The world denies the debater identity. In Ethics Bowl, in classroom settings, in boarding school interviews; the world insisted that I “stop acting like a debater.” Overenunciating, speaking at an abnormally high decibel level, unnecessarily rebutting minute comments: these constitute the stereotypical characteristics of a debater. The society deems these traits unfavorable and unlikable, due to many debaters’ natural instinct to hunt an argument as a lion leaps onto a gazelle. As a lifelong debater, as much as my instincts pressure me to pour criticisms on this societal perception, it is a duty for me to introduce areas in which parliamentary debate fails to develop healthy, engaging members of a community.
Since I was young, the elderly in my neighborhood have commented on my disobedient attitude and “aggressive” disposition. Disproving adults’ assumptions provided me with extreme bliss as I felt like a warrior conquering a seemingly invincible kingdom. Breaking down arguments and verbally projecting my opinions were my second nature. In middle school, I learned to channel this nature into an academic context – debate. Parliamentary debate club provided me the necessary space to engage with the very core of my identity while discovering friends with similar instincts. Two teams with three people each took turns debating a topic provided on the spot from assigned perspectives (either for or against a motion), normally employing a structure with rebuttals and constructive arguments. Ever since I found home in debate clubs, teams, and competitions, debate greatly contributed in constructing my identity. My natural instinct for argument was combined with logic and passion. As I built loyalty towards the lord of debate, it only seemed natural that each time someone criticized parliamentary debate (or any type of speech event), I rebutted them with my best accord. The sixth-grader-me considered debate akin to a holy event by the future leaders of the world.
Ever since the day I entered the kingdom of debate, I participated in countless competitions and infinitely many spar rounds. Frankly, as my adoration of debate skyrocketed, the tickling, disturbing doubt grew like a tumor; the doubt on the positive effects of debate on my life. Each time I introduced a new argument, the tumor questioned whether blatantly, aggressively attacking opposing sides was truly educational. After winning a debate competition, my rationale asked me whether squashing multiple teams through passionately defending sides that contradict my real perspective was worth anything at all. Entering high school and the American debate circuit confirmed my doubts: parliamentary debate really was a circus between two lions who drool at the sight of each others’ flesh. The lion that hunted down the other to its skeleton entertained the audience in the Colosseum and consequently, claimed victory. Alternative options did not exist; the lions had to either destroy the victims or become the victims themselves. When not appreciated to the fullest extent, parliamentary debate hinders the participants from having a constructive discussion on a topic. Rather, many debaters mechanically ponder strategies to win a round regardless of whether they truly believe in the argument or not. In the beginning of my debate career, I often thought of my arguments as
Parliamentary debaters lack time to study the topic deeply, research diverse sources, and consider diverse perspectives before establishing a firm argument. The debaters are provided with merely ten to thirty minutes of preparation time, depending on the format. This structure coerces debaters to submit to arguments that they do not truly believe in, rebut fair concerns raised by the opposing sides regardless of whether the claims are actually true or not, for the sole purpose of claiming the trophy. Oftentimes, in local competitions with parents of the contenders as judges, the confident, well-spoken competitors sweep the medals despite the visible holes in their cases. Engaging in a productive discussion through appreciating logical, fair points from both sides enables contenders to take a step closer to an ideal solution. The current culture of parliamentary debate, which puts a heavy emphasis on defeating other teams, hinders youth from learning how to view criticisms as stepping stones for improvement.
Parliamentary debate often reminds me of the current trend in politics. The politics wherein speaking loudly, arguing fiercely, and standing stubbornly equate to victory. Politicians who use extreme language, often involving hatred and anger, often claim the highest positions in an office. The politics wherein the logic and facticity of arguments matter less than the fanciness. Parliamentary debate builds such individuals who are less able to learn, accept, and improve.
As an avid debater, I have experienced the benefits of debate first-hand. The kingdom enabled me to build confidence, learn how to view a topic from different perspectives and engage with others’ thoughts. Engaging in debates on controversial issues such as abortion during summer camps, I learned to maintain an open-mindedness and listen to other debaters’ arguments before crafting quick assumptions on what their cases may look like. Despite these benefits, this kingdom of debate may crumble if the current trend continues. Us debaters, the future hosts and hostesses of the kingdom, must contribute to the sustenance of it. Through appreciating diverse arguments, advocating for the speechless, and understanding that victory ought not be the only end goal of debate, we can prevent this kingdom from crashing.
