Members of the Brandeis Academic Debate and Speech Society argued the merits of the United States launching a pre-emptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities in the club's first public debate Wednesday. Jackie Saffir '10, the club's public relations coordinator who moderated the event in the Shapiro Campus Center Atrium, told the audience that public debates will probably be held at least once a semester with the purpose of "making debate accessible to the campus."

Evan Green-Lowe '10 and Jason Gray '10 argued in favor of a pre-emptive strike while Mariel Gruszko '10 and Rebecca Sivitz '09 argued against it. Each debater had eight minutes to present.

The debate was preceded by a short PowerPoint presentation about Iran, entitled "Iran or Who Are We Bombing This Time?"This included basic background and factual information about the country.

Green-Lowe led off the debate, explaining that the United States cannot wait any longer for a strike because Iran is a real nuclear threat with a history of supporting terror and a questionable regard for human life.He said that Iran "has no fear in being deceptive."

Green-Lowe added that once Iran has nuclear capabilities, they would set off a domino effect on other surrounding countries also striving to develop nuclear arms.

Gruszko then rebutted Green-Lowe, arguing that a practical problem to launching the strike is that the U.S. is already paying a lot of extra money to keep soldiers in Iraq.

She said the strike would sabotage diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran, and launching a strike now would make the United States compelled to bomb other countries that attain nuclear weapons later.

"Anytime we disagree we would have to gather troops and send them to war," she said.

Gruszko added that there are philosophical problems with a strike. The United States is throwing away human life despite the fact that disregard of human life is an issue that countries are trying to resolve in Iran, she argued.

Gray backed up Green-Lowe's opinion, arguing that Israel and the United States already have plans to attack Iran and have possible scenarios in mind.

Sivitz, however, said Iran only has two percent of the technology and resources necessary for nuclear arms and therefore does not pose a threat.

"Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons," Sivitz said to start off her speech. After all the speakers weighed in, the debaters urged the audience to pick sides.

Arthur Serer '11 aligned with Green-Lowe and Gray, saying that history shows how force and violence can intimidate and scare countries into stopping what they are doing. Both sides then gave final summaries of their arguments.

Saffir explained that this debate was "a litmus test for the future."She said that if an important campus-related event comes up, the club might do a public debate on that topic.

The society came in third place at the national competition held at Vassar College last April, and this winter break, seven members of the team will be traveling to Thailand for the World Universities Debating Championships.