“Resolved: United States consumers should not buy imported goods made under sub-standard working conditions.”
This statement was the resolution of three straight hours of “rigorous debating in harshly-lit classrooms,” as Shubhro Saha ’11, novice debater, explains. He was one of the sixteen members of the Choate Debate Team who traveled to Belmont Hill School in Massachusetts on Sunday, April 13th. The team returned with several Choate victories: Nikhith Naidu ’09 and Suril Kantaria ’09 amongst varsity debaters, and Shubhro Saha ’11 and Alex Jaffe ’11, Cason Crane ’11 and Ross FreimanMendel ’11, and Madeleine Foote ’11.
The debate at Belmont Hill is one of the larger debates in the listing of debates that Choate annually attends. Likewise, it is one of the yearly “prepared debates,” meaning that unlike other “extemporaneous debates” style, participants are given a debate topic well in advance. In the weeks leading up to the actual debate, the participants are expected to create points supporting a certain view of the given topic and to research evidence that will reinforce said points.
There are between twelve and fifteen other schools in the debate league; including St. Paul’s, Roxbury Latin, and Exeter; which also sent teams to contend at Belmont. A pair from Choate is matched against a pair from another school, each side given opportunities to express its contentions through alternating “speeches.” At the end of the round, the judge grades debaters in six categories that determine how effectively the speaker presented his or her case.
All in all, prepared debates are longer and require more work than extemporaneous debates, leading many debaters to prefer the latter style. “I like extemporaneous since it’s more a test of wits and general knowledge than ‘who has the best case’,” observes Jaffe. Often, lack of interest leads to lack of attendance. This year seems to be an exception, however. Mr. Neil Shimmield, coach of the Debate Team, found the sheer number of debaters commendable. “Sending sixteen kids to Massachusetts is quite something.”
Four Choate teams attended the debate. Each team was comprised of two pairs of partners. One pair was assigned the affirmative side, which affirms the resolution. The other pair was assigned the negative side, which negates the resolution. Debaters on each side were judged strictly within their side; a negative pair was evaluated against other negative pairs.
Such judging policies become necessary when debates are faced with a resolution similar to the one that Belmont issued.
Mr. Shimmield describes the resolution as “extremely difficult: it was not clear whether one should take a legal or moral approach.” Judges who might be expecting one approach, and hearing another, would approach the topic with prejudices, which would reflect in the judging. It was hard for teams to predict which approach a judge might be more inclined towards.
Despite difficulties, the attitude that the novice division brought to the debate is reflected both in attendance (they made up three of the four teams) and performance at Belmont. “The feedback is very positive,” says Mr. Shimmield. Rajagopalan adds that the novice victories “are a testament to how hard [the novices] have worked.” Novices have traditionally fed off varsity cases. This time, however, novice teams started preparing and writing their own cases early on. The hard work shows in the novice performance. Of the four winning debaters, three are novices.
Saha and Jaffe won first place for the affirmative novice pair. “I was really surprised to win,” notes Jaffe, “because the negative often had better cases and a higher likelihood of winning [the round].” Saha notes that his victory “definitely reflected our preparation.” They won all three rounds of their debate, finishing with high combined scores in each round. Foote also won “Second Place Novice Negative Speaker”.
The varsity division has traditionally done well at Belmont in the past, and this year is no exception. The Affirmative Varsity team did not win any awards at this debate, however the Negative Varsity team of Naidu and Kantaria performed well. Naidu won “Second Place Advanced Negative Speaker.” His partner, Suril Kantaria ’09, was named the “Third Place Advanced Negative Speaker,” losing to Naidu by a single point. “I was thrilled to rank third best speaker, even though we lost all three of our debates by a very slim margin each time,” observes Kantaria.
As is customary for varsity debaters, success was not entirely due to extensive and continual preparation. Instead, the award “reflects my case and my confidence in it,” says Naidu. “Especially since my preparation was pretty minimal—as in the night before—as in eleven o’clock the night before.” Talent, and the easier negative case, appears to have carried the Varsity through.
The awards carry deeper implications. “This is the first year when many novices have done well...it’s exciting to see the novices come through,” comments Rajagopalan. The successes that Choate has had at Belmont speak volumes about the potential of the Debate Team as the determined and dedicated novice division continually seeks to improve. “The more we practice, the better we get—it’ll be lots of fun watching our novices [advance],” asserts Mr. Shimmield.
Naidu ’09 and Kantaria ’09 debate at Belmont Hill. PHOTO/Lizzie Needham ’09
