Realizing what’s actually debatable
By Rick Pecka
You might think that in our society (insert the usual cliches of “a nation divided” or “a highly polarized country”) that finding topics suitable for debate is easy.
The truth is, it can be anything but.
I teach journalism, and a healthy chunk of the course is devoted to understanding media bias. This is, of course, different from disinformation. Regardless, the way that media outlets have transformed the narrative about debate has more or less changed people’s perspectives about what debate is. And not for the better.
A Brief History Lesson in Media Bias
In the 1940s, the Federal Communications Commission established the Fairness Doctrine, a mandate that required all broadcast news sources to provide both sides of potentially controversial topics as well as give equal time to each perspective. This led to debate-based segments on news shows, such as “Point/Counterpoint,” which aired on CBS’s 60 Minutes in the 1970s.
However, by the 1980s, broadcasters lobbied to eliminate the Fairness Doctrine, claiming that it was an infringement of their First Amendment rights as members of the press. In other words, they felt the U.S. government was telling them what they had to air rather than giving them the editorial freedom to decide for themselves.
The Doctrine ended in 1987 and has not been seen since.
In the years that elapsed, cable TV gave way to the rise of the 24-hour news network, a medium over which the FCC has minimal oversight. Whether it’s CNN, Fox News, or MS NOW, all of these networks have gotten and held the attention of viewers through heavy editorialization and focusing on ideological differences. Programming deviated from straight news reporting and hinged more on commentary laced with selective facts.
In other words, most everything in their world boils down to right and left, red and blue, conservative and liberal. When considering topics for drills and practices, we may have a tendency to gravitate toward those zones because of how the news is covered.
Sadly, viewing the world through solely through those lenses leaves little room for nuance, and the further fragmentation of media through social media platforms has only served to further affect the way many citizens formulate their opinions.
“Where’s The Gov/Opp?”
This kind of binary argumentation legitimately limits the way a topic committee evaluates divisive topics in the current media ecosystem. Last season, one of the topic ideas briefly (and I do mean briefly) considered was redistricting. It was around this time that California Proposition 50 was about to be voted upon, allowing the Democratic party to redraw their congressional maps in response to a Republican-led mid-decade redistricting in Texas earlier that summer. Efforts by both parties were considered partisan gerrymanders, which brought up the core of the issue we were facing. How could we execute this motion and give balance to both sides of the question?
When this topic was pitched, one member of the committee rightfully brought up the fact that arguing for redistricting is effectively only arguing for a party and their beliefs.
The implication was clear: there’s no depth here.
Figuring out a good motion mandates that both Gov and Opp have equal or close to equal footing. It also demands that there be a wide variety of arguments available, or else one side stands on a flimsy foundation. So, the challenge becomes finding a way to discuss a contemporary topic in a way that is legitimately debatable.
Another case where we struggled to find enough depth was a proposed motion regarding the United States leaving NATO. A full packet was drafted, shared, and evaluated. The end result was similar: not enough on both sides to make it meaningful. Aside from financial arguments, there was very little to support the idea, and after all the time put into the packet, it died a quick death once we really dug in.
Since then, a common question we’ve asked one another on the committee when suggesting topics is, “Where’s the Gov?” Or conversely, “Where’s the Opp?” This is where wording and intention come together to make something that has equal footing on both sides. In short, we take some of the ideals of the Fairness Doctrine itself and make sure to apply them equitably to the packets we design.
Here’s a grossly oversimplified example:
“This House would prioritize fighting climate change” is a fairly weak motion. For one thing, it’s definitionally vague (what does “fighting” translate to, here?). For another, the nature of this motion suggests the debate will be about why climate change should be combatted.
There are facts and figures that can speak to this. Despite what the average talking head might say on your network of choice, there’s little denial that climate change is a real thing. This would make for a pretty messy competition.
However, considering how to combat climate change offers up richer possibilities. A few years ago, we ran one such motion: “This House regrets climate lawsuits,” which challenged students to examine whether or not litigation was a positive factor in addressing the issue.
How To Apply This Thinking
When practicing, read headlines, but really try to look beyond them. If you can take an issue you don’t agree with and truly consider arguments for both sides, you’re thinking more like an effective coach or debater.
If you can’t come up with much besides the usual “this side/that side” paradigm, it’s probably not worth using in practice. Focusing on the usual topics can oftentimes go nowhere, and leads to little growth in a team. But examining true depth in arguments is important, and sometimes a good practice can just be an open discussion of what’s going on in the world.
Here’s a drill for coaches to consider:
Go to Google News, Ground News, or another news aggregator.
Spend 10 minutes reading through headlines. Select a handful to work with, three or four.
Rephrase them as motions on the board.
For each motion, have students craft contentions in teams of two for five minutes.
Weigh the contentions to determine how deep or thin the motion is.
For both coaches and debaters, this builds the habit of analyzing so-called “debatable” topics that are in the news. You might not guess what the focus of the next CDA competition will be, but you’ll begin to notice your case prep gets easier on tournament day, with less time spent on trying to figure out contentions strictly from the packet.
Broadening Horizons
Debate is about far more than just wins and losses. It’s about considering wide-spanning implications and trying to find logic in both sides of an issue. Putting on my journalism hat for a moment, I can safely say more of this is needed in public discourse.
As a coach, this can contribute to your teaching practice if, like most of us, you teach the humanities. You may find more places to incorporate debate or argumentation into your regular diet. For example, last year, my students read The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark Haddon, a 2003 mystery about a neurodivergent teenage protagonist. Haddon goes to great lengths to include visual references to help readers understand how the main character’s mind works. After completing the book, we had a flash debate with my students regarding whether or not it was appropriate for the author, who is neurotypical, to write a character who is not.
As a student, this is invaluable thinking that extends itself to argumentative writing and DBQs. Complex issues at the center of these assessments are rarely just black and white, so as you get used to going in depth to consider all sides and ramifications, you’ll notice your writing improve dramatically, and these tasks will gradually seem less daunting.
Something to think about the next time you get a push notification on a breaking news story.
