Debate Advice

Two days ago, a chapter of my life closed--the chapter of Team Policy debate. Last Wednesday regionals finished with an awards ceremony, and I went home with a box full of useless papers. I learned many, many lessons on argumentation and debate. Namely, the best debaters are not that different from the average debaters, and something else which escapes me.

Everyone should try debate. When I left debate camp last summer, I could feel the difference in my thinking. It was more analytical, sharper, and clearer. No, it wasn't perfect. I had a season of debate to hone it.

When I first saw a debate, I was overwhelmed. Here was my peers rolling words like 'solvencey' and 'inherency' off their lips like normal teens would use 'cool' or 'hip.' It took me several years from seeing that first debate to finally debate for myself. Debate is scary. The only way you will be able to do it is to jump right in, fully commit, and do it. Debate is a skill that you learn by doing.

I have been doing many tournaments lately. This is why I haven't been writing as much as I should.

Through the many debate tournaments, I learned some things through experience. They may help some people, other may just say "Duh... Dan, you were just supposed to know that." But if it helps you in your debate career, then this isn't a post wasted.

• Debates are won in the constructives. Why? Because that is where the arguments are made. The rebuttals only rebut and impact. Make your arguments powerful in the contructives.
• Debate is a competition with few rules. The ancient Greeks had few rules in their boxing matches. If I recall, the only rule was don't poke your opponent's eyes out. The only rules I know of in Debate is this: wear a suit, don't swear, don't kill your opponents, and talk about the resolution, and the judge is in charge. The rest is simply guidelines and ethics to win. (but the guidelines and ethics are so important, make them your rules to win.)
• the goal of debate is to convince the judge. Often, only one judge will be in the round. If one team can read the body language of that judge to figure out what kind of person they are, they will have an advantage over the other team because they can focus their arguments. Is the judge not flowing the arguments? Then you better make your arguments simple and concrete so that the arguments stay in their head. Does the judge seem laid back? Then go ahead and pull a few jokes. In short, do what you need to do to persuade that one individual.
• Use simple cards. The best cards in debate are ones which come from a credible source explaining why the reality is a certain way. Your top cards should be the cards which use simple language and which creates pictures in the listener's head. Better still is cards which uses original language or humor. These are the cards which remain in the judges head and they will understand.
• Yes, we are a bunch of nerds, but we still have glitches in logical thinking. Watch for logical fallacies in arguments. This makes your rebuttals easier. Instead of explaining and creating a clunky argument, point out the fallacies. You don't have to explain that the EPA is a credible organization, that is silly, simply point out the Ad Homium fallacy. They attacked the person instead of the arguments the person addressed.
• Have fun. This may sound like crass advice, but it is true. If you don't have fun, you will become burned out. You will miss the joy of arguing and you won't learn as much. Try to have fun in every round. I brought a smile to many judges and opponent's faces when I said at the end of the round:  "and remember judge, vote green, Jackson/Green."

Why I Hate Becoming Green

Last weekend I visited Gordon College in Wenham Massachusetts for a debate tournament. Like many colleges and institutions these days, Gordon made the switch to a greener campus. The most visible change was the numerous containers for waste products. They had two kinds, the first read: "single-stream recycling bin, Gordon recycles!" And the second: "Non-recyclable waste, Gordon recycles!" I wish they simply called the latter what everybody else calls it—a trash can.
All that emphasis on environmental friendliness bothered me. The end goal of the Green movement is convince us to live in a manner which has little or no effect on the environment. The emphasis on using less energy, developing renewable energy and managing the resources we have in this world are all laudable. But there are more important things in life than the earth and the Green movement is getting in the way of those goals.
We sacrifice lives and progress when we give up for the environment. We don’t have any CFC’s in our lives because they were banned several years ago due to the widely believed fact that they depleted the ozone layer. CFC’s made firefighting more efficient, saving lives. Scientists have now discovered that the ozone depletion at the South Pole is naturally occurring and CFC’s were not an important factor in the depletion of the ozone. But they are still banned, making our lives difficult because we have to use less efficient alternatives to CFC’s.
Many Green projects can only be supported by the government, which increases the power of the state. Ethanol is mixed in our gasoline to make the mix more environmentally friendly. Currently the Government supports the Ethanol industry through subsidies. This is all fine and good except that this policy creates less efficient gasoline, a car which emits different, not fewer, toxins, and an industry dependant on the state for its existence. Currently, ethanol is not the bright, new energy future we are looking for, but if the Government were to discontinue the subsidies, the whole industry would collapse, destroying thousands of jobs. The ethanol program has made government bigger and created a need for government in a place where it should not be in.
Blind fervor is driving many green projects, not science or logic. We only have to look to global warming to see numerous examples of this. The loudest spokesman for climate-change is a politician who didn’t get an award in science, but a highly politicized Nobel Peace Prize. (The Nobel Peace Prize is now reduced to a joke) And the most recent fiasco of “Climate-gate” demonstrates how politics, not an unbiased approach to science, drives the Global Warming scare.
Environmentally friendly programs and acts are not all bad. If a green action makes sense and truly provides saved energy and more efficiency to people, it will be adopted. But we need to think before we act. Not all green programs are beneficial, not all environmental issues are urgent. Right now, I await the day when the true, level headed solution comes along to our environmental obstacles. The rest, I scornfully discard.