Skip to main content

The Politics of Cross-X Debate

Having spent so many years of my life involved in high school and college policy debate, I felt obliged to write something about Joe Miller's book Cross-X. This book has been on my reading list for a long time, and I wish I would have gotten to it sooner, as it really is an excellent piece of writing. Anyone who has spent any time in the activity should pick up a copy.

I was around during the years that Miller was shadowing/coaching the team at Kansas City Central. I debated at one of the private schools (though not named in the book) that the author is critical of. My senior year of high school was the same year that Ebony Rose shook up the national circuit with his case on racism in the game. I can willingly admit that I dreaded the prospect of debating against teams like Kansas City Central that were really pressuring teams on these issues.

One major problem, which Miller tends to obfuscate, is that the way debate is structured makes it extremely difficult to bring your personal beliefs in the round and expect to win. Because each team has to debate half of the time on the affirmative and the other half on the negative, and because they can't necessarily predict what their opponents will argue, they will inevitably be forced to defend positions that they fully disagree with. I stood up on many occasions and argued that Bush's tax cuts for the rich were the linchpin of the American economy, even though I personally cringed at the argument. Whether this teaches critical thinking and forces people to explore all sides of an argument or whether it numbs people to their own personal beliefs is a legitimate question, albeit a topic for another day.

When you bring personal beliefs into the activity, the game gets messy. Imagine being from a private school and being accused of racism by kids from an urban public school. You may be completely sympathetic to their position, but debate is a game in which there must be one winner and one loser. What do you do? You can't agree and concede that their argument is correct, else you lose. But you can't disagree, and argue that the game isn't racist or that the power structures are somehow good, or you'll probably lose too or get into a nasty yelling match if you win. Teams end up making the lame generic arguments that Miller hates in response to these positions because they're walking such a thin line and still trying to win.

Which leads to a bigger issue which Miller ignores almost completely. The extremely competitive nature of the game is what makes it appealing to many people and a turnoff to others; but losing debates to specific arguments also conditions people to rebuff those positions, because they have a strong negative experience attached to them. When one of Miller's team wins a debate, that doesn't mean that their opponent has "learned a lesson" or become enlightened to their position. In many instances, it's likely that the exact opposite occurs.


austin said…
One of my biggest problems with the sort of thing Kansas City Central does is that it is basically admitting that black kids cannot actually compete with white kids when following the rules and instead have to modify some rap songs and whine about how racism and the Man are keeping them down. Yea, way to challenge stereotypes. What ends up happening is exactly what you write; black, urban debaters call white debaters racist because of the color of their skin and their participation in actual debate and the white debaters take it because they have been raised to feel ashamed of their skin color for past institutional racism. If they challenge the claims of the other team they are at a disadvantage for being perceived as racially insensitive by the sociology major judging them.

If the system is racist, which is pretty laughable, then you challenge it by excelling in it, not quitting.

Popular posts from this blog

In Praise of Southwest's 'C' Boarding Group

A few weeks ago I saw a tweet from someone complaining that their Southwest Airlines boarding pass had been assigned A20 (meaning they would be at least one of the first twenty passengers to board the plane). Apparently this person though they should have been assigned a higher number, less their flight experience be considerably spoiled.

Despite the complaints, Southwest has resisted demands to assign seats on its flights, a decision which I personally applaud. I'll admit that I was skeptical when they rolled out the newest boarding procedure, assigning both boarding groups and a line number; but in hindsight it seems like one of the best operational decisions they've ever made. If nothing else, it effectively eliminated the infamous "cattle call" whereby fliers were getting to airports hours in advance and sitting in line on the floor as if they were waiting for the midnight showing of the new Star Wars movie.

When I was an intern at Southwest Airlines last winter, I…

So You Want to be a Southwest Airlines Intern?

My personal website must have pretty decent SEO - because in the past year, I've received about two dozen emails from aspiring Southwest Airlines interns looking to draw on my experience in search of their own dream internship. In the past two weeks alone a few new emails have already started rolling in...

(from flickr user San Diego Shooter)

If you've found your way here, you might be hoping for the silver bullet; a secret tip that will propel you above the competition. Unfortunately, I do not know any inside secrets. I can only share my experience as an internship candidate about two years ago and, rather than responding individually to future emails I anticipate to receive, I hope that potential interns will find the information posted here valuable.

Understand: Southwest Airlines is a very unique company. The corporate culture at Southwest is truly unlike that of nearly every other company. But you probably already knew that, since it now seems mandatory for every management,…

Commuting Meets Technology

I'm finally out of the dark ages. I got an Android smartphone over the weekend and have since been in the process of exploring the Android apps market.  One thing I've immediately noticed is the really wide range of usefulness in the apps. For example, the WeatherBug app is fantastic. It automatically determines your location and gives you exact conditions for that location. On the other end of the spectrum, Google's Goggles app is supposed to be a type of 'visual search' where you snap of photo of something and Google searches for it. In each of my attempts to use it, the app hasn't returned any search results. I even took a photo of a bottle of Pepsi (figuring it as a common houseful item) and got nothing.

Somewhere in the middle is this app called Waze. Have a look at their 'guided tour':

Some people might look at it and comment on the amazing evolution of technology or on the incredible value of social networks. To me, Waze says something important ab…