Something that anyone who knows me will tell you is that I'm a debater. I have been since day 1 of freshman year when I realized that this was an activity in which I could get rewarded for doing the things that until then had a) gotten me yelled at, and b) lost me friends.
However, there is a tendency in movies and television to glamorize the world of forensics.
I'm not saying that debate can't be elegant and insightful - some of my best breakthroughs and ideas have come either in preparation or during rounds. The problem is, as local debate has become more and more mainstream, it has been flooded with kids who aren't interested in doing research or understanding what it means to make an argument, and are only in the activity because at one point they developed an opinion of themselves as "eloquent" or "good bullshitters" when really, all they're good at is bickering. This is also due in part to the creation of different events in debate, the newer of which cater to the ill-informed and anti-intellectual.
Right now, there are basically two worlds in the debate community. Local circuit, described above, involves day-tournaments at local schools with parent judges who may or may not speak fluent English. Kids go, debate four rounds, get a plastic trophy, and go home. National circuit is judged almost exclusively by former debaters, employs very technical argumentation spoken at upwards of 250 words a minute, and is commonly referred to as "soul-crushing." I have competed in both styles, and am continually surprised at the variation within the activity.
At a national circuit tournament my sophomore year against a much superior opponent, the judge admitted that my lack of technical skill had "functionally excluded me from the round." On the other end of the spectrum, I faced a team last year in a round so lopsided in my favor that our opponents, and even their mothers (both of whom had watched the round), admitted to my partner and I that we had clearly won, and that they were "just glad that our sons got a chance to compete against people like you." However, the judge in that round fell asleep for 30 minutes during the debate, but woke up during the last speech and signed the ballot against us, without so much as a by-your-leave-don't-mind-if-I-fuck-you-over-because-I'm-epically-retarded.
Of these two instances, I think the second was more infuriating because at least on the national circuit, it's completely within my control to change the outcome of my weaker performances. But with a judge like the second guy, I feel so hopeless that I can't help but develop a cynical view of the activity.
If this is what it's like in the debate community, what the hell can I expect in real life?
Whatever. Maybe I'll just hole myself up in Academia for the rest of my life.
No comments:
Post a Comment