Are You Arguing with Me? "Resolved: that the United States federal government should substantially increase its development assistance, including increasing government-to-government assistance, within the Greater Horn of Africa." Making an informed, intelligent argument either for or against the above decision would be a complex task, fraught with potential political, social, and economic repercussions. That’s just what the Ithaca College Debate Team did this year, making as carefully formulated, researched, assessed, and presented an argument as possible --- on both sides of the issue. Ithaca’s team, based in the Department of Speech Communication, just finished its first year under coach Scott Thomson, an assistant professor. As part of the Cross Examination Debate Association, which includes more than 100 colleges and universities, IC’s team traveled to nine tournaments at host institutions University of Rochester, Kings College, the U. S. Military Academy at West Point, the State University of New York at Binghamton, Columbia University, Marist College, Cornell University, Boston College (regional championships), and Towson University (novice nationals). The Ithaca team debated dozens of opponents on this year’s chosen subject, making it to the elimination rounds five times; to the quarterfinals at West Point, Marist, and Cornell; and to the final round at Columbia. Reports Thomson, who had previously coached at Marist and was himself a member of the 1992 U.S. national debate team that competed in Japan, "I was very pleased. Recruiting has been successful, student commitment has been good, and our performance has been excellent." Associate professor Frank Sharp, who coached the IC forensic team from 1969 to 1998, claims, "For a school our size, we have had a very impressive track record in debate. This has been an excellent year for Scott and the team." Students commit a lot of time to debate. Several days a week are de voted to tournament preparation, done both individually and in weekly information-sharing meetings. Weekends are usually spent traveling to tournaments or preparing for the next event. This past year all students in the conference researched and argued the hypothetical resolution above; it was determined by the National Debate Tournament. Team members compile vast sums of evidence in favor of their given argument. For instance, this year they researched an exhaustive list of topics on U.S. foreign policy and on the region and countries of the Horn of Africa, including climate, environmental factors, ethnic conflicts, governmental structures, debt, arms readiness, and female genital mutilation. These days, of course, much of the research is done on the Internet; it must be quite thorough, and just as in their classes, contenders must know how to separate the good information from the bad. Each two-person debate team takes either the affirmative or the negative position and does research, analyzes the findings, and prepares an argument. The Play-by-Play At the tournament the more experienced of the partners generally takes the first position, and arguments are presented in the following order: first affirmative, first negative, second affirmative, and second negative (each is eight minutes). Between each speech there’s a three-minute cross-examination by the other team. The four-minute rebuttals follow thus: first negative, first affirmative, second negative, and second affirmative. Each team is also given six minutes to use any time during the debate for the partners to discuss strategy and the like. The teams are judged on six aspects of their arguments: analysis, reasoning, evidence, delivery, refutation (tearing down or attacking the opposing case), and rebuttal (building up their own). How do the students manage to debate the same question over and over again all year? Answers Thomson: "Because there’s so much to learn. Each time, when the teams come back after facing different opponents, they are better prepared for a wider variety of approaches. They have to be prepared for anything." The Payoffs The opportunity to argue a position with others who are prepared to take a strong opposing stance provides students with a sophisticated opportunity to learn to think critically and argue effectively. "All other things being equal," says Sharp, "I could teach someone more in one weekend of debates than in a semester of class, because it’s learning on the firing line." Debate partners Benjamin Garvey ’03, a speech communication major, and Mary Kate Sullivan ’04 (organizational communication, learning, and design) had an exciting year preparing for and participating in debates and felt that their efforts paid off. "I was most pleased with our performance at Cornell," says Garvey, who has been involved in debate since high school. "We made it to the quarterfinals. It was exciting to do so well in our own town." Both Garvey and Sullivan received Roberta Barnett Awards (named for a longtime faculty member) from the speech communication department for participating in the most events during the course of their college careers. Debaters develop skills in analyzing and interpreting research as well as learning how to investigate topics. (See Sampling of National Debate Tournament Topics) They learn how to prepare arguments and how to respond using evidence. Sharp elaborates: "Students learn to present and enjoy a good argument. They learn to work with students and coaches from other schools during the tournaments. Often they establish lasting friendships with other debaters. Some students find a campus they like and later go back for graduate school. Many debaters go on to law school." Ralph Siciliano ’72, now a New York attorney and member of the IC board of trustees, was president of the forensic club and a member of the debate team during his IC years. "After working for the SEC, I ended up practicing law in the litigation area," he says. "Litigation law is different: when you’re making an opening or closing statement to a jury, you have to convince all 12 of them unanimously. I remember after my first jury case, one of the staff attorneys asked me, ‘Where did you ever learn to speak like that?’ I realized it was the forensics and debate in college that really made a difference in my confidence in getting up in front of an audience. It seems that throughout life, whether extracurricularly or professionally, you always end up making speeches. Debate gives you the level of confidence to be articulate." Siciliano was also president of the student government and of the politics club when he was at IC. His debate partner, Joanne Solomon (now Ollman) ’73, was treasurer of student government and, Siciliano says, the "trailblazer who was in charge when student organizations first received control of their own club money." Active, involved students like these are the reason Frank Sharp remained the debate team’s coach for 30 years, driving them to tournaments near and far through sleet and rain and snow and fog. "Why would anyone do it for so long?" Sharp asks. "Because you’re guaranteed to be exposed to really good students. Debaters are also involved in everything else --- the yearbook, the radio station, theater, student government. Nobody’s going to give up weekends all year long if they’re not really interested in learning new things. You know the old saying, ‘Ask a busy person . . .’."
	Table of Contents | ICQ | ITHACA

A. Ozolins, Ithaca College Office of Publications, 27. Nov. 2001