Debate and Politicians
Remember the old High School letter I showed you eons ago. The beauty of growing up in a small town is that you don’t have to be particularly gifted to letter in a sport – therefore, I lettered. But, sports weren’t the only things for which you could be recognized (it was a school after all and there was SOME emphasis on academics). It was also possible to get medals for scholarship and debate, among other things:
Now, if you look at little closer at that debate medal:
You’ll see exactly how we looked! Long tails, hands to hip and held high in dramatic emphasis, point made, point won! Well, we didn’t look exactly like that, but it is a cool image.
I took debate my Senior year and thus was only a novice debater. It was a fascinating thing to do, really. Debate tournaments have something like six debates you give in a day – I think it was six, or was that tennis matches for a tennis tournament? Each alternating debate throughout the day required that a debate team take the opposite side of the argument. In other words, first debate, pro; second debate, con; third, pro and on and on. Two debaters on each team presenting arguments and rebuttals.
One of the first things you learned was how far from any absolute truth a position can be. After all, if that were the case, you would be required to tell the truth, then lie, then truth, etc. Instead, you spent time researching topics and writing arguments and quotes on note cards. Then, as the opponent brought up points, you refuted them with your own evidence. It made it more difficult for me to see the world in absolutes and black and white. It also made it more difficult for me to accept carte blanche the statements of politicians, for when they use statistics or show evidence, I remember those tournaments.
At one point, my novice Senior self, coupled with my novice Senior partner were scheduled against the best debaters from one of the other schools in the tournament. We were going to get our butts kicked. Except … I was probably wandering lost or something or just got to the room early … who knows? The woman who was the judge for the debate was also in the room and we struck up a conversation. We talked about how she was enjoying the tournament … and her kids … and my family … and WHAT SHE ADMIRED MOST IN THE DEBATES SHE HAD ALREADY JUDGED! The Motherlode!!!
She warmed to the task and told me all about how the debaters that looked her right in the eye and did this and did that she found the most persuasive. When the other debaters arrived and we began … I looked her right in the eye … and I did this … and I did that. She even smiled when I made one point!
To everyone’s amazement, when the tallying was happening, I was given the points as the top debater, the other team took rankings two and three, and my partner took ranking four. And – she gave the debate to our team based upon my stellar performance.
Their team and their coach protested, for this debate cost their team the tournament. Their coach said I had cheated! He didn’t know how, but he knew I had cheated. But, the judge stuck with her ratings and that was that.
That is why I watch for devices in politicians’ speeches, devices designed to override content; but it’s also why I still admire the skill of a great speech. Churchill and FDR could mobilize nations to greatness while Hitler mobilized a nation to evil. The key is to not fall into the trap that judge did; to listen to content and meaning, looking for substance, not the manner of presentation.
Don’t make the countering mistake, either. Don’t think that the honed skill of a speaker automatically indicates deceit or lack of real meaning. We have also had great leaders who were extremely charismatic and quite accomplished at the podium.
Last, don’t make the mistake of taking one argument, good or bad, as an indication of the quality of the next argument. Every point must stand or fall on its own merit.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Every year for at least 30 years they called me and asked me if I would be a judge for the debate tournament……..every year, I told them the same thing, “I am not really into debate and every time somebody made a different case for something I would no doubt agree with them and you can’t agree with everybody and judge high school debate.” Some times they would get a little sarcastic and I would get sarcastic too…….they would be friendly and I would be friendly too….that’s just the way I am…..most of the time! Some folks just don’t want to give up and I suppose that is why they are trying to enlist debate judges.
Corky
My daughter said that the first thing you learn in law school is that you must be prepared to argue either guilty or innocent. So did a lot of the good debaters go on to become attorneys?
Actually, what that judge was sayinjg was that you must sell yourself!
My son’s mother-in-law was a criminal lawyer. It didn’t matter if he was guilty or innocent; she never asked. Her job was to see that he got a fair trail. (She couldn’t put her criminal (client?) in one side of the back-to-back holding cells because of who O.J. was, who was in one cell. -He had about 18 jackets in there.)
I digress. In Gilmore Girls TV, the main character’s debate team (of 2) won the For Assisted Suicide (Kavorian) debate , because they presented their side so well.
Style over substance will win most debates. Ronald Reagan was a master of this. He could convince people to vote against their own self interest again and again.
More current examples include the talking heads on the right who can convince a person with no health care coverage they should be against a plan that would provide them with such coverage. They have the ability to tap into a person’s anger and to use that anger in a manner that results in actions that harm them not help them. Not an easy task but they seem to have mastered this concept.
It will be interesting to see if Obama can tap into the peoples emotions as opposed to their heads. I believe this hurting him, too much head not enough heart. That and his connections to Wall Street that is just to obvious to miss.
Corky, I am betting they contacted you for 30 years straight as bet was wagered that one day you would finally consent to be a judge! Now if Ronnie Reagan had called perhaps he could have convinced you of why you would have been a great judge. He would have something along the lines of. ” Why Corky, I understand you have been turning down these fine folks invitations to be a debate judge for 30 years running now! Holy cow!! Now I imagine you have witnessed many a fine debate between your fine husband and that kid of yours who has a quick and agile mind. I also imagine you have developed a talent for judging the finer points of these debates and reached conclusions on who won the day. Why heck Corky if you can do that at home there is no doubt you can do the same on a debate stage. Now give these fine folks what they have been seeking for so long, your experience and wisdom!
Ma, something tells me you would have been a pretty tough debate judge. And … something tells me that if Dad did it, BOTH sides might lose unless they were sharp!
Deb, I agree that I was selling myself, LOL. She was right in that encouragement … but the ethics of getting the precise things that SHE looked for was a bit dodgy.
I would think that a good courtroom argument would very much fall along the lines of a good debate and the structure is very similar. The jury are the judges in that case.
bhb, I’m not supposed to admit it, but I used to watch Gilmore Girls…
Don, What’s the Matter With Kansas? very much makes the same statement, that modern politicians are getting people to vote for things not at all in their best interest. For example, they parade things like patriotism and family values, but what they deliver is corporate advantages. Karl Rove turned it into an art form. And, I agree that Obama needs to be less cerebral and more gut level. As one friend put it, don’t be the point guard, be the quarterback and direct the team in some smash-mouth action.
Now, after that spiel to Mom – I don’t know whether to be glad you aren’t in politics or sad! Ah, wait, I know you. SAD!!
Great story Conrad. In college I had a class that included weekly debates and the prof – a buddy of my advisor – constantly placed me on the team that represented the opposite views I held peronally. Style definitely won out over substance – we won all but one debate. At the end of the quarter I apologized for leading myside to victory as I really believed almost nothing of what I had said. One of the other team spoke up and said he knew this was a waste all along. The prof simply replied no – he (meaning me) learned how to get a point across and you allowed him to bully his way through refusing to respond with the enthusiastic manner I did – LOL. In this political environment both sides place fast & loose with the facts, sculpting them into cute sound bites. Tis a pity the left allowed the right to lay claim to the patriot card almost exclusively for so long. That should have been challeneged long and hard from the get-go.
Shackman, that is a great technique, putting someone in the position of making the argument for the other side like that. To some extent, I would like to see more of it done, so that people would demonstrate understanding of the other vantage point, if nothing else.
I can believe that you were a formidable advocate!