By: Noah Star
I have trouble describing high school debate to those peoplewho are unfamiliar with our bubble of esoteric argumentation. How should Idescribe an activity too focused on making arguments instead of resolving them?Strategy dominates most debate rounds, and the conventional debate stratagem isto run up the score with voting issues. I will not stand on my soapbox andclaim that when I was a debater I avoided this tendency; I am just asvulnerable to my criticisms as every other debater. Yet, I do not see this asan issue with my argument, rather evidence that bolsters my claims. While debate’simpact on me, both in and out of the classroom, is immeasurable—I feel that Icould have learned so much more.
And so today, I am offering up a plea to those who are stillinvolved in the activity. Lincoln-Douglas debate’s esotericism is notinsurmountable. With the addition of a simple piece of advice to the debateplaybook, the activity can be a more positive educational resource and even abetter competitive outlet for its participants. And so, I will offer up myideas for reform (albeit potentially controversial) after a year removed fromthe activity in hopes to throw caution to the wind for all my successors.
The biggest issue I have with status quo Lincoln-Douglasdebate is spreading. At some point in debate’s history, it was decided thatspreading was an important skill for successful debaters. Rooted in thisdecision is the thought that argument quantity trumps argument quality. Itwould be wrong of me to claim spreading has no strategic benefit. Rather, in myappeal for debaters to slow down, I am appealing to a combination of theircuriosity and competitive drive. The more true debate stratagem is thatefficiency trumps speed, perhaps a reversal of the idea of quality overquantity. More likely though, emphasizing efficiency will encourage debaters todisavow poor arguments, and rather deploy as many thoughtful arguments aspossible.
What I mean by efficiency is more than just word economy.When I push debaters to be more efficient, I mean a more colloquial definitionof the word. As defined by the Oxford Dictionary, for something or someone tobe efficient means to “preventing the wasteful use of a particular resource.”In this instance, the particular resources are arguments. Employing badarguments to win rounds and leaving arguments unresolved/malformed bothconstitute wastes of said resources’ potential. The hope behind reducing speedin favor of efficiency is that debaters will be forced to be more conscious ofwhich arguments they use in any given debate round.
Debaters’ use spreading to reduce the strategic cost of timelimits. Yet my proposal also minimizes the strategic cost of time limits, justwith a different method. With higher argument quality, each argument has agreater potential return (both competitively and educationally). Thus, I seechanging how debaters speak as a lynchpin issue for reforming the activity.With fewer arguments presented at a slower pace, rounds should generate moregenuine and thoughtful discourse on both the topical issue and the moralquestions of a framework. Debaters will be forced to do so, as higher qualityof arguments on both sides will encourage better clash, resulting in debatersactually resolving voting issues.
Another potential effect of debaters slowing down is greateremphasis on oratory. Persuasion has become a lost art form in debate—insteaddebaters speak as fast as possible with high-pitched voices and jarring gulpsfor air. Some debaters are able to ride the fine line and make persuasion anelement of their spreading strategy. But this practice of persuasion, punchingwords, hitting tables, random gesticulation, may work as a form of aggressiveposturing to win a competitive debate round, but outside debate’s gauntlet thatskill is useless. Sure, this is an appeal to the notion that debate ought toteach us something more than just winning rounds. But I don’t see debate as adichotomy between competitive success and genuine education. I’ve alreadyaddressed how I think slowing down will create a better competitive environmentfor debate. But just to hammer in the point, persuasion is another way thatdebate can remain competitive and be a better education resource. Persuasion isan art form and the more persuasive a debater, the more likely they are tosucceed. Debaters can persuade through different tactics, and so with a greateremphasis on this skill, debaters will have a new competitive element inherentin each round. Again, it seems that the benefits of slowing down outweigh thepossible competitive tradeoffs.
While it can be argued that spreading is a form of oratory,the applicability of this skill beyond the debate world remains to be seen.Some argue it encourages quick thinking and better word efficiency. But that’sfalse.
To the first benefit, I argue that slowing down from theincredibly quick pace that is customary in debate rounds does not requirespeaking at the pace of a racing tortoise. One can speak quickly and still beunderstandable by a layperson, and that is the metric that I ask debaters todetermine their rate of speech. Moreover, there are other aspects of debatingthat encourage quick thinking, more so than spreading. Prep time serves as thebest example with many elements requiring quick thinking. Within a limitedamount of time debaters must complete multiple tasks in order to give aneffective rebuttal: picking what blocks to use, generating arguments to defendyour position, and critiquing your opponents. Here is where the majority of thequick thinking that happens in a debate round occurs.
To the second benefit, being more efficient, I argue thatspreading only masks inefficiency. Speaking faster allows one to generate a lotof arguments even with inefficiencies like “in so far as.” It’s easier to getby if you are inefficient but can simultaneously speak fast. For me, thisargument has no traction.
Ultimately, debaters will do as debaters choose. While itmay seem silly that this whole article originated from my inability to explaindebate to outsiders, I think that this anecdote can serve as an importantlitmus test for debate as it continues to develop. Debate’s participants oughtto consider the ramifications of the activity’s rules and practices outside ofthe debate world, because these skills are all that remain.