House Be Upstanding

By JOHN SWANEY*

ONE of the first impres- sions that strikes most Americans visiting Britain is that the differences be- tween the two countries are often exaggerated. Such is not the case, how- ever, with university de-

, bating. In the United

/,) (\.v States, debate is a highly

competitive art. Virtually

all the conflicts are con- ducted at large-scale' tournaments, which may often find over a hundred debate teams from perhaps fifty or sixty universities participating. Each debate is conducted in a highly formalised style, with time limits and other regulations being rigidly enforced. And of prime importance in American university debating is the motion, which is always of a weighty nature and inevit- ably involves a proposition of policy. The motion being debated at all American tournaments this year is 'That the federal government should guarantee an opportunity for higher education to all qualified high school graduates.' The debates invariably involve a great deal of research and logical argument, with little room for frivolity. The British practice is entirely different.

Having just completed an extensive debating tour of British universities, this author speaks from a considerable degree of experience. That characteristic reticence often attributed to the British personality is nowhere to be found on the Union debating floor. The speakers cavort, con- tort, and often distort, with a readiness and ease that would put many professional entertainers to shame. They may often insult the opposition, the chairman, the audience, and even their own colleague, with rapier-sharp verbal thrusts that reveal a remarkable keenness of mind. The better speakers are usually persuasive, and are consis- tently amusing; but one vitally important ques- tion inevitably enters the mind of the serious student of argumentation. Are they debating?

The list of motions debated during the eight weeks of the tour ran the gamut from the sublime to the ridiculous, but was heavily weighted in favour of the latter. At one Scottish university on St. Valentine's Day, the topic for discussion was 'That Love is only a four-letter word,' and the evening's performances were quite sufficient to demonstrate that debate may often be considerably less than a six-letter word. Else- where in Scotland no less than twelve main table speakers gave consideration to the motion 'That this house proclaims its independence.' Not unexpectedly, the audience was subjected to twelve totally different interpretations of the topic, most of which were delivered with com- petent fluency, but not one of which coincided with any of the others. On this occasion, no division of the house was taken, but one might well wonder on what possible basis any member could have decided to vote for either side.

This is not to imply that the Scots have any Monopoly of inane motions. The visit of the American team to Cambridge yielded an evening spent in discussion of 'Je pense done je neennuie.' It also yielded the most entertaining and hilarious

* Mr. Swaney is a graduate of North Texas State, and has recently completed a debating tour of British Universities.

debate in which this author has ever participated, mostly due to the performance of a guest-speaker, Noel Picarda. Mr. Picarda had obviously gone to great lengths to be certain that every segment of his speech was completely irrelevant to the motion at hand. He succeeded admirably and would no doubt be the first to agree that his half- hour .before the house was not a debate speech, but a well-executed comedy routine. Although most British debaters lack Mr. Picarda's skill, they are as often as not striving for that same goal of total irrelevancy.

Consider one further example. At one college in London, the motion for the evening had been established several weeks in advance. Approxi- mately ten minutes before the debate, however, it was decided that the motion should be changed, and, to make the situation even more interesting, none of the participants was to know the topic until the proposer announced it in his opening speech. Much to the surprise of all present, especially the proposer himself, the discussion turned out to be 'That this motion should be soundly defeated.' Thus, explained the first speaker, if the house voted for, then the proposi- tion would win, and if the house voted against, the proposition would still win because the motion would have then been soundly defeated. Much to the consternation of the proposer, how- ever, the house voted that Loth teams should win.

At this point, it might appear that the British debater devotes all his efforts to the considera- tion of frivolous and unimportant topics. 13tit this is not entirely true. Five times during the tour, the motion for debate was 'This house refuses to fight for West Berlin,' which sas always treated with the utmost solemnity. Yet confronted with such a serious motion, most of the British debaters seemed to be out of their element. Unable to rely on humour, they tended to turn to emotionalism, which is certainly one legitimate tool of argumentation, but not in itself the art of persuasion. The emotional appeal of `if- we light for Berlin, we'll all be blown up,' is not destined to hold much sys.ty with the logical listener. Nor were the students particularly well informed.

All the above is not intended to imply that during the tour no British student was en- countered who could present a logical, well- analysed, effective debate speech.• In fact. there were many. Probably the finest performance by two undergraduates heard during the entire eight weeks was at the University College of North Wales. Bangor. Discussing 'That it Russia did not exist, we would have to invent her,' the two men achieved a near-perfect com- bination of humour, logic and evidence in the presentation of their arguments.

It was encouraging to notice that some organ- ised steps are being taken in the direction of steering British debate away from the wholly' frivolous. Perhaps the most noteworthy of these efforts is the Observer Mace Tournament. in which the debates are judged by a panel of ‘'' perts, rather than the decision being made IV an audience of undergraduates. In addition. some university debating societies are conducting their own small-scale invitation tournamenls• with the debates being judged. It seems a curious paradox that some debaters can adapt their style, i remarkably well for the purposes of one oi these tournaments, but when returning to theftli

own union societies immediately revert to the old frivolity.

But one point should be made clear. Questions of merit aside, an evening spent in a British union debating society can be one of the most entertaining experiences imaginable. Any person mho has never had the pleasure of watching two teams of inane Britons square off in verbal conflict should run, not walk, to the nearest Union. The call of 'House -be upstanding.' as the speakers enter the chamber, seldom fails to signal the beginning of a fascinating per- formance. The pity is that it is still only a performance. British Debate, I would submit, is more British than Debate.