The NDT and intercollegiate debate.

• Author: Balthrop, Bill
• Position: National Debate Tournament

Today, the National Debate Tournament stands as the pinnacle of intercollegiate policy debate. It has done so for the past fifty years. And yet, despite the effort expended in qualifying to attend it, the anguish that comes with failing to qualify and in losing a break or elimination round, and despite the enormous joy that accompanies victory, the NDT and intercollegiate debate must be kept in perspective even in this celebratory moment. I have experienced each of those moments; as a debater at Wichita State University, an assistant coach at the University of Kansas, and Director of Forensics at the University of North Carolina. What is important about the NDT, and what deserves celebration on its 50th anniversary, is what the tournament represents for the debate community.

Debate takes place in and is supported by institutions of higher education. We are asked frequently by administrators to justify expenditures on debate, sometimes substantial, at a time when other worthwhile needs are making claim on the same scarce resources. We argue that debate provides a format for the testing of ideas, for teaching students research and analytical skills, for developing expressive abilities, and for providing an intensive and multi-disciplinary learning environment where they engage the most challenging, immediate, and sophisticated problems and ideas. We argue that virtually no other activity within the academy can match this experience; and we claim, further, that insofar as we are committed to providing opportunities for educational excellence for those motivated enough to respond, debate is a worthwhile expense.

I agree with those justifications and find them as persuasive in my current role as an administrator as I did when advancing them as director of forensics. They are persuasive in word, however, only when enacted in deed. The value of debate lies not in winning the NDT or in coaching the first first-round. I believe, instead, that it lies in those very axioms we present each year when budgets are submitted or discussions are held with colleagues. Our students do engage the most pressing issues of our time and learn of their complexities; they do learn to process, interpret, and evaluate information more quickly and rigorously than almost all of their cohorts; they do become aware of the interconnectedness of both ideas and life; and the extent of their efforts demands that excellence be supported even in the most egalitarian of institutions. All this, however, is not enough.

If we stress to our students the interrelationship of ideas and life, it is incumbent upon us as debate coaches to live what we preach. Just as debate should not be the focus of a student's entire life, neither should debate and competitive zeal be the sole element...