Aryn Plax
News Editor
The University of La Verne debate team participated in a two day tournament Oct. 7-8 at San Diego State University in the competition’s preliminary round.
The team exclusively participated in British Parliamentary debate, or BP, which is the debate style of World Universities Debating Championship, the largest international debating tournament.
In British Parliamentary, the four teams debate on a presented topic, with two teams paired together to argue a specific stance. The teams in favor of a proposition are called “government,” with one team called “opening government” and the other called “closing government.” The teams against it are called “opposition,” with one team as “opening opposition” and “closing opposition.” After each round, each team gets either three, two, one or zero points.
The debate team competed in preliminary rounds one through four on Saturday, debating on online venues for sugar daddies and sugar babies, oversexualization of pride parades, financial penalties on gun manufacturers in cases of homicide, and the responsibility of media conglomerates to inform the public on Russian intrusion.
The debate allows only 15 minutes to prepare arguments, which requires teams to do advanced research in several issues.
“We just have to be informed about a plethora of things,” Scott Dutra, senior political science major said. “I have a matter binder, it’s probably full of 100 different issues, and a bunch of different schools of thought.”
Fares Abdullah, sophomore political science and speech communications double major, argued against the proposed ban on websites for sugar daddies and sugar babies. The government teams said that the imbalance of power puts the girlfriend, or sugar baby, in an inferior position. Abdullah’s team said that the relationship should be treated like any other setting in which one receives money for a service.
“We say ‘okay, one, they consent, and two, even if they’re in this weird power structure where someone is above them to an extent, because they have more money… you’re still taking that money as you would with any job,’” Abdullah said.
When the teams debated on financial penalties on gun manufacturers in cases of homicide, Andrea Vandiver, senior biology major, said that the opposition teams argued that diversion of blame was shameful to homicide victims.
In another round, Vandiver said that the government teams said the oversexualization of pride parades causes the gay community to not be taken seriously when trying to bring policy change.
Abdullah said that while he understands why oversexualization would not be appealing to conservative groups, there is a double standard placed on the gay community.
“We oversexualize heterosexuality,” Abdullah said. “Why is it wrong if it’s homosexual, or it’s lesbian, or it’s bisexual? The reason we would consider that oversexualization wrong is because we consider their sexuality to be inferior.”
On Sunday, the ULV debate team completed preliminary rounds five and six. The first topic was whether or not kneeling during the national anthem was an ineffective protest strategy.
Dutra, who argued for effectiveness, said that initial misunderstanding of a protest does not delegitimize it.
“I think there’s been a trend where… media outlets don’t necessarily get the protests, or purposely try to misconstrue the protests,” Dutra said. “The media will purposely otherize other people in ways that disempower them. They called Martin Luther King Jr. a criminal and things like that. That’s typically what happens with protests when they first start.”
Vandiver, who argued on Dutra’s side, said that she personally found kneeling to be an ineffective form of protest. She said that formulating arguments for positions she disagrees with poses a challenge.
“Debates are a very liberal field, and I personally am Republican,” Vandiver said.
However, she often has to get away from those categories to formulate arguments.
“A lot of times, I’ll write down my own opinions, and I’ll try to think of why they’re wrong,” Vandiver said. “Sometimes, I take a completely different and abstract argument that may seem originally unrelated to the topic that we’re debating, but it’s just a more creative way of looking at it.”
When Abdullah has to argue for positions he does not agree with, he said he takes the advice he received from assistant debate coach Thomas Allison.
“It’s about finding who the victim is in every motion…. and when I see it like that, it’s less about me being opposed to the idea and more about me using that idea as a method of achieving something good for some party,” Abdullah said.
On the last preliminary round, the teams debated on whether signatories of the Paris Agreement should impose prohibitive economic sanctions on the United States for leaving the Paris Agreement.
Adam Pepper, freshman political science and speech communications double major, argued in favor of the sanctions and said the U.S. does not typically face an international response for its wrongdoings.
“By having the entire world essentially sanction the United States, it makes the United States become accountable to the rest of the world,” Pepper said.
Joanna Mrsich, senior political science and communications double major, was on Pepper’s team. She said during the debate that the lack of official enforcement measures on the Paris Agreement is not a sufficient argument against prohibitive sanctions.
“We were saying that that’s not a reason to not stay on the deal, especially because of the amount of funding that the United States is providing to other nations that need it,” Mrsich said.
None of the ULV teams made it to the semifinal rounds, which required 11 points from the preliminary rounds. Ruiz said that the ULV teams mostly got 10s.
Ruiz partly attributed the results to the lack of judges ranked at a national competition, which he called “competitive” judges.
The rounds at this local tournament were judged by noncompetitive judges, and Ruiz said he thinks that they might have judged primarily on the basis of persuasion.
“We had one round yesterday, and the judge didn’t even show up, so they had to get another person to judge the round, and that person has only been involved in debating for like three months,” Ruiz said. “They don’t understand, so that hurts teams. But it’s a local tournament, we didn’t come here to win, we just came here to get some practice for the teams.”
From Oct 13-15, the ULV debate team will compete at the University of North Georgia, and for the first time, they will enter a Spanish speaking team.
Aryn Plax can be reached at aryn.plax@laverne.edu.
