Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
All forms of debate, I believe, are essential to a democratic practice and ethos, and all young people should take part in debate at some point in their lives. However, it might be interesting for people to look at another form of debate, academic policy debate. This type of debate is not just for private schools, and is a serious staging ground for politically motivated young people. Also, most of the people who participate in academic policy debate are on the left of most issues.
In the early 90s, I was a debater for a school in Texas that regularly produced National champions in Policy Debate (or CX---cross examination). Debaters, in the main, I discovered were indeed radical politically, but usually to the far right. For the most part, my Policy peers without fail were extreme Libertarians, those of the everyone-has-bootstraps-so-they-should-use-them variety. Why, might you ask? Well, the foremost life goal for any given policy debater is to either be 1) a lawyer (Harvard, natch) or 2) a politician (Kennedy School, natch). Of course, the top notch teams in national policy debate always were very rich, very exclusive, very white private schools, or very rich and very white suburban public schools. Combine that with pouring over National Review articles for 4 hours a day (great source of unargued vitrol that seems prima facie credible), and you begin treading dangerous ground. Plus, 99% of Policy debaters (at least the good ones) are by nature complete assholes. I may not have escaped the asshole charge, but I had my eyes opened and used my assholerly for good. BTW, Policy (sometimes called Spread debate) encourages and rewards atrocious spelling.
I couldn’t relate to this description of debate in the slightest and I’m wondering if other readers felt the same. The “debaters” discussed in the piece sound clever and quick-witted enough, but they’re really engaging in dueling oratory. That’s not the same thing as debate.
So, here it comes. When I debated in high school and college (late-80s/early-90s) I had to walk five miles to school with several bankers boxes strapped to my back, through the blinding snow, and uphill (yes, both ways). Our judges judged our debates based on our evidence and arguments (not on how pretty or witty we sounded). To get this evidence, I, my partner, and everyone else we competed with had to read high-brow stuff like Foreign Affairs and Dissent to find the best and latest doomsday scenarios. I remember routinely staying up well past the point of serious sleep deprivation to “cut cards” (assemble the evidence in a useable format). I remember begging my parents to send me to the extra-long session of the summer debate institute. I remember the deep camaraderie. I remember how all my conversations had something to do with debate (“I hear Glenbrook North is running a new disad”) – well, almost all of them (“do you think that girl from round 2 was cute?”). The debaters and coaches I knew centered their entire existence on the activity; it was all-consuming. Does anyone else have similar memories?
For the record, I credit whatever success I have in my current career (university professor) to my debate experience. I learned it all from debate: library research, argument construction, argument evaluation, public speaking, etc. I doubt, however, I would’ve learned the same skill-set (or anything for that matter) from the “debate” described in the article, which sounds a lot like “Lincoln-Douglas,” “Parli” or CEDA in the 1980s -- the styles of U.S. debate that are/were universally mocked by the real debaters.
I agree with the other commenters here; the article describes a speech event, not debate. The author complained about the lack of improvisation, but one of the great things about policy debate is that the rebuttals always have to be off the cuff because you're never really sure what your opponents will say until they say it. And policy debate is mean and competitive and maybe unique as far as academic competitions go because the public school kids can be competitive with the private school kids (to a point... but there are a couple of state schools that are among the top teir of college teams right now).
I find political leanings of debate teams vary by region. In my experience, the Northeast is by far the most liberal region, both politically and in terms of what they allow in the debate round; judges are more tolerant of unorthodox rhetorical strategies (using music or rap or, in one round I judged last year, reading from a children's book, or in making philosophical arguments instead of strictly cause-and-effect policy arguments).
The event, called The World Individual Debate and Public Speaking Championships, is indeed that -- debate and public speaking. So to the prof. who bemoans the fact that this isn't the debate s/he is used to, there are other formats for debate other than policy cross-X. These students are in different leagues than you are used to, though that does not make them less valid, rigorous, or useful. Take them on their own merits. The league that most of the American competitiors are in do speaking tournaments as well as debates (parliamentary and cross-X). Public speaking is a much more creative category, and the lack of improvisation that Oppenheimer calls for, he calls for it because some of the events specifically require the speaker to improvise eloquently. Yes, some people love cross-X, but sometimes it amounts to not much more than intellectual ego-stroking, if you will. Of course there are significant benefits to all kinds of debate, but there is a lot more power in really engaging an audience.
Oppenheimer, nice article. I think you captured the essence of the event well. And I like your brother's reviews.
How is debate not about oratory? Debate has to be partially about being articulate and clever. I don't see how good speaking skills are not compatible with good research skills and understanding of facts.
The problem with modern policy debate, as my experience suggests, is the existence of spread debate, a format under which debaters are encouraged- trained even- to speak as fast as possible in order to cram as many facts, subpoints, and rebuttals into one speech as humanly possible, making it incomprehensible (and somewhat mind-numbing) to the average listener. This is simply poor speaking skills- illustrated by the number of "likes" and "umms" found in even the best speeches, which is unacceptable in parliamentary or extemporaneous- not to mention poor debate as rounds often come down to how many subpoints as opposed to actual clash of arguments.
Debate is about speaking skills and about argumentation. If the style does not allow for balance between the two (i.e policy and frequently LD), then frankly it is not debate.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
