One of the best choices in my college experience was to become a debater. It was the practice of education not only for life and meaning, but for the factors that achieve persuasion to solve problems, to find better ways, to find improvement for persons and the environment of life. We always began with a problem. We were not offended by the problem, but welcomed it as a means for finding the available skills and approaches to get the solutions we believed in to be accepted. One hour in a tournament we were assigned to debate the affirmative of the proposition and the next hour to take the negative position. It was always assumed that whatever existed related to the proposition held privilege simply because it had emerged somewhere in history as the preference of the people that had grown out of their needs, or system, or whatever force had given it to them – even if it worked poorly in its context. We were assigned in the Affirmative Case to present the new approach, with respect for our opponents. We would be well prepared about the facts of our proposition, and assume that the Negative Case would be well prepared to either defend the status quo, or present a change that turned the debate into a difference in ideas that pitted an affirmative (change) against another affirmative (change). Neither side wanted the status quo. All of this was in order, and great fun, if the focus was on the solution, not on the personalities presenting the cases, or on diversionary tactics in the misuse of the ideals of rhetoric, or follow any other distractions.
The secret was in preparation so that no matter how the negative approached the issues, all the debaters were prepared. They knew what was going on, and anticipated anything either team would propose with evidence to agree or disagree with the arguments. Either team might reject, accept this or that part of the other teams’ case – or partly accept or reject proposals. The strategy was to prove to the evaluator of the debate that our team was better in the rules of forensics as demonstrated in a real debate the skill of language felicity, the appeal found in the physical elements of delivery, the marshalling of arguments and evidence, the casting of probabilities and assurances, the documentation, even the length of time needed to accomplish the purpose that this team had presented the issues and answered the questions more effectively than the other team. When the forensic practice followed the purpose of the exercise it was a great game that contributed more to serious life than anything else that emerged from my secular education – how to test ideas and actions. It proved so even in my career when during the first half of my professional life I was partly engaged in two colleges as the forensic coach. From these students I made life-long friendships that continued exchanges of ideas and conducts that relate to mature life and problem solving. (One of them, now long past retirement age is editing the Pages you are reading – to catch oversights or errors.) Debating as an extra-curricular activity was common in colleges through much of the twentieth century but has declined somewhat. When I was a student the practice had morphed into Literary Societies so to broaden the participation and interest among students. Debate holds as a curricular course using some extra-curricular features, and it remains so in many colleges and universities, although reduced in scope of student participation what with all increasing options available. Even the literary societies have faded out as specialization for professional life has gained more and more of the life and time of the students. I regret what seems to be an intellectual/skill loss to students in learning about how to manage issues and persuade others in directions that guide persons and institutions for better things and human problem solving.
As in all of life there are persons who use gimmickry, distortions, lies, in attempts to win a point. We argue that fakery does not diminish objectivity and effort in finding directions for the human mind. As this is being written it has been discovered that the most listened-to news anchor on television has misrepresented some personal experiences related to the news that put him in favorable light when used, but now appear to have destroyed what would have been a better legacy. His sad experience is an argument for persons to seek truth, to live it, and use their skills to communicate it in a manner that is persuasive in problem solving and truth for the community of nations, and persons under God. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020