This past Thursday night, on April 14, at 8 p.m., something truly memorable happened on campus.
And yet, not many seemed to notice. Certainly, there were advertisements for it, albeit not the most flashy or colorful ones, and those involved did spread the information around.
Even more surprisingly, upon attending said occasion, it seemed that those organizing the event were shocked at a turnout so large of about forty people. To be fair, heading into the event, I was not quite sure what to expect; but it certainly delivered.
What was this event that captivated me to write this article?
It was not a guest speaker. It was not an athletic event. It was not a musical or theatrical performance. It was a debate between two students on campus, Mitchell Snyder and Joshua Sack.
Aside from the Union Philosophical Society, which is a relative unknown on campus as well (despite being old enough to have its own Wikipedia page), organized debates rarely happen on campus. Therefore, considering the exceptionality and special nature of this event, I was actually disappointed at the turnout.
The debate originated from a series of back and forth articles written in the school newspaper, the Dickinsonian. Sack wrote the first, with Snyder following up on his article. Sack responded back, and Snyder did the same.
For the intents of this article, it is not necessary to know the specific details of the articles, although they are certainly worth the read. What is important to know is the broad topic they covered: the role of the U.S. President and who among the candidates is best suited to take on that position.
In Snyder’s final article, he asked Sack for an open debate, in an attempt to take the conversation from writing to talking. Although I am unaware of the specific details, it appears that Sack accepted the offer.
The debate went along well, loosely following the format of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates (another good link), with each side making great points and cross-examinations. Importantly, nobody was declared a winner; but rather, the audience took from the debate what they wanted to. Afterwards, Snyder and Sack both shook hands and went their separate ways.
For me, it was one of the highlights of the semester. Debates are incredibly important, especially on college campuses. This past fall, President Obama discussed the negative effects of blocking out the opposing side on an issue.
Debates are essential for three major reasons.
Firstly, the audience learns a lot from a good debate. Both sides have their issues presented, and both sides’ have their arguments questioned and prodded. Attending a debate allows an individual to examine and become informed on both sides of an issue, and perhaps make their own connections on an important topic.
While the individual may not come to their own conclusion, one will have new light shed upon a topic and a potentially a new way of seeing things. Moreover, attending a debate could be a great way to start an intelligent and well-founded dialogue between other individuals, as opposed to simply an argument.
Secondly, those involved in the debate gain tremendously from their experiences. Certainly, it improves an individual’s articulation of ideas and public speaking abilities. Furthermore, it most certainly helps an individual’s ability to actively listen and think quickly.
Upon watching the debate, I saw both Snyder and Sack taking careful notes on what each other had been saying, readying themselves as quickly as they could for cross-examination and closing arguments.
But perhaps most importantly, debating another person well involves empathy. In order to engage in conversation with another individual, one must know where the other is coming from, so as to understand why he/she is arguing what they do.
Practicing empathy is a necessary skill to have in order to help build relationships with others, whether personally, academically, or economically.
Thirdly, debates, when done well, ultimately bring opposing sides closer together. As opposed to operating in isolation and secluding themselves, opposing groups will learn to understand the others and will likely cooperate with them better.
When in isolation, individuals begin to develop an “us vs. them” mentality, when in reality, it should be simply an “us” mentality.
In short, how can we, as a collective of differences -- beliefs, backgrounds, party affiliations, etc. -- come together to be productive?
Ironically enough, as I went to look up Snyder’s articles, there I found another important piece of writing. This past February, Snyder wrote “Why Debate is Dying?” -- a piece well worth the read.
It makes me happy to know that one of the debaters was educated as such about the importance of good debate. It clearly showed through his actions on the debate stage this past Thursday.
Therefore, I truly hope that both Snyder and Sack get more opportunities to debate others openly like this. It is both beneficial and healthy for the campus as a whole, and for those fortunate enough to participate in the debate, whether as an audience member or a debater.
