Debate Team's Virtual Season Mixes Victories and Learning Experiences
Last year’s debate team poses with their awarded medals at the third local tournament of the 2019 season. Photo: Ms. Suzane Jacobs
By CHERY ABDELMASSIH and ANI KUKE
The debate team has been persisting through the cringey Zoom lags and microphone difficulties of virtual competition to bring home a few victories and a few learning experiences in a season that’s testing everyone’s ability to adapt.
The team got off to a solid start, ranking first in the New York City Urban Debate League (NYCUDL) tournament on December 12, their third competition of the season. Of the 700 NYC high school participants, our debaters placed in the top five for team awards and top five for speaker points, with Joanne Zhu, Devin Morales, Gabrielle Beauvais, Delena Pierre, and Rikza Fatima averaging a speaker score of 28.3 out of 30. Midwood also won the top school award, with the majority of our participants winning three rounds out of four.
All debaters competing in the NYCUDL were given the freedom to choose the topic that best interested them. The debaters engaged in a Public Forum Debate, discussing the possible removal of school officers the United States’s nuclear policies.
“The preparation was extensive, as we held practice debates early and made sure that all inconsistencies in speeches were ironed out,” said junior Arhaam Hossain, vice-captain of the team.
Debaters spent hours on calls preparing cases together, before sending them over to team captain Edward Sukernik.
Gabrielle Beauvais ’22, a first-year debater, said, “The first thing my partner did was research. Then, immediately after, we started writing the case so that we could get more time to practice before the tournament.”
Due to Covid-19 precautions, the debate was held virtually, which exposed participants to a novel style of debating. The debaters had to make sure their connection was running properly to avoid technical difficulties getting in the way of their performances.
The event was held entirely over Zoom. Teams were put into breakout rooms with judges, as opposed to different physical rooms under normal circumstances. Unsurprisingly, home and technical issues were just as much of a challenge as opponents’ arguments.
“It was hard to compete at home because I have siblings around, and it’s hard to keep them quiet,” said freshman Cindy Li, a first-year debater. “Also, I had limited outlets in the room I was staying in for the tournament, so I would constantly have to take turns charging my phone and my laptop because they kept running out of battery really quickly. A lot of technical difficulties were happening, so it was hard to understand my opponents and what they were saying at times.”
A week before the tournament, all debaters were registered and prepared to compete. The partnerships were then randomized and matched on the app Tabroom. With only a half-hour warning, debaters were made aware of the side they were supporting: pro or con. The debaters made no waste of this short time.
“In that time span, I looked through the case for that specific side and made sure there wasn’t anything that my opponents could attack and that I had sufficient evidence for everything,” said Li.
Once the debaters joined the Zoom and were placed into breakout rooms, the long-awaited six to eight-hour tournament against Millennium Brooklyn, Brooklyn Tech, Browning, In-Tech Academy, and NEST+M began.
The event started with the debater on the pro side being given four minutes to present their constructive explanation (the opening speech that lays out the argument), followed by the debater on the con side being granted the same amount of time to introduce their side.
Afterward, three minutes were allocated for a “crossfire,” where the initial speakers asked the opposing side questions. Next, both sides presented their rebuttals within four minutes, addressing points made in the crossfire. This was followed by a second round of crossfire between the initial two speakers.
Finally, the initial speakers presented their discussion summaries and then had a three-minute “grand crossfire” for all four speakers to ask questions and address any discrepancies. As a last attempt to persuade the judge, a two-minute final focus speech (a closing argument) was granted to both sides' second speakers.
Judges were impressed with Midwood’s debaters, calling them “pretty amazing,” “some of the best speakers [they] had seen in a while,” “assertive and polite,” and saying their speeches were “well-paced and clear.”
Even though Midwood went head to head against prestigious schools, our debaters were unfazed by the opposition. The debaters strode into the tournament with an optimistic attitude and untouched confidence.
“We deem no particular team to be too difficult,” said Sukernik. “The good thing is, this is not a physical sport. So, you still have the opportunity to match any debater depending on how badly you want to win and the amount of effort you put in.”
Despite hitting a current rough patch since December’s victories, team members say they are dedicated to amping up their efforts and bringing more victories home to the Hornets’ nest.
Ms. Suzane Jacobs, the team’s faculty advisor, said, “You have to lose in order to learn. It’s okay that they didn’t win [in the tournaments on January 16 and February 6] because they got feedback. Sometimes we’re going to have dips, and sometimes we’re going to have high points.”
In the February 6 tournament, the team raised their average placement from January by winning half of their rounds. In January, they had won about 1 in 3.
“Showing confidence makes the other side less confident,” said Sukernik. “Stick to your own case and argument, [and] don't get sidetracked by what the other side says. You must persevere.”