May 22, 2024 At 08:00 AM EDT
If you open to the front page of any major news site today, be it The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNN or Fox, you will almost certainly encounter one—if not many—articles bemoaning the state of American college campuses from one angle or another. Areas of concern for columnists range from perceived suppression of free speech to advocacy of "wrong" ideas.
The conflict over the state of academia has certainly reached campuses—students like us, of course, are digital media connoisseurs—but most professors are reluctant to use precious class time leaning into what they believe is a discourse grounded on false premises. Even worse, perhaps, is the struggle of many students to take a position in what should be lively lecture hall
debates when the topics fall neither on the firm ideological spectrum nor in the aforementioned soundbite discourse. As former policy debaters, we have been troubled by this lack of vivid discourse in our classes—as well as our classmates' struggle to grapple with even simple questions around conceptual problems in the humanities (think discussions of Plato's Apology or Tocqueville's Democracy in America).
That is where debate enters the equation. No, we don't believe that your introductory math workshop class should spend time arguing over approaches to finding X. Rather, we feel more undergraduates coming to college with a debate foundation will lead to classes prepared to grapple with foundational issues of small-d democracy, liberty, and the ideological conflicts which catalyze the discourse above. If this sounds like a thinly veiled endorsement of liberal education, that's because it may be. But a simple liberal curriculum is not enough —it must be backed by skills of diplomatic yet pointed inquiry that get down to the most fundamental meaning of individual words. It must serve students equipped to face the tiny nuances of implementing ideas while still thinking about the larger concept at hand. In other words, the skills which compose policy debate.
Policy debate is uniquely positioned to revitalize liberal education because it is innately accessible. Having both competed and worked in the Boston Debate League, volunteered in the Washington Urban Debate League and judged at tournaments across the nation, we have seen just how valuable debate is to students from all backgrounds and its universal impact on those
students. Policy debate, like introductory humanities courses, assumes no existing topic knowledge before beginning a debate season. Students undergo a rigorous crash course in practices, ranging from topic lectures to humorous speaking drills. After a few months, they are genuine experts—ready to face opponents from other schools and either support or take down the
policy from many different lenses.
When contrasted with hyper-competitive internships or clubs that require tryouts, debate appears to be the pinnacle of democratic education. We have yet to encounter any public school that turns away interested potential debaters—and as coaches, we have worked with students who credit debate not just for increasing their extroversion but for their academic success.
The influence of policy debate carries far beyond the tournament round or the practice room. Quick comprehension, responding to intense questions and complex arguments under pressure and knowing when an entire argument can be disregarded from a few notes and countless other skills generated by debate help students make college much more manageable—and, through intellectual stimulation, more enjoyable.
On top of deepening discourse, debate has a nice side effect of strengthening executive functioning skills that make daily projects more effective and efficiently completed. Debate even raises the quality of personal interaction by easing understanding of divergent views and wildly variant ways of conveying those views.
Of course, we cannot wholeheartedly endorse policy debate as a preparation for academic and professional life without acknowledging its shortcomings. Most in the debate community have encountered the "debate bro" who believes himself (yes, it's almost always him) intellectually superior to all others and intends to convey his superiority in all ways possible. It is incumbent on the debate community to reinforce that the point of debate is meaningful and fruitful
intellectual inquiry, not destroying one's worthy opponents by rapidly reading off conflicting arguments to walk away with the win.
If such an individual brought their "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" debate strategy to the college lecture hall, they would not be contributing to authentic discussion and would be perceived by professors and peers alike as a nuisance. That debate has fostered many such individuals is decidedly problematic but a problem the community knows well. As coaches and judges, we frequently remind debaters of the valuable, practical reasons we debate.
Those shortcomings aside, if every 18-year-old entering a freshman seminar next fall had even mild exposure to the debate world, we would have happier professors making better use of their time and smarter kids. No longer would professors spend entire classes explaining how to craft a thesis that takes a position, nor would stimulating discussion questions like "what did Booker T. Washington mean when he spoke on the value of a race to world markets" be met with dead silence and blank stares—for students would already have practiced such skills and been judged competitively for them. Debate is not a singular solution to the problems facing academia today, but it is a strong start.
Amishai Goodman-Goldstein is an undergraduate at American University majoring in political science and a Lincoln Scholar in political theory. He is a member of the Parliamentary Debate Society at American University and has been a political organizer on numerous campaigns. Amishai was previously co-captain of the Boston Latin Academy debate team, as well as a national finalist in Marshall-Brennan Moot Court. He is a former assistant coach and summer debate lab leader in the Boston Debate League, and is an active coach in the Washington Urban Debate League. Amishai frequently judges debate tournaments across the country from Massachusetts to Florida.
Matteo Gleason is an American University undergraduate majoring in interdisciplinary studies (communications, law, economics and government) with a minor in Arabic. He is also a Lincoln Scholar in political theory. Matteo previously served as debate team co-captain at Boston Latin Academy, and advanced to several national tournaments. He is a former summer debate lab leader in the Boston Debate League and judge at debate tournaments in Boston and Washington, D.C. He presently tutors mathematics to elementary students in the D.C. area.
