auditorium, with a concurrent livestream that audiences could watch from Tidewater A. The event consists of a simulation in which three disciplines — the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities — are shipwrecked on an island, with each discipline represented by a faculty member of the College.
Only one of these representatives can escape on a small raft, so they must argue their case to an audience. The simulation also includes a Devil’s Advocate who makes the case that no one should escape the island. The Devil’s Advocate can also be voted as a winner. Additionally, a judge presides over the affairs. At this Raft Debate, the supporters for each academic area made as much noise as possible and had their applause measured by a dosimeter — whoever’s supporters made the most noise would win.
Class of 1952 Distinguished Associate Professor of Anthropology and Asian and Middle Eastern Studies Andrea Wright argued for the social sciences; Walter G. Mason Associate Professor of Religious Studies Andrew Tobolowsky spoke on behalf of the humanities; assistant professor of chemistry Isabelle Taylor debated for the natural sciences; assistant teaching professor of philosophy Jonah Goldwater served as Devil’s Advocate and Assistant Dean for Graduate Studies, School of Computing, Data Sciences and Physics Trey Mayo Ed.D. ’22 served as the judge and emcee.
Another notable participant was Amy the Squid, a woman dressed in a squid costume who received laughter and cheers upon her arrival. Flower wreaths were available at a table outside the auditorium, and the stage was decorated to resemble an island, including inflatable palm trees, beach chairs and more.
Mayo’s introduction for the Raft Debate praised the event and referred to the Better Arguments project.
“What you will see tonight will also tie in with the principles of the Better Arguments project, by learning how to express our viewpoints, engage in constructive counterarguments and make room to transform — and, perhaps, have a little fun along the way,” Mayo said.
After explaining the debate’s structure, Mayo then introduced the debaters. The event began in earnest with up to seven minute arguments from each debater.
Taylor went first. She began by citing products of science, such as the internet. She used scientists’ ability to conduct experiments for evidence as a point in their favor, and portrayed her opponents as lax on proof.
“In literature, if your novel fails, you just call it postmodern and say nobody understands you,” Taylor said.
Taylor also argued for scientists’ humility, saying that they acknowledge uncertainty and improve from failure. Then, to make a point about scientific curiosity, Taylor held up a sign with “FAFO” written on it and related the story of Hennig Brand, an alchemist who discovered phosphorus while trying to create gold by boiling urine.
Taylor furthered her case by equating scientists with superheroes, referencing Marie Curie and many Marvel characters.
“I’d say if you want to bring back a discipline that’s gonna save humanity, let it be the discipline that is run by superheroes,” Taylor said. “Look at Marie Curie. She was the mother of radioactivity. She discovered two elements and a little bit of a more sound method than Henning Brand. And she did it all while glowing in the dark. And look at the Marvel Cinematic Universe, right? It’s full of scientists, superheroes. I mean, Tony Stark: engineer, Iron Man, Bruce Banner: scientist and the Hulk.”
Taylor concluded by again emphasizing curiosity and humanity’s betterment through science.
“So in conclusion, I’m going to tell you that humans need to keep doing science, not just for the sake of innovation and survival, but for meeting that human need to ask questions about the universe,” Taylor said.
Soon after, she ended by throwing candy to the audience after announcing high-fructose corn syrup as a product of her discipline.
Wright spoke next, and included both praise for and digs at the natural sciences and humanities, including references to musical artists and astronomy. She then pivoted to explaining why the social sciences mattered most.
“But the thing is, social sciences are the linchpin. It is the thing that makes what we do at universities make sense,” Wright said.
Wright emphasized human interaction and communication in her discipline, particularly in reducing enmity and establishing understanding between people. She tossed inflated beach balls into the crowd, one of which resembled a globe, to symbolize the social sciences’ ability to introduce diverse perspectives and new possibilities for humans, while also recognizing the similarities shared by all.
“But what we learn is, there are things that are similar about people all over the world, right? We all laugh, we all cry, we make families, we love, we all grieve,” Wright said. “And so by doing this, we’re able to move towards things like world peace through this view of science.”
Her final point revolved around critical thinking and curiosity. She concluded by stating that the social sciences could create an improved, inclusive future for humanity, and that the social sciences would also aid and course correct the other disciplines, citing vaccine hesitancy and patriarchal messaging in Taylor Swift’s songs.
“So there are these really important questions that social sciences do, and what these questions allow us to do together is imagine big, beautiful new worlds!” Wright said.
Tobolowsky was next. While navigating a brief mishap with his PowerPoint, Tobolowsky made the case that the College’s charter emphasized the humanities as critical for students and that the discipline had historical importance.
“If this debate were taking place on stage in an auditorium at the College of William and Mary, rather than on a desert island, I imagine I would begin by referring to its original charter, which has this to say: ‘on the subject of its purpose, that the youth may be ply, educated in good letters,’” Tobolowsky quoted from the Charter. “It has been proposed to establish a certain place of universal study or perpetual college of divinity, philosophy, languages and other good arts and sciences.”
Soon after, the PowerPoint began. He first paraphrased an Abraham Lincoln quote to explain the situation and his stance. He then referenced science fiction, such as shows like “Battlestar Galactica,” to argue that people versed in the humanities are the best suited for leadership in disasters and hard times, whereas the other disciplines are unsuitable or create such disasters. His other points included the humanities as being able to maintain resilience thanks to stories.
“What is likely to give you more fortitude for the journey? The heroic tales of adventure and survival that are the humanist stock and trade, or doing the quadratic equation or whatever?” Tobolowsky asked.
Tobolowsky emphasized the ability of humanists to succeed in other areas and benefit society, including by referencing statistics about humanities majors and academic performance. In his conclusion, he stated that the humanities could suffice without the other disciplines.
“In the beginning was the word, and the word was everything, the one thing we cannot do without. If it were all we had, it would be enough,” Tobolowsky said.
He concluded with a screenshot from ChatGPT in support of his argument.
Goldwater, the Devil’s Advocate, went last. He began by saying that students at the College would prove their critical thinking abilities by considering him.
He referenced how, in the past, the Devil’s Advocate asserted that all three disciplines were needed to avert humanity’s doom, so no one could leave on the raft. He continued by making the case for each discipline to benefit from being on the island.
For the natural sciences, he emphasized opportunities for chemical, physical and biological research, such as chemists discovering medicines from organisms. For the social sciences, Goldwater highlighted the ability to run controlled experiments, understand social structures and avoid ethics committees.
“Run a real-life Lord of the Rings scenario,” Goldwater said.
For the humanities, he promoted a lack of judgment and ChatGPT on the island, the peacefulness of the environment and new opportunities for philosophers, artists and theologians, such as vistas to take inspiration from for artwork. Goldwater’s final point was the phrase “ignorance is bliss” — that is, humanity will only suffer in misery under the three disciplines.
He said that science leads to feelings of lacking purpose and joy, that the social sciences develop a vision of a depressingly cruel and unchangeable society, and that the humanities create uncertainty about reality while history reveals past horrors. His ultimate point was that human beings will find happiness without these disciplines.
“So, my friends, keep everyone on the island. It’s a win-win,” Goldwater said. “You’ll keep the disciplines where they will excel, and you’ll keep them the heck away from the rest of us, where we can live in bliss, free from the havoc one loan discipline would wreak. Oh, and don’t forget, you’re free critical thinkers. So friends, let the disciplines be themselves and save yourselves. Let no one off the island.”
After the initial arguments came the three minute rebuttals from each debater. Taylor acknowledged the other disciplines’ benefits but stated that she would commit acts of vengeance on humanity if she lost, perhaps working in tandem with the other losers. She ended by holding up the “FAFO” sign as a symbol of what she could enact, but stated that she would prefer helping humanity, and promised to bring candy back if she returned.
“What happens when you burn the scientist? They become the villain. All right? So you know you’re gonna give me a lot of time to plot the destruction of humanity,” Taylor said.
Wright first criticized the notion of “FAFO” sans social sciences as dangerous, and then used Pakistan as an example of the consequences of undervaluing social science in favor of other disciplines. She concluded by saying that the social sciences allow for an understanding of human diversity and the ability to develop a path towards our desired future.
“Social science helps us understand and imagine a better future,” Wright said. “So if we want to build this future together, we need to take seriously social science.”
Tobolowsky first pushed back on stereotypes of humanists before using the example of a tech billionaire unknowingly recreating buses as an example of narrow perspective from a lack of engagement with the humanities. He finished by returning to the idea of humanists as leaders in difficult times, with skills in areas like communication, able to guide humanity in a way that the other disciplines cannot.
“So if you want somebody whose major selling point is that they won’t annihilate all of us if they get off the island or somebody preaching togetherness, I think that’s beautiful,” Tobolowsky said. “But if you want somebody to help this society get back on its feet and not reinvent the bus, you want the humanities.”
Goldwater responded to the other disciplines by saying that science could be dangerous given the potential for vengeance, that the social sciences were intrusive in people’s lives and that the humanities could live more tranquilly away from society.
His last point involved portraying the disciplines as a trio that should not be separated, comparing them to children, toys and baby animals, and saying that such a separation would be an injustice.
“These three, they’ve come so far together. Are you going to split them up?” Goldwater said. “Think of a family of puppies, a litter of kittens, whatever a group of piglets is called, you’re gonna separate them from each other.”
Student leaders Rebecca Fuchs ’26 and Yuhan Yue ’26 helped pass microphones to audience members for the question and answer session that followed. The first round allowed one question per debater. Taylor was asked about her trustworthiness given potential vengeance against mankind, Wright about how social sciences will conduct research without the other disciplines, Tobolowsky about the television series “Lost” and weaknesses in these humanist leaders and Goldwater about what to do if the disciplines re-emerge off the island.
Then came the lightning round, which was less structured and allowed for a range of questions to be asked. These included the Devil’s Advocate announcing that he signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement, which he said in response to an inquiry about whether he wanted science to stay on the island so the world would be destroyed per the Devil’s desires.
After the question and answer session, Executive Producer of the Raft Debate Erica MacLeod arrived on stage with a pizza box from Mellow Mushroom. She poked fun at each discipline and implied support for the Devil’s Advocate. She also gave thanks to the students who attended the Raft Debate and announced that there would be pizza in Tidewater A after the event. The pizza box she was holding contained pineapple on pizza.
As a prelude to the end of the debate, Mayo used his dosimeter to conduct a vote on pineapple on pizza: the yays won. MacLeod expressed displeasure at this result before reminding the audience to eat pizza after the debate.
To end the debate, Mayo first gave thanks to several people, including student leaders Fuchs and Yue, before announcing the final vote.
“You will have 15 seconds to make as much noise as you can for the contestant who you think should get on the raft to save humanity,” Mayo said.
After each discipline’s supporters had their turn, there was applause for all the debaters, then more thanks given — including for Amy the Squid — and an informal drumroll.
Goldwater was announced as the winner, and he climbed into the raft afterwards, pretending to paddle the craft away.
Afterwards, three student attendees expressed their thoughts on the event to the Flat Hat.
Kaitlyn Cheatham ’29 was looking forward to an entertaining debate and felt this format struck the balance she was hoping for.
“I wanted to hear an academic yet humorous debate, and this was, well, the option for me,” Cheatham said.
Cheatham expressed that despite not being a humanities major, she did believe the humanities won and explained why.
“I believe that the point of being able to logic and being needed as a leader within society was a greater goal than the other two sciences and the Devil’s Advocate,” she said.
She added later that she shifted her favored winner from the social sciences to the humanities because of the logical thinking she saw in the discipline.
When asked about arguments she would have made, Cheatham said that the natural sciences should have emphasized rescuing the other disciplines more. She also said that the social sciences should have focused more on the necessity of questions that can help humanity.
Kathryn Day ’26 had asked the Devil’s Advocate about plotting with natural sciences to enact the world’s end. She said she had come to the Raft Debate because of a positive experience at last year’s debate.
Day disagreed with the Devil’s Advocate winning and expressed that both the natural sciences (which she called the life sciences) and the humanities had the potential to win. She thought the humanities would win because of the loudness of their supporters. She did not suggest any new arguments, believing the debaters handled themselves well. She also expressed nuance in how her major impacted her views.
“I’m a chemistry major, and I’m always rooting for life sciences, though, I don’t know, sometimes Devil’s Advocate makes a good point,” she said.
Sophia Lee ’27 said that she decided to attend this year’s Raft Debate because of her friends’ recounting of last year’s event, which she did not attend. She also explained why she thought the Devil’s Advocate won.
“I might be kind of biased because I had him as a professor in philosophy last year, but I just thought he had a lot more charisma than the other candidates, like, immediately,” Lee said.
Furthermore, Lee did not believe the natural sciences’ vengeance argument was effective, that the social sciences could have better handled questions directed to them, and that the humanities did fine. She cited the Devil’s Advocate’s costume, his humor and his PowerPoint presentation as more points in his favor.
In terms of arguments she would have made, Lee said that she believed the natural sciences should have stuck more to the point that they provide products and services that aid mankind. Lee is both a computer science major and an art major, and explained that her major did not necessarily sway her opinion.
“Maybe I came in with a bit of bias towards the sciences, but I was still kind of open to hearing what everyone had to say,” Lee said.
