NYC Urban Debate League
A short piece on my volunteer experience judging all-girl youth debate teams in NYC.
The organization I decided to volunteer for is called the New York City Urban Debate League. Their focus is providing middle and high schoolers access to “the highest-quality debate opportunities that develop young adults into informed, engaged, and courageous citizens” (debate.nyc). Debate is one of the most rigorous and influential academic programs. They have proven to improve graduation rates, critical reasoning skills, literacy skills, and conflict resolution. The Debate League allows space for students to become more engaged with real world information and conversation.
I was able to experience the effects of the debate league organization first-hand as a judge. The debate topic was whether the United States should replace means-tested welfare programs with a universal basic income (UBI). For first-time debate judges, the League provides an orientation, guides, examples of ballots, expectations of behavior for students, coaches, and judges, as well as a breakdown of each segment of a debate. The breakdown consisted a specific order of speakers, time limits, and speeches. I judged two debates. This specific match was for female students, but there are times when the debate includes all male or a mixture of students. The teams have done all research prior to the debate and are ready to argue both sides of the topic.
When the round is concluded, the judge dictates on a form a rank and score of ‘speaker points’ (a rubric is given), as well as commentary on the decision. The coaches usually receive these comments in order to guide their students to improve their debate skills. The goal should be to comment on speaking/organizational skills, general debate refutation skills, and comprehension and persuasion on key issues. The comment section and speaker points indicate where a student’s strengths are and what can be improved in a constructive way. I loved seeing how dedicated, excited, and passionate the students were when debating.
I think the organization relates to the topic of conflict analysis. The purpose of the debate was not to negotiate and come up with a solution both sides would accept, but in order to successfully deliver their arguments, the students used similar steps and tolls that Matthew Levinger describes in Conflict Analysis: Unlocking Causes, Unlocking Solutions. During the debates, I kept notes to track the key points, evidence, and whether the opposing team was able to discredit any statements. The debates mostly centered on dividers, described as “sources of tension or polarization of groups” (Levinger 95). On page 98, Levinger lists categories of dividers: strategic, political, socioeconomic, psychological, and cultural. The students used these categories to define their key dividers. The second debate team discussed the category of politics. One side tried to attack by stating the current or next president might oppose the UBI and reverse it. Feyisayo, on the opposing team, rebutted that of all the branches of government, it would not be the president who made the decision on the UBI, so the opinion of the current president and future candidates was irrelevant. Naia discussed the potential for political corruption. Some girls discussed the effects and importance of Medicaid and other health-care policies tied into monetary dispersion of welfare. In the strategic category, Perla referenced other countries/governments in her opening argument to support the United States transitioning to a UBI.
The socioeconomic category was the most emphasized in the arguments. All sets of teams described poverty levels, deficits, income inequality, taxes, and restrictions on eligibility. I think the category was the most popular because it was easier to find and produce factual evidence. The students seemed to stay away from the psychological and cultural categories, I believe because of the burden of irrefutable proof. The conversations did reflect some on the history of marginalized groups who depend on social services/welfare. Shelsie, Feyisayo’s teammate, said that welfare was supposed to be a temporary program, and it has been running and increasingly used since 1935. Meaning, in theory, the welfare system did not work. Therefore, the UBI should be used. The con debaters, one of which was Naia, did not respond to this, which I noted because Shelsie had a valid point that should have been refuted to strengthen the con argument. The con side reiterated the benefits of 79 welfare programs verses one UBI that would not be able to cover the financial/value difference.
Levinger categorizes actors, although in the context of negotiation, it applies to the categories of the pro and con teams. On page 102, it specifies spoilers (actors who benefit from continuation of conflict) and peacebuilders (seek to mitigate or resolve conflict). Seeing the passing of the UBI as the conflict, the pro side are the peacebuilders and the con side would be the spoilers, wanting to block the application of the UBI. Levinger also terms narrative analysis, which can “help newcomers to a conflict zone understand the states of the struggle, and… refine and enrich their knowledge of the conflict’s dynamics” (114). It also “[explores] the rhetorical strategies leaders use to advance their agendas” (Levinger 117). There are a few central questions that form the strategy: “how do leaders attempt to influence and balance their own multiple constituencies? How do leaders attempt to position themselves advantageously against their rivals?” (Levinger 117). The interests that shape strategy include: substantive (involves the core issues over which rivals are contending), procedural (relates to question of whether substantive issues are seen as decided in a fair and proper manner), and relationship (involves perceptions of status, dignity, respect, and mutual trust) (Levinger 120-121).
Both teams use their opening statements for a narrative analysis. The central questions are how judges might determine the success of a team, with the ‘leaders’ being the students. The students also use these questions and other similar guidelines to create their strategy against the other team. What are the advantages of being on a certain side of the argument? What evidence did a team have that was indisputable against the opposing team? The substantive interest, in combination with their given position on UBI, guided their research talking points. Procedural interest ensures that all parties involved in the debate are following the same rules and no team is able to compete unfairly.
The relationship interest, I think, maintains civility among debaters, suggests an unbiased, impersonal judge, and ensures fairness and trust between debaters, the judges, and coaches to give the students a proper experience. I am glad that I was able to witness the transformation of these young women into strong, confident voices. I believe that the organization is living up to its mission statement, teaching skills not only to their students but to the volunteers and other people in leadership roles. The organization prepares, supports, and excites their members to join a more interactive and progressive society.
Works Cited
Levinger, Matthew Bernard. Conflict Analysis: Understanding Causes, Unlocking Solutions. United States Institute of Peace, 2013.
“Making Debate More Accessible in NYC.” New York City Urban Debate League, debate.nyc/.
