Think for a moment how much more entertaining our representative democracy might be if, say, the members of the Alaska Legislature or the Anchorage Assembly had to master their facts and hone their arguments with the skill of the UAA debate team. "Gavel to Gavel" would be must-see TV. And our municipal channel could probably sell ads for "Tuesday Night at the Assembly."
All right, that's a stretch. But our lawmakers could stand to take a page from the University of Alaska Anchorage debate team. These ladies and gentlemen cross rhetorical swords with Ivy Leaguers, Oxford and the University of Sydney in the British Parliamentary style of debate -- the equivalent of the Show, in debating circles. They're currently ranked 12th in the world.
They have to know their topics to a T -- and that means both sides of an issue, because they don't know which side they'll be expected to argue.
That would be a useful exercise for the nation's lawmakers and commentators, particularly in the current political climate, where the knee jerk alternates with the middle finger in the metaphorical body language of what passes for debate. Training to argue both sides doesn't mean you don't believe in one or the other. Rather, the exercise gives you a greater understanding of the issue and also challenges your own beliefs, tests them.
UAA debate coach Steve Johnson said that one of the allures of debate is the discovery that "you can engage in these heated arguments with somebody, and at the end of the round you could still be really good friends ..."
That's not new. We've seen that in Alaska between political opponents from local to state level, perhaps most notably in the late Jay Hammond and Wally Hickel, fierce political rivals who came to appreciate, like and respect each other.
But it does seem to be less common than it used to be, as arguments become coarser and some rivalries toxic.
So congratulations to Steve Johnson and the members of the world-class Seawolf debate team. May debate in the rest of the state reflect a similar command of the facts, rigorous thought and good will.
BOTTOM LINE: UAA debate team could impart a lesson or two to improve the state of our civil discourse.