The False Sacrament
Between my Freshman and Senior Year at George Mason University, I ceased to believe in Debate.
Capital-D Debate, as I saw it, was a sacrament of liberal society. The associated doctrine was that the free expression of ideas, even outlandish ideas, could be permitted on the condition that they would subject themselves to public examination by means of Debate. Their champion would meet with an opposing viewpoint, and in the contest, the superior idea would prevail, in the public eye, to the benefit of all.
Looking back on it now, I feel this notion to be a combination of social darwinism and the old trial-by-combat principle as applied to philosophy, and it is telling that neither is admitted today as sane pieces of jurisprudence. I was mostly led to this belief through having undergone the exercise in futility that was University Team Policy Debate, which subjected me to the best researched and least intelligent conversations I had in my life. Periodicals were mined for quotable paragraphs that could be arranged into a facsimile of an argument that, when taken at face value, was downright farcical. I still recall the file box we had that painstakingly put together how both the repeal and continuation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would lead to nuclear war (which argument was used in a round depended on how the political winds were blowing that day). We did this sort of thing for every imaginable piece of legislation, sanity and common sense be damned.
As a system, it was vulnerable to critque. But when one encountered critique within the system, it had the same deranged character. I recall with clarity the day that someone said to my face that logic was a form of White Supremacy, and the testimonies I received of even deeper insanities stagger credulity to the point that I will not repeat them, with the exception of one which had video evidence. YouTube has since removed the clip; it involved a judge becoming so frustrated with the competitors that he mooned them.
The whole thing was maddening and incomprehensible to me at the time, and sufficiently toxic to my mental health that I had to seek counseling. I was recommended to quit the debate team, and I did. My life subsequently became so much better that I now actively discourage anyone who asks from participating in the intellectual sport at the University level.
But where was the problem really located? I didn't face this in High School, and I was part of a Speech and Debate Club for four years. Was it just that Homeschoolers were saner, superior students? Was it that the High School league mandated that 1/3 of its judges come from the wider community, rather than parents or alumni?
That might explain why it was an exception, but it was an exception, and not the rule. Why is the rule so messed up?
I think, partly, because Debate is not the sacrament it pretends to be in our society. It's not a tool for sifting the wheat from the chaff in terms of ideas, but in terms of people. It is a contest of status in the arena of rhetoric. Such activities have their virtues, as do many organized sports. But just as one may have an unhealthy reverence for Football, so one may have an unhealthy reverence for Debate.
The problem is, as things currently stand in the Western World, Football is not a path to political power, and Debate can be. There are a special set of deranging distortions that enter the scene when politics are mixed in, but it also creates a paradox. While Debate is false sacrament, it is a necessary discipline, at least if one is to be ruled by words rather than swords.
We must come to terms with Debate; to toss it from a pedestal is not to render it irrelevant. Or, at least, I do. I only recently came to realize how much my two years as part of the GMU debate team were actually traumatic, as opposed to merely unpleasant. I can trace actual and negative changes in my behavior and personality to that period in my life, and it is high time I brought out those skeletons and tried them like Pope Innocentus.
My next few posts will be me dealing with this, in admittedly a somewhat scattershot way. I will be fixing ideas and arguments into black and white text that previously only floated beneath the surface of my thoughts. In many cases, I will write things, not because I genuinely believe them, or wish to be a person that believes them, but because I must exorcise a Principality that has usurped a throne within my mind. To set a thing in clear terms is the first step towards refutation.
Capital-D Debate, as I saw it, was a sacrament of liberal society. The associated doctrine was that the free expression of ideas, even outlandish ideas, could be permitted on the condition that they would subject themselves to public examination by means of Debate. Their champion would meet with an opposing viewpoint, and in the contest, the superior idea would prevail, in the public eye, to the benefit of all.
Looking back on it now, I feel this notion to be a combination of social darwinism and the old trial-by-combat principle as applied to philosophy, and it is telling that neither is admitted today as sane pieces of jurisprudence. I was mostly led to this belief through having undergone the exercise in futility that was University Team Policy Debate, which subjected me to the best researched and least intelligent conversations I had in my life. Periodicals were mined for quotable paragraphs that could be arranged into a facsimile of an argument that, when taken at face value, was downright farcical. I still recall the file box we had that painstakingly put together how both the repeal and continuation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would lead to nuclear war (which argument was used in a round depended on how the political winds were blowing that day). We did this sort of thing for every imaginable piece of legislation, sanity and common sense be damned.
As a system, it was vulnerable to critque. But when one encountered critique within the system, it had the same deranged character. I recall with clarity the day that someone said to my face that logic was a form of White Supremacy, and the testimonies I received of even deeper insanities stagger credulity to the point that I will not repeat them, with the exception of one which had video evidence. YouTube has since removed the clip; it involved a judge becoming so frustrated with the competitors that he mooned them.
The whole thing was maddening and incomprehensible to me at the time, and sufficiently toxic to my mental health that I had to seek counseling. I was recommended to quit the debate team, and I did. My life subsequently became so much better that I now actively discourage anyone who asks from participating in the intellectual sport at the University level.
But where was the problem really located? I didn't face this in High School, and I was part of a Speech and Debate Club for four years. Was it just that Homeschoolers were saner, superior students? Was it that the High School league mandated that 1/3 of its judges come from the wider community, rather than parents or alumni?
That might explain why it was an exception, but it was an exception, and not the rule. Why is the rule so messed up?
I think, partly, because Debate is not the sacrament it pretends to be in our society. It's not a tool for sifting the wheat from the chaff in terms of ideas, but in terms of people. It is a contest of status in the arena of rhetoric. Such activities have their virtues, as do many organized sports. But just as one may have an unhealthy reverence for Football, so one may have an unhealthy reverence for Debate.
The problem is, as things currently stand in the Western World, Football is not a path to political power, and Debate can be. There are a special set of deranging distortions that enter the scene when politics are mixed in, but it also creates a paradox. While Debate is false sacrament, it is a necessary discipline, at least if one is to be ruled by words rather than swords.
We must come to terms with Debate; to toss it from a pedestal is not to render it irrelevant. Or, at least, I do. I only recently came to realize how much my two years as part of the GMU debate team were actually traumatic, as opposed to merely unpleasant. I can trace actual and negative changes in my behavior and personality to that period in my life, and it is high time I brought out those skeletons and tried them like Pope Innocentus.
My next few posts will be me dealing with this, in admittedly a somewhat scattershot way. I will be fixing ideas and arguments into black and white text that previously only floated beneath the surface of my thoughts. In many cases, I will write things, not because I genuinely believe them, or wish to be a person that believes them, but because I must exorcise a Principality that has usurped a throne within my mind. To set a thing in clear terms is the first step towards refutation.
Comments
Post a Comment