Debates: Quality over Quantity

Last week I was teaching middle school kids about speech and debate. As I was listening to the kids's arguments, evaluating their performance and evidence in my head, I was constantly reminded of something I'd been noticing in presidential debates and in chats with my best friend.

I'm also reminded of a quote from my professor in my undergraduate college, whose words set me on the path to becoming a science writer.

"To discuss is to change minds, and to debate is to win."

Or something like that. At this point, I've gone through his words so many times that I wouldn't be surprised if my brain has altered some of the wording since then. But credit to him: Professor Hutchinson.

Either way, it was this quote in my evolutionary biology class when we were learning about the intersections between science and religion that I realized I was way too ready to argue. The moment that someone said, "yes, but-" or "however-" or "except-", I felt the blood rush through my veins like magma, raising my body temperature, making me sweaty and dizzy and ready to fight.

I was raised to argue by my parents and educated in the structure of arguments by my high school's AP language and composition course. My search history on YouTube was filled with arguments consisting mostly of ex-religious people refuting points thrown by religious zealots attempting to oppose the Theory of Evolution. My speed was only limited by the muscles of my fingers and hands on the paper and keyboard. My cup was flowing with creativity, and I knew that my lungs could carry my words far. I was a debate warrior. A natural arguer, and I was ready to feel smug in the face of religious overlap with evolution.

But to my utter shock, the professor's lecture went in a different direction.

He spoke of religious scientists whose beliefs fueled their drive to discover the secrets of the universe. Scientists who investigated various fields of science and made important discoveries that were influenced and supported by their religion; encouraged to ask questions, seek answers, and think critically.

He spoke of how even the Vatican and the Pope support the Theory of Evolution; of how many religious leaders have teamed with scientists to promote the ideas of scientific advancement for the good of all; how conflicts arose from cults turning away from scientific reasoning, shunning the practice of critical thought for the desire to control, maintaining tradition through ignorance and bliss through peer pressure.

Out of all the lessons he's given, this one stuck with me the most because it introduced a new path in my line of thinking.

A new philosophy to life: if I was only ever prepared to debate, then I could only ever fail or win. I'd never challenge myself to think differently, to expand my mind, and to actually discuss and change minds and be willing to have my mind changed. I'd be this emotional wreck, ruled by fear and anger rather than rationality.

I'm still an atheist, but now my thinking shifted from, "religion is stupid. Of course God doesn't exist" but rather wondering why a person would turn to religion. How do they practice their beliefs? How do they use them to help or hurt others? How much control do they have in their own life to be able to question rather than receive?

I'm very proud of the first discussion I had with a particularly religious person after this class.

I was in Wilderness First Response camp over Spring Break.

Sidenote: Absolutely hated this week-and-a-half long course, from the agony of waking up early to the despair of realizing that my vacation/relaxation time has been cut down so much that the next set of courses were going to be hell on my mental health. Material was educational, but that's the only compliment I'm willing to give about the class.

As I was saying: One of my classmates wanted to be a priest, and when I mentioned my lack of belief in a god, he and a friend started to tease me and call me stupid. I could have settled into my anger and let it drive my actions. Instead, I focused on that quote and pushed aside my negative emotions. I scolded the guy, saying that if he wants to be a good priest he has to listen to people who disagree with him. He has to be willing to hear all, talk with all, help all - including atheists and non-believers - because he will undoubtedly come across these people in his career.

Later on during break time, that religious classmate did approach me and ask me about my beliefs, and we settled into a discussion of the origins and evolution of humans. I was trying and failing to copy word-for-word what my professor said, but I wasn't feeling frustrated with the classmate. By the end of break, we both felt like we'd learned something. Maybe he took away some tidbit about humans, but I took away how much more positive I felt, how light and successful I was in my new approach.

On another sidenote, I also learned I cannot word vomit a professor's lecture perfectly and that I needed to know my shite to explain the shite.

I was thankful for this opportunity and still look back on it positively. I actually had a positive discussion with someone so heavily intertwined with religion that they planned to specialize and build a career in it. No rage; no magma underneath my skin.

After that professor's lecture I practiced the mental technique of asking whether a conversation was a discussion or a debate. When my emotions ran hot while chatting with family or friends, I stopped and asked them if they were arguing with me or just chatting. This would make us both step back and reevaluate the situation, preventing potential negativity.

Utilizing his quote with my own experience and skills, I got into Johns Hopkins University in 2023, which had an approximate 7.5% acceptance rate for its undergraduate class. I had to write an essay and submit a portfolio of my work for the master's program. People have applied who were valedictorians, award winners, or had survived several AP classes. Many of them weren't accepted.

I was.

I usually try to only humble brag, but I do have a point to what I'm saying.

When it comes to writing about science, part of the job is to see what people know and how they know it. I have to be aware of and dispel myths without turning people away or losing readers. I have to balance discussion with argument to achieve persuasion.

This graduate course went from 2023 to 2025. Two years of my life, quick and effective, especially because I took more than a couple classes at once to fast-track. In this time, political debates were everywhere on media channels. I watched the videos, saw the clips, and listened to reviews of the debates, chatting about them with my best friend.

We observed how fact-checkers experienced more and more challenges in dispelling the growing pile of false statements. Such a standard role during and after a debate became something deserving hazard pay as political figures shot falsities and insults like bullets from a machine gun, fast and furious and confident and so, so damaging.

They were effective weapons. Psychological research has been done to investigate the resonance and stickiness of positive versus negative memories and how such feelings can subsist even when the memory has faded. They've found negative memories - those fueled by fear, anger, and hatred - can survive the trial of time, warping someone beyond recognition. How fear-mongering has been and will continue to be utilized throughout history, and the trauma that lingers in their wake.

Especially when various media channels echoed the false statements and hurtful sentiments. People who did their damnest to dispel false rumors and myths were buried beneath overwhelming numbers, emotions and ridicule.

All I could think while this was happening was 'what could I even do about this?' Because soon it would be my fingers on the keyboard against these fearsome figures. Soon it would be my voice reaching the people. But how could my voice be effective? How can I prevail with such a wall in front of me?

The answer was in the quote.

People who are willing to discuss and open to having their minds changed could be approached. But that was just finding the audience. Now how to approach them?

Approaching an audience is very important in politics and speech and debate competitions. While regular debate competitions have a judge who determines the winner, political debates are practically ruled by a crowd jury. The winner is the one with the catchiest comeback, the most explosive of banger endings. And when it comes down to it, insults most likely to be heard on the playground than in a professional political debate can be catchy.

Not only can personal insults stick to the brain, but they can undermine the opponent's argument by pure charismatic power of the one throwing the insult. Not to mention, when it comes to the opponent's assumed duty of refuting the points made by their opposition, the insult adds to the pile and threatens to tear down the wall between emotions and logic, forcing that opponent to juggle looking professional while keeping a cool head.

While not at all professional, using insults to undermine the oppositional side has been a technique used more often in political debates to the detriment of both the accuser and the target. The accuser because it shows how unprofessional they are, and the target because they're stuck with it through media's influence.

But insults are cheap. The other technique that I've noticed being utilized far more in political competitions and have reached formal debate competitions (from what I've read online) is the technique of spreading. In a competition where you are given a limited amount of time to answer the question or refute the opposition, words per minute matter. There can be an incentive rewarding breadth of argument over depth, where the point is to hurl so much 'evidence' and support of your argument that when it becomes the opposition's turn, they are tasked with breaking down a mountain of falsities and misinformation.

Without naming names, I can say that one political side has been far more often depicted and observed spouting statements with little to no supporting facts or evidence. They're the ones running fact-checkers haggard and using time to get away with it. And when the opponent takes the time to refute such unsupported points, volume can be wielded as an effective secondary weapon. Yelling, speaking over the opponent, and general refusal to respect the rules of time have led to such political debates sound more like childish yelling than mature, grown, 60+ years old men who are campaigning to run the country.

Overall, while the quantity of points given to support an argument have increased, their quality has gone so downhill that logical fallacies can be used in seconds to easily point out errors in reasoning, as long as the audience is willing to listen.

It all depends on the audience.

When it came to teaching the kids how to write an inspiring speech and debate effectively, I and other teachers had to point out to them the quality of their points - if they were repetitive or shallow. We urged them to think of more and get creative. When they were having fun, they were overflowing with points - ethos, logos, and pathos - but then in more serious arguments in the class they froze, tongue-tied.

Part of this is nerves and anxiety, which can be solved through repetition and resilience. But kids also learn through example, from discussion with parents, peers, and teachers. Through exposure from media.

I can't speak about other parents, teachers, or peers. But I do think our media is not helping the kids build good skills and strategies on what a debate is and how to debate. I shudder to think of how kids who watch Fox News with their parents make their arguments. How they orally duel. How they think, reason, and analyze.

I'm proud to say that at PopSmart Academy, my teaching colleagues and I are instructing the kids not only how to build their arguments but how to think critically about them. How to construct their speeches with evidence and examples, showing off the ethos, pathos, and logos necessary to persuade and win.

In the grand scheme of things, quality should beget quantity. That's what I hope to teach the kids.

I think I'm doing well so far.

Citations:

1. Bubikova-Moan, J., & Sandvik, M. (2022). Argumentation in early childhood: A systematic review. Human Development. https://doi.org/10.1159/000527293
2. Bova, A. (2015). Children’s responses in argumentative discussions relating to parental rules and prescriptions. Ampersand, 2, 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2015.08.002
3. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The Development of Argument Skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00605
4. Iordanou, K., & Rapanta, C. (2021). “Argue With Me”: A Method for Developing Argument Skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 12:631203. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.631203
5. McAvoy, P., & McAvoy, G. E. (2021). Can Debate and Deliberation Reduce Partisan Divisions? Evidence from a Study of High School Students. Peabody Journal of Education, 96(3), 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2021.1942706
6. Mercier, H. (2011). Reasoning serves argumentation in children. Cognitive Development, 26(3), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2010.12.001
7. McCordick, J. (2017). The Corrosion of High School Debate—And How It Mirrors American Politics. In America Magazine. https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2017/09/26/corrosion-high-school-debate-and-how-it-mirrors-american-politics/
8. Flowers, Olivia. (2025). Equality in Forensics - Bridging the Divide Between Speech and Debate. Equalityinforensics.Org. https://www.equalityinforensics.org/resources/blog/bridging-the-divide-between-speech-and-debate
9. Why. (2019). AA Speech & Debate. In AA Speech & Debate. https://www.aaspeechanddebate.org/benefits-of-speech-and-debate?
10. Shanto Iyengar, Yphtach Lelkes, Matthew Levendusky, Neil Malhotra, Sean J. Westwood. 2019. The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States.Annual Review of Political Science 22:129-146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
11. Martin, D., & Nai, A. (2024). Deepening the rift: Negative campaigning fosters affective polarization in multiparty elections. Electoral Studies, 87, 102745–102745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102745
12. Pedersen, R. T., Christensen, J., & Petersen, N. B. G. (2026). Congenial messages from politicians reduce affective polarization among citizens. European Journal of Political Research, 65(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1475676525100030
13. Warner, B. R., Park, J., Kim, G.-E., McKinney, M. S., & Paul, Wm. B. (2021). Do Presidential Primary Debates Increase Political Polarization? American Behavioral Scientist, 000276422110266. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642211026613
14. Park, J., Warner, B. R., McKinney, M. S., Kearney, C., Kearney, M. W., & Kim, G.-E. (2021). Partisan Identity and Affective Polarization in Presidential Debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 000276422110465. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642211046551
15. Tilley, J., Bejan, T., & Hobolt, S. B. (2026). Partisan (In)Tolerance and Affective Polarization. British Journal of Political Science, 56, e36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123426101550
16. Chen, H.-T., Song, Y., & Guo, J. (2026). When Disagreement Becomes Uncivil on Social Media: The Role of Passive Receiving and Active Expression of Incivility in Influencing Political Polarization. Communication Research, 53(1), 33-60.
17. Kardas, M., Nordgren, L., & Rucker, D. (2026). Unnecessarily divided: Civil conversations reduce attitude polarization more than people expect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 130(2), 187–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000469
18. Lawson, H. L., & Skaggs, E. C. (2026). A Comparative Analysis of Communicative Behavior in CEDA Lincoln-Douglas Debate and CEDA Team Debate. Ed.Gov. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed376518
19. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. https://doi.org/10.1037//1089-2680.5.4.323
20. Kensinger, E. A. (2007). Negative Emotion Enhances Memory Accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00506.x
21. Kramon, E. (2026). Why Do Deliberative Discussions Reduce Affective Polarization? Evidence from a Deliberation Experiment in Honduras. Perspectives on Politics, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592725104313
22. Pettigrew, T.F. and Tropp, L.R. (2008), How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators^†. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol., 38: 922-934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504
23. Pdf. https://www.americanspeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024-2025-Handbook.pdf