Every so often there is something that I watch or listen to that takes me back to some moment in my life that I hadn’t thought about in a long time. I think that happens to everyone. It can be an old song on the radio or a replay of a television show or movie. Most of the time you know immediately from the title the memory it’s going to trigger. And every once in a while you get a surprise when you least expect it. Most recently for me that was Netflix’s film The Candy Jar. This is a cute little teen rom-com that does what it’s supposed to do – entertain. It’s not going to win any awards or be a cult classic, but it is fun. The premise of the film focuses on two high school over achievers who find common ground while competing with each other and applying to the college of their dreams. The point of all this is that they were high school debaters and the female lead got the rejection letter from Harvard. That was me! Ok, so that wasn’t exactly me, but it was close enough.
High school was not the high point in my life. Like many teens it was just something to get through. Debate was the only exception. Technically I did speech and debate, but it was debate that taught me skills to last a lifetime. I spent hours in the library doing research. Debate gave me a place to be and something to do whenever I needed it. I didn’t have a lot of friends and rather than advertise the fact that there was no one to each lunch with, I just hung out in the library. High school is a tough place to be when you don’t have anything to define you. I’m not saying that I didn’t have friends. I did. But they were either in sports, ROTC or on academic teams. I played sports as a kid but stopped when I reached high school. While I was a decent athlete in soccer and basketball, it was clear I was never going to be one of the top performers. My skill as an observer was much higher than that as a participant. ROTC was a no go right from the start. Following orders and just doing what I was told didn’t fit my personality. And truthfully, I wasn’t smart enough for the academic teams. And while I may have not been as inherently smart as the top 1%, I could definitely out work them. Debate was the perfect activity for me. Everyone has the skill to participate in debate. It’s the work you put into it that makes a person successful at it.
Most people that have seen high school debate only register the speed of the speakers. For those not in the “industry,” the rapid speed of the speakers can be off putting. And I will admit that it is completely ridiculous. In the movie they show both the high speed speakers and the rebels who communicate at a normal conversational speed. I did both. I could read 300-400 words per minute and I could slow it down. It all depended on the type of judge. The smart debaters would be at their rounds early in order to make small talk with the judge. You had to be adaptable. Former debaters would expect to hear the rapid speech and technical debate terms. A lay judge would need a more conversational style where arguments were laid out clearly and succinctly. Many times I won the round just because I was able to change my speaking style to better suit the judge. It had very little to do with the arguments actually made. This is still a skill I use today, both as an employee and as a manager. Being able to adapt to the individuals and their needs has definitely contributed to any success I’ve had in the workforce.
There are two styles of debate – cross examination (policy) and Lincoln Douglas (value). I was able to compete in both areas, but my specialty was policy debate. I couldn’t really get excited about debating values. Who am I to say that my set of values is higher or more important than someone else’s? Policy debate is more practical. Topics require that teams come up with a plan and solve some sort of problem. It requires using facts and figures to define the problem, present the fix and then prove that the fix will work. No different than what politicians are supposed to be doing. It requires a lot of research (which explains the library hours) because you have to be prepared to argue both sides of the topic and refute any type of plan that an opponent might present. This brings me to most important thing I learned from debating – looking at both sides of every issue. Everyone should have to spend time arguing both sides of an argument. Once you train your brain to examine the various scenarios, it’s very hard to stop. It’s also a skill that can be used in a variety of ways. In my last job, my boss would present a new project to me and ask me to take it apart. This was his code for, “look at it from every angle and figure out the potential roadblocks and problems.” Picking apart a new process or product is very much like picking part a proposed policy.
Debate gave me a voice. I learned how to speak my mind, express my opinion and to not be afraid. Not that I learned that right away. I would get sick before the start of every round. I’m pretty sure the only reason that it stopped was because I graduated from high school and stopped competing. My voice stayed with me though. As I entered the workforce for the first time, it came in handy. Sometimes it got me into trouble and more often than not it ended up with more work on my desk. Still, having a voice is better than not having one.
Come to think of it, society could stand to learn debate skills. Being able to see the alternate point of view on an issue and to be able to clearly articulate an opinion backed up with facts is something that is missing in the world today. Instead of screaming that my values are better than yours, we should take a breath and look at both sides of the argument. Can we really say one person’s family values are better than another’s? If politicians would spend more time listening to both sides, there would be a clearer path to compromise. Compromise leads to real action and real change.
The Candy Jar reminded me that high school wasn’t all bad. I traveled all over the state at no personal expense, gained lifelong skills AND learned to speak 400 words per minute. I can’t ask for more than that. And the rejection letter from Harvard? Like Lona, I got over it.
* * * *
Someone has to explain to me why I need to provide 502 pages of documents just to renew my driver’s license. RENEW. I’ve had my license for over 20 years and now the state decides that it’s not sure that I’m the person they think I am. I’m all for validating a person’s identity when they are applying for a new license. But after 20 years, I think that whatever chaos I was planning would have already been in the works. And for the record, I’ve always paid for my speeding tickets. They should just give me a license in order to keep funding city projects. Driving with an expired license means I have to keep within the limits and follow the rules. It’s excruciating!
Last words…WORLD CUP! Doesn’t matter how corrupt FIFA is as an organization. They put on a helluva sporting event.
