Georgia Forensics Daily recently linked to an article in the Boston Globe about policy debate. The article discusses the role of speaking fast in high school policy debate. (There’s even a video clip of some excerpts of some fast reading- and pretty clearly – and the drills to develop that skill). The reaction in the Boston Globe’s comment section for the article is largely negative. Individuals critique policy debate for being out of touch with real world skills. Critiques of this kind are also frequently made by people who have seen the HBO documentary Resolved. So when I talk to people about the fact that I am/was a debate coach, I sometimes hear similar critiques of high school debate. I try my best to contain my excitement that they know what debate is and then attempt to defend the activity that I love. Most people make the assumption that debate is about speaking in a impassioned and persuasive manner and those critics argue that the activity as currently practiced does not contain these skills (if it ever did).
As a long time member of the debate community, I can tell you that this argument fails to make any sense. First, debate is activity about arguments. We want our arguments to be good and we want a lot of them. Making arguments quickly allows you to make more arguments. This is pretty much the same principle in every sport imaginable. In baseball, you win by scoring more runs. This is helped by running as fast as you can to beat out a ground ball. In football, we like speedy running backs and wide receivers because they can beat the defense and score touch downs. (Or if you prefer defense, speedy linebackers so they can make devastating hits). I’d make a similar analogy about soccer or hockey if I understood those sports. My point is, speed is preferred in almost every game played. If debate is a game, then why is it so wrong that speed is an element of the game?
Alright, I can understand you’re not buying this. (Many people have made this claim in the comments section, and the critics of policy debate don’t buy it either). Athletic skills are not the same as academic ones. Particularly because academic ones only have a need if they fit a “real world” skill. BTW, Let’s take two seconds to point out how ridiculous this is. How is running fast/jumping high a real world skill? What businesses are hiring Usain Bolt to curry documents on foot? This line of argument would eliminate every high school competition, including sports. I don’t think most people would be in favor of getting rid of everything that doesn’t have a “real world” applicability. More ridiculous, I don’t see the harm in this. Lexington’s coach says, in the article, when they have a slow speed judge, they debate slow… So who is hurt by speaking fast? No one seems to articulate a negative impact of speaking quickly other than; “it shouldn’t be that way.”
This leads me to my second point. Well, it’s not really my point. I heard Tom Rollins make the same point in last year’s Breakfast of Champions. If you’re assumption is that debate is about flowery rhetoric and poetry; your assumption is flawed. Debate is a thinking exercise. As a contest of arguments, policy debate requires in-depth research, organization, and analytical thought. These are skills that are not developed by simply thinking about the mode and method of communication. Debate’s emphasis is on skills not emphasized in other forensics events – thinking, research, and organization. If you want understandable analysis about current events – do extemp. If you want to build a persuasive case about a policy issue and do it convincingly – do oratory. If you want to argue and practice persuasive speaking – do Public Forum or Student Congress. There are other activities that develop argumentation and emphasize effective, real-world style speaking. Don’t critique policy debate for not doing these skills. In the debate/forensics world, we have many different events for students. What gets lost in these criticism is that, as a community, we DO encourage eloquent rhetoric – just not in policy debate. It’s silly for all of the events (and we have many) to have a similar style.
In fact, policy debate’s fast style is a good thing in so far as it promotes the skills of thinking, research, and organization. Speaking fast encourages fast thinking, more evidence, and way to understand that evidence. There is pretty strong evidence that debate does this. The research completed by debaters is often, not on a college level – but a graduate level of research (similarly – college debaters are some of the smartest people I’ve ever met). Because debaters push the limits of their information processing, they can think handle information later in life better than others. Being able to think faster than your opponent is a real world skill. Being able to organize quickly is a real world skill. Being able to understand all the facts about a real world issue is a real world skill.
If you think debate doesn’t have great rhetoric, I will agree more times than not. But that doesn’t mean debate is without value. As a thinking activity, debate seems to excell at imparting high level thinking skills to students and critiquers should take time to understand the activity, rather than over-react.
