By Denise Yu

Vice President in Charge of Campus Affairs

For many overachieving high school students in this world of increasingly systemized entrance to higher education, participating in Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Speech, and many other various forms of intermural debate is just another way to tout the label of well-roundedness to the country’s elite colleges and universities.  Once high school students pass the scrutiny of admissions boards and matriculate to places like Columbia, Yale, the University of Chicago, Boston University, and so forth, it seems that debate has served its purpose.  So why would anyone in his or her right mind forego things like normal sleeping/eating routines, a steady on-campus social life, and occasionally a higher GPA for the sake of continuing to debate at the collegiate level?

Discourse, disagreement, and reconciliation are perhaps the most fundamental media of the spread of existing ideas and the discovery of new ones.  Without the elucidating power of debate, dogmas would exist unchallenged, and hidden truths would remain dormant.  But beyond Socratic ideals, debate also carries many practical cerebral benefits for the average young adult during the college years and well beyond.

The typical debater’s knowledge base will grow exponentially simply from exposure to disparate subject matter in rounds.  The nature of American Parliamentary Debate entails an infinite number of possible debate topics: a round can be about President Reagan’s missile defense policies, the moral defensibility of Luke Skywalker killing his father, or anything in between.  A common criticism of the American Parliamentary style charges debaters with relying on a canon of all-purpose examples used analogically in argumentation rather than grounding claims in real-world knowledge.  To become competent at British Parliamentary, for example, demands a critical mass of knowledge about current international affairs and world history.

The beauty of American Parliamentary Debate’s reliance on disparate examples is that it demands a stronger understanding of critical application.  The strength of an argument rests as much on the debater’s skill at explaining how the crux of the analysis is supported by the examples as it does on the validity of the argument itself.  Seasoned debaters will sometimes joke – or lament – that an “APDA-sound” argument would never persuade a jury.

The critical reasoning skills learned through debate are perhaps what motivate some to choose the activity.  Debaters will develop the ability to construct logically-structured arguments, and, just as importantly, how to deconstruct these types of arguments.  Many debaters put these reasoning skills to use on the LSATs and the GREs, but those who do not choose that route still enjoy benefits such as being able to write better philosophy papers or winning arguments against stubborn siblings.

Critical thinking also manifests itself in unexpected ways for the devoted parliamentary debater.  American Parliamentary Debate requires individuals to write their own cases, so a debater pursuing a speaker award and/or high-quality debate rounds will always be searching for new case materials.  In doing so, she evaluates each modicum of information she absorbs throughout the day and performs quick mental calculations as to whether a moral dilemma from Contemporary Civilization or a New York Times Op-Ed presents two evenly-weighted sides worthy of being written up into a case.

This constant application of scrutiny creates a more conscious evaluation of the things that happen around us.  It transforms the debater from a passive consumer of information to an active participant in the dialogue.  Debate is by no means the only way to develop a larger knowledge base and acute critical thinking, but former college debaters like William F. Buckley and George Stephanopoulos would probably agree – you’ll have a hell of a fun time along the way.