I never thought I would join debate, much less policy debate. Policy debate is a lot like condensed milk; too much and I get sick. A lot of the time the actual policy in question is not discussed much. Instead whether the other team is being topical is argued vehemently throughout the debate. I find I went against all my principles when I had to win the debate based on voter fairness and not the subject matter. Upon entering the building I could hear a shuffling of papers. Everyone’s brow was scrunched and their hands clenched tightly to far too many papers for one person to carry. I could hear faint whisperings of people repeating their arguments at 350 words a minute. Down the hall everyone stood huddled in groups, reading their “scripts” with such harmony and so in tune with each other it sounded like a canopy of hummingbirds. It was odd to find music even in muffled speed-reading. Suddenly the hall quieted as the room arrangements were being taped to the wall. With a loud, thick slab the paper stuck to the wall and then just as swiftly as it was quiet, a rush emanated through the hall for the room schedules. Fingers ran up and down the sheets, each eye scanning for their own names. It wasn’t so easy to spot the room because the names were arranged by taking the first initial of both peoples’ names and then the college the team they were from. Aside from giving the room numbers the sheets also reveal the position a team will take during the round. My partner ran to find out our room, room 231 of the main building, affirmative. We didn’t have far to go but we still couldn’t take our sweet time getting there.
It was just the 5 of us in a room; my partner and I on the affirmative side, the opposing two team members on the negative, and the judge. I was first to deliver my speech. This year’s topic was agricultural subsidies. When affirmative we would argue against the embargo on Brazilian oil because it would inevitably lead to Nuclear war and the extinction of mankind.
My foot incessantly swung back and forth and although I tried to stop it, my hands still shook each time I turned a page. My partner, Dominic, suffered from the same nervous ailment as I did. The round was moving along swiftly. Our arguments ranged from topicality to impacts. The other team was forced on the defense. They used up their prep time early on in the debate and Rebecca kept fidgeting with her hair. While her voice broke several times as she spoke, my own hands had begun to cease their shaking. Dominic was more composed by the end. He stood up and with a quick flick of his wrist pushed the chair aside. There was an air of confidence in his speech now that hadn’t been there earlier. Already it was the end of the round and the judge was ready to announce the winner. The team from University of Massachusetts approached my partner and me to shake hands. “Thank you for the debate.” The judge declares a win for the affirmative because of topicality. She then evaluated everyone’s debate strategies. There were 4 more debates to go and it was time for the cleanup. Papers were scattered all across the desk, some had fallen underneath, but worst of all they were all out of order and this was just from my team. The clean up, although rushed, was nice because it gave time to speak with Cody and Rebecca. Cody was a freshman and a political science major. He joined debate in an effort to improve his public speaking abilities. Rebecca was a junior but was also new to debate. She regretted having joined so late but plans to continue debating as much as she can. I couldn’t help but wonder how so many people from so many different colleges and backgrounds could all be brought together under this one roof for one purpose; debate. As I was about to leave to find out the room for the next debate Cody again shook my hand and thanked me for the debate. A warm smile etched his face so as to say he was not disappointed with his loss because he did what he came to do and he was better for it. That’s when I realized what tied all these people together; it wasn’t so much the need to win, as it was the desire to compete intellectually and to challenge oneself and create connections in which one challenges others.
Back in the main hall the listing was up again. The scene was different this time, as many were seated and taking notes. I heaved a deep sigh and glanced around for other debaters from the coalition. Since not many students from the Cuny’s participated separately, Baruch and other Cuny colleges as well as NYU comprised the NYU coalition. People were busy adding on notes to their evidence. Dominic and I exchanged glances and quickly decided to follow their example. While adding quick notes I saw Dima, a fellow debater from Baruch, and called him over. He introduced me to debate so his eyes were especially eager to see how I enjoyed it. “It’s not just about proving your point,” I said. He smiled and patted my shoulder so as to say I’d be just fine. Behind him he schlepped his tub—a hefty blue bin that contained all evidence he might need to use during a round. This was the first time I noticed it but as I glanced around I saw other people had their own bins, many even multiple tubs per person. Their hips arched as they lugged it from one corner to the next. One girl put the tub down and pressed her palm against her back to lessen the strain. I looked down at the stack of papers I had to carry with me and felt glad for it. There would be a while before I had to strain my back. The second time around it was easier to find our names, KM NYU Coalition, same room, negative. Dominic and I rushed back in hopes of catching our coach in time. Patrick was already waiting once we got there. He congratulated us on the first win and then went on to describe our judge to us. Patrick had been debating for over 3 years and knew nearly every judge in the tournament, their likes and dislikes, and most importantly what key arguments they looked for. Long-term debaters really knew everyone. We were up against Monmouth University, a team Patrick said tends to act condescending so we had to watch out for that. Each school seemed to have its own style of just how to debate. From what I noticed University of West Virginia tried to win by means of speed-reading as much as they could. At one point during a match between Cornell and WVA I thought Marley (debater for WVA) was going to faint. She was reading so fast that when she finally let herself breathe she had to inhale a huge gulp of air that produced a ghastly sound. The groan reverberated around the room and spilled over and back until her next gasp for air. Upon first hearing this I was scared for the girl but as I witnessed more debates it became clear this was the norm. West Point always had strong impacts to back their points. Impacts are extreme results that are possible outcomes if the policy being proposed will not be voted for. When all else failed they argued the judge should vote for their team because the impacts of their policies not being enacted would be nuclear war, which would inevitably lead to the extinction of the human race as we know it. It was a bit humorous to see a team win on account of some exaggerated theoretical outcome but win they did. I found myself in a constant struggle between liking debate for the competition and disliking it for some ridiculous arguments made.
Three debates over with, two to go, and it was finally lunchtime. Again the hall looked different. Tables were set out for lunch and the line for food extended past the wide corridor. The food didn’t have much of a scent but unfortunately the reek of cigarette smoke filled the vacuum. Many debaters could be seen outside the main doors smoking away their worries, their faces easing with every puff. Thankfully with lunch on the way they dropped their cigarettes and rushed for a place on line. Nicotine couldn’t compare to the nutrition a real meal offered. The soft noise of plates tapping against palms, tables, walls, and thighs was prevalent. Everyone’s eyes were on the closed containers of food that were steaming with heat. The line moved fast as everyone just grabbed what they could as fast as possible. This was the social event of the afternoon, as everyone felt free to mingle and work their way around the room. I saw my coach joking around with one of my previous judges from West Point. There was ease to their conversation that wasn’t present during the debate round. Patrick was leaning against the wall, his legs crossed in front of him and with his one free hand pointing out his debaters to the judge. I timidly approached closer until Patrick waved me in. The judge was Adam and upon seeing me he remembered me from an earlier round. My record was 1-3 so it was a tad upsetting to see a judge who voted against me at first but I soon came to realize there was more to him than his title. He no longer debated since he graduated but in order to stay connected with the community he coached and judged debates. These debate tournaments were only for college students and for those who were part of the community for 4 years it was impossible for them to drop out of it cold turkey because they finished their educational “duty.” The community developed from debate is so strong that not even graduation will break it apart. Active members become so attached they find any means by which to stay with the community. Because of this the community is extremely unique as it should follow a certain curve, but it relapses and the boundaries that seem so stringent loosen.
Another debate round lost but even so I felt I learned so much. There were only 2 more matches left for the day and it was already getting dark outside. If nothing else debate taught me the art of multitasking. Our next room was 342 of the science building. We would now have to trek our way through the extreme cold outside. Just last night a thin blanket of snow had covered the Binghamton campus and by now the wind had really picked up. My partner and I both braced ourselves and faced the cold walk to our next debate together. On the way we passed by Joel, another coach for the NYU coalition. He told us our judge didn’t like to hear impact arguments so we would have to wipe nuclear war and human extinction from our tactics. I was glad to hear there were some sensible judges out there. After relaying the information Joel lingered for a few extra minutes, he said nothing else and his eyes drooped in a sleepy haze until he turned and continued walking toward the main building. Once we reached the room Patrick again was there to warn us the judge didn’t like impact arguments. It was pleasant to see how the coaches new little quirks about the judges. At that point the judge and our opponents entered so I took a deep breath and got up. Words sprang from my mouth quickly and I read page after page. Nine minutes passed and I took my seat, awaiting cross examination. Both debate rounds went by swiftly and it was already time for the second social event of the day, dinner. The hall was filled with indistinct chatter and people of opposing teams were joined in conversation. I had only won one of five debates but tomorrow was another day. Because my partner and I didn’t qualify to compete the following day we would spend it watching debaters from other schools compete.
Six am, rise and shine. Debaters sure don’t get enough beauty sleep. Back at the building and the same rush all over again except the stakes were higher. First team to watch was Cornell (Matt and Christine) vs. Dartmouth (Andrew, Boris). There was nothing significantly different about these debates except at one point when the Dartmouth team was being cross examined and some evidence had gotten lost in the moment so the question couldn’t be addressed immediately. Andrew and Boris scrambled around their tubs, their eyes scanning for any signs of the 2008 Ashbury study evidence used. Finally, with only a few seconds to spare Andrew spotted the paper from underneath a chair and was able to answer the inquiry just in time. As the other team went to present their point he pressed the pages together all that much tighter, breathed a sigh of relief, and listened intently to the arguments. After the debate both Andrew and Boris approached me since I had taken pictures throughout their round. They openly disclosed that it was through their competitive spirits they joined debate and would stay with it. They relished in the challenges inherent in it. Next I rushed to watch Dima and Cynthia debate against The New School (Josh and Hung Mei). Before the round Dima bent over his tub to take out any evidence he didn’t already have at hand that could be used for a rebuttal. There was something philosophical in the arch of his back. The debate was about to begin so he looked one last time at the tub, back to Cynthia, and then to the opposing team. As he read his speech I noticed he tapped his foot to a certain beat to keep him on track. It was sensible he did so considering he read so fast it would have been easy to lose track. After every few hundred words again that sharp gasp would come. Dima is a philosophy and political science major. He joined debate since his freshman year, so it comes as no surprise that he went undefeated for 6 rounds in a row. By the end of the round again the two teams shook hands. It was an earnest shake, firm and committed. Although I wasn’t able to witness the 7th round it was the round lost. Already 9 pm we finally began our drive home. It would be 1 am before we got home. Before we left the room I looked back to Dima’s tub. It looked so lonely even among the heaps of information scattered around it. To think it was this tub and all it held that brought this community together initially; this tub and the many handshakes that sprang from it.
I still can’t get over the 350 words a minute! That’s amazing, and it’s only a small element of this group that people wouldn’t necessarily think of as a community. After reading your essay, though, I can really see how this group would become a tight-knit community, and I also like how when the debate teams come together they form another, bigger community. There are some really good shots in your collection, especially the “artsy” one you took. I also really like the ones that show the tubs and papers everywhere; they really show the atmosphere well.
I am happy your project turned out well even though you were having trouble. You put the images in a way that told a story just like your essay. It gave me a sense of all the chaos that was going on. Great job!
The last picture is my favorite, the shaking of the hands. There is something odd about having a debate, where you are ready to cut each others throat and then at the end, you still shake hands in a friendly gesture… I like how you were able to capture both of these aspects of the debate community.
Your canvasing of the emotional atmosphere for the debaters is richly drawn out in the essay. The photos and words cement your experiences with this group of people extremely effectively. I would have loved to see a picture of someone really freaking out. Some of your experiences, as you described, were more intense on an auditory level. I can imagine lstening to an audio slide show of someone reciting their argument at 350 words a minute!
As you wrote the essay from an insider point of view, we really get the feel and the chaotic experience of policy debating. The essay seems to flow in the tempo of the debates, fast and concise. I liked the way you incorporated in your writing the formal terms used by the debaters together with a short clarification of their meaning. As someone who never new that such thing as policy debating even existed, the essay provided me with a window into that world.
We do get the story from an insider’s point-of-view but it probably would be helpful to provide your reader with more on the context: What exactly is policy debate? Who does it and why? Etc.
Photographing this community was indeed a challenge because so many of the group shots do not say, “debate.”
Some communities are much easier to identify and photograph than others. Debate was difficult.
My gosh – what a community. Every one is as busy as bee. You touch on how in some ways this community even suspends reality – speaking a supersonic speeds and accepting belief in doomsday scenarios. How you contrast this with the moments when people return to moments of humanity is when I really get a sense of who and how debaters are. The pictures are also helpful, showing how debaters straddle the line between being crazed and machine-like, but ultimately being human.
This is quite interesting. It’s probably not a community that many would pick or even think of, and it’s not an easy one. What was great is your role as a community member yourself! It was great to get such a detailed representation of the compatition and hear about the ‘backstage’ actions and feelings.
I would like to hear more from other people as well. And to see the interactions of those long-time competitors and alumni, who you say share the bond forever and seem to be the real community behind the Debate Team. It would be interesting to discover them as you become one them yourself.
Great job!
It was difficult to make visually compelling images of this community. You might have taken some pictures of the actual debates which could have been dramatic. Your essay provides a vivid account of the build up to the debate but there’s so much detail that’s it’s hard to focus on the most significant. We don’t get enough of a sense of how this activity functions to engender a sense of community for the participants.
I watched the Vice Presidential Debate from two perspectives. As a voter I wanted to hear what both had to say. But I also wanted to see what I could glean from it from a leadership development and learning perspective.
Good knowledge! I have been hunting for something like that for a while now. Regards!