Overall, most members of the audience were impressed with the candid replies presented by the urban development sector leaders. Tindle Oglesby, an administrative assistant in the Yadira Bernas and Partners firm, stated, “I really believe that my employers are genuine and care about what they do…They are not out to prey on people or report false numbers, they just want to make money and provide for the welfare of their company just like anyone else.” After a brief intermission, moderator Wischmann Cuthbert returned to the podium with introductory remarks for the second session. Ericson Artiaga described the next debate as one centered on urban development marketing ethics in the short-term and long term. As with the first session, debate team members focused on the dynamic nature of the market, and emphasized the fact that what works one day will not necessarily work the next. Following initial discussions, technology moderator Zofia Coplan, asked the debate teams about the use of SPAM email in their urban development marketing campaigns, which created a light chuckle from the audience. Lurline Pennix, from the Schmelzer Dennie & Hayley Jelle LLC firm, stated, “We’re not hawking viagra - so don’t worry, our email campaigns aren’t that bad… but we also affirm the use of double opt-in email lists to assure that customers who are truly interested in our urban development products get the right emails.” The urban development debate was considered a success and portions were televised on local news channels the next day. Response was positive and most people left the auditorium with a better impression of how things work in the urban development industry, and we impressed with the candor and openness of major corporate executives. Debater Marlo Cabon also echoed these views regarding technology and marketing, exclaiming, “Everyone in this urban development sector knows how to blast out email, notices, fliers, etc. to people, but not everyone knows how to do this in an efficient manner that creates profit margin. Efficieny in our industry is absolutely key.” “I truly believe that our customers, not regulatory agencies, are the best source of urban development marketing feedback. Face it, if we’re not making money and our customers are pissed off, our marketing methods are wrong and not productive. Don’t forget that private companies are in the business to make cash, and don’t make a profit banging their heads against the walls,” revealed Riggens Barrera, CMO of Alyse Tufo and Slusser Randol INC. This assertion brought the audience to their feet, although a few sat quietly in anticipation of a rebuttal from opposition team member Dyche Steckman, a staunch believer in good ethics and standards. Moderator Carla Soulek opened the urban development discussion with a brief introduction of the debate objectives and rules. Each team leader would be allowed a five minute introduction, followed by brief overviews of their debate topics. Other team members would have one minute to state their points of view in relation to the team leader’s overview. Wimberly Schwarzer, debate team leader from the Busto Cantu INC urban development firm, opened with some frank remarks regarding predatory marketing practices in the industry. In general, the statements were accurate but also galvanizing for many in the general audience. It was widely known that the Busto Cantu INC firm used aggressive marketing tactics, but never had it admitted it publicly before. After the urban development topic introductions, associate moderator Amsdell Huyck briefly paused for questions from the news media, who lined up at a centrally located microphone in the auditorium. Most members of the media were curious about recent news items, although a few bashed members of the Bunny Lyken urban development marketing and advertising firm, who were alledgely involved in multi-level marketing schemes.