Magic, Mystification, and Speed Reading

As John Dewey stated in Democracy and Education, “Society not only continues to exist by transmission… it may fairly be said to exist in transmission, in communication” (italics added for effect). I believe that debate is a wonderful example of this. Before watching Resolved, I knew nothing about debate clubs and competitions; I just had a few assumptions about what it must be. I thought debate was a simple argument contest where two kids fought with words. I thought it was more like the presidential debates on television. It is so much more than that. It’s a mesmerizing avalanche of words coming from mountains of paperwork collected into numerous hefty tubs. I was so impressed. Dewey also states that, “communication is educative.” I have never seen such dedicated students before. They go to camps to collect research. They read scholar after scholar, collecting more and more data, analysis, and opinions. They’ve probably read more scholarly literature than many in the US would have ever dreamed existed. Later in the film, they interview politicians, broadcasters, and other successful people that all have a background in debate. They all revel in its usefulness and education, how they grew from it. It seems like the perfect educational club right? One that you would want your kid to join so that they could be smart and successful too. Maybe not.

            Watching Sam Iola and Matt Andrews debate was captivating and enthralling certainly. Whenever they skipped the debate and just stated the results (to save time for the film) I was disappointed because I wanted to continue watching them; they definitely had a magic to their process and presentation. But then the filmmakers juxtaposed Sam and Matt – who are very traditional competitors – against Richard and Louis who desire to change the status quo. Richard and Louis are black kids from Long Island, and definitely not the kind of kids who are typically seen at debating events. These two are good debaters, but they think that the current system of debate is racist in its fundamentals. Minorities are often poorer than their white counterparts; they can’t afford to go to summer camps and other processes to get the research necessary to compete effectively. Richard and Louis decide to no longer debate like everyone else debates. Instead, as Freire would say, they “problem pose” in this educational discourse. They try to “perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves.” They could debate like everyone else, but that would change nothing; they would be approving a system that bars entry to so many of their peers. It is not educational if nothing is gained from it. Why make a game of politics, when real answers could possibly be reached? That is the question they pose. They want to talk about the problems in their streets and neighborhoods and not play a game that always ends in nuclear fall out, that’s childish. Sadly, not everyone will listen. It’s hard to talk about the real world and real problems when people assume that you are playing along like everyone else. It’s even harder when they can see what you are doing but disagree. In the interviews of various people, everyone seemed very defensive of debate and didn’t want it to ever change because then “it wouldn’t be debate”. I hate that excuse.  I understand that change can be hard and sometimes painful, but sometimes you have to break walls down to let the trapped people out. I think debate could be a great form of society and education, but I think that Richard and Louis are on to something. Systems need to be questioned, nothing is perfect.