_

Take My Partner, Please:
Humor in Worlds-Style Debating
By Gary Gillespie, Northwest University, Kirkland, WA

“The Devil, proud spirit … cannot endure to be mocked” -- Thomas More [i]
 

The ancients knew the value of humor. Aristotle associated it with good health and contemplated the nature of levity. [ii] Cicero taught that humor should hold a place in the rhetorical toolbox of every speaker faced with the task of charming an audience.[iii]  The ability to make others laugh continues to be one of the most popular resources for public speakers today. We admire a speaker’s quick wit and ability to generate mirth in the same way that we delight in watching a juggler’s eye-and-hand coordination or an acrobat’s antics.  The timing, creativity and tact required for pulling off a good joke makes humor one of the most complex of all communication skills.

We know that humor adds a kind of hilarity to a speaking occasion that both entertains and puts us at ease.  Research shows that by relieving tension, lowering blood pressure, releasing beneficial neurotransmitters, and coordinating the brain’s hemispheres, humor literally promotes physical and psychological health. But wit, mirth, and laughter can also be a means of changing attitudes and beliefs. The pleasing emotions of hearing a funny speaker unleashing humorous jibes can be cathartic by satisfying our desire not only to think rationally, but to feel intensely about the values underlying a controversy.

Just as humor is praised in most public speaking contexts for making delivery and arguments more compelling, it should not be ruled out for students learning the art of competitive debate. Since Worlds-style debate encourages students to be humorous, this format offers an opportunity for teaching a wider range of persuasive techniques more suitable for most civic audiences that students will face after graduation. In this analysis, we will examine two theories of humor, see how comic devices have been used in debate rounds, discuss the types and benefits of debate humor, and make brief suggestions for encouraging American debaters to lighten up.
 

Theories of Humor
Psychologist Steven M. Sultanoff points out that the cognitive, affective, and physiological responses to humor are known as wit, mirth and laughter. [iv] Wit is when we rationally understand the irony, incongruity or exaggeration of a joke. Mirth is experiencing the emotions of levity and joy produced by humor. Laughter is our physical reaction to the humorous, be it a simple smile or belly aching convulsion. He notes that it is possible for a person to understand wit, but not feel mirth, just as it is possible to understand and feel the impact of a joke without laughing aloud. The effective humorist will strike all three chords.

Rhetoricians and communication theorists suggest two explanations for why we find some things funny. The first theory maintains that people find violations of expectations about the world or language amusing. The second theory notices that most jokes are narratives that show some kind of superiority over a victim.

The first explanation to account for humor is that audiences laugh at violations of their expectations of the world or language.  The mind follows accepted patterns when processing information. Humor crisscrosses these patterns, creating new neural connections that -- for some reason -- strike us a funny. Jokes cause thoughts to jump tracks and head off in surprising directions eliciting smiles, guffaws, chuckles, and laughs. The new connection forces us to re-examine familiar conclusions about the world and give us what Kenneth Burke calls “perspective by incongruity.” [v] There are four comic devices that catch our attention by violating familiar cognitive patterns.

Exaggeration

The first comic device is exaggeration. There are two types of exaggeration: over and understatement. In overstatement a speaker describes something as either far more or larger than it actually is. The opposite, understatement – occurs when a speaker makes something sound far less than it actually is. The speaker must master both content and timing of delivery to make the humorous intent clear, integrating manner and matter in sophisticated ways congruent with the cultural expectations of the audience.

A well known example of understatement is the response of a NASA public commentator reporting immediately after the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. In an unintentional understatement -- that most people find humorous today -- he remarked that the explosion was "Obviously a major malfunction...". [vi]

An example of overstatement took place during a show debate with a team from Oxford University against my students at the Redmond, Washington City Hall in January 2006. The topic was global warming and one of the UK students joked that unless this problem is resolved, “our island will sink into the Atlantic and then where would we be?”  Overstatement and understatement, like other devices, require appropriate non-verbal expression so that facial expressions and changes in vocal pitch enhance the hilarity. 

The Absurd

A second comic device that violates expectation is called the absurd. As rational thinkers, we seek to understand the world by drawing conclusions from evidence. When evidence and reasoning are seriously lacking, we may find it humorous that our rational expectations are denied. Making an opponent’s argument sound absurd by ridiculing their accepted premises or terms calls into question the trustworthiness of rationality and usually makes us laugh.

A speaker who is able to wittily reduce the other side’s contention to absurdity wins rhetorical points by destroying the mocked argument’s credibility for the rest of the debate. The opponent may not be able to recover and his or her attempt to rehabilitate the argument may be “laughed out of the room.” When a debater dismisses the claims of an opponent by making them seem totally unrealistic and silly, he or she relies on the argumentation stratagem known as “extension to absurdity.” The debater says in effect, “Don’t let them fool you. Anyone who believes that isn’t thinking rationally.”

At least two arguments in a quarterfinals round at the 2006 World Universities Debating Championships appealed to absurdity. The topic was nationalizing energy recourses in developing nations. “The next thing we know the other side will come out for forcing the Irish to go to these countries and mine the coal themselves,” said a Sydney debater -- alluding to Ireland’s industrial history. Later a College Cork debater remarked, “Oil isn’t any good unless it is sold in a market. The Government model denies the market system and renders it worthless,” to which the Government Whip replied, “The Opposition accuses us of living in a fairy land. But, it is they who believe that oil is worthless. But, oil is not jam.” The audience laughed at the absurd comparison of oil to jam just as they did at the absurdity of enslaving the Irish as coal miners.

Word Plays and Puns
While absurd humor is funny because the joking speaker suggests ideas or comparisons that are completely unheard of or “insane”, the humor of puns and word play can be traced to the way in which words are put together. These jokes play with the structure of language. Puns force together two terms that can be associated only by their sound patterns. Puns may be regarded as the lowest form of humor, but many famous writers and speakers seem to like word plays, including Shakespeare -- who delighted in creating both comic and tragic characters who speak line after line of double entendres.   

A 2002 debater speaking at a Linfield College tournament on election reform -- during the “hanging chad” controversy -- added some levity to the round with a pun when he accused his opponent of contributing to the problem. The opponent was named Chad.

In round five of the 2006 World championship tournament at the University of British Columbia my team was opposed to a topic about banning cosmetic surgery.  The Government team made a remark that people choose a wide variety of cosmetic surgery options in order to look “any way that they want.”   One of my student replied with a word play, “Actually I was unaware that there are so many options for cosmetic surgery. I always thought that it came down to three basic choices: C, D and double D.”

In a quarter finals round at the World Universities Debating Championships in Vancouver, Canada, an opposition team from the University of College Cork used a word play to emphasize his point:

“The other side of the house says that we are insane. But, the invisible hand of the market is the only real hope for reversing poverty and improving the lives of these people. If it is madness to help developing nations manage their resources to the benefit of everyone, then maybe we are crazy -- crazy like a wizard.”
 

A humorous allusion in a show debate between my students and the Irish National debate team in 2003 is also an example of a word play woven delightfully into a speech. I introduced the Irish students by referring to Blarney Castle near Cork, home of the legendary Stone of Eloquence and remarked that my students would be at a disadvantage if the Irish had visited the castle and kissed the stone – an act said to impart magical powers of persuasion.  When Alison McIntire of Trinity College Dublin stood to speak she said, “Professor Gillespie told you all about the Blarney Stone. And I must say that I have indeed been to Blarney Castle. But, I didn’t kiss the stone. It was my first visit -- and I never kiss on the first date.”

Word plays may not add to the line of argumentation in a debate, but certainly make a round more fun to watch and remind everyone not to take the debate too seriously. Accomplished speakers know that an audience who is laughing will be more at ease and more receptive of other, more serious points. 

Anti-climax

When a speaker violates the structure of a narrative by presenting an unexpected resolution of the conflict he or she is utilizing the comic device known as anti-climax. It is usually a story with an unexpected let down or surprise ending and is sometimes called a "shaggy dog" story. In debates, anti-climax would probably be coupled with exaggeration and irony. We expect that a climax of a story will be met. When the joker intentionally violates this expectation, we laugh.

An example of anti-climax is the “Top Ten” lists made popular by late night talk show host David Letterman. A “Top Ten” list before the 2006 election for governor of California offers: "Questions to ask your self before voting for Schwarzenegger." Answers began with:

10. “Do I feel comfortable having a governor who oils his chest?”

9. “Have I thoroughly considered Stallone, Van Damme and Seagal?”

8. “Is 'Come on, it'll be funny' a good reason to vote for someone?”

The list builds to the climatic number one question to ask yourself before voting for Schwarzenegger: 1. “Have I lost my mind?” [vii]

Of the four devices that violate our expectations, it would seem that exaggeration and extending to absurdity are used more often in debates, while examples of puns or anti-climatic narratives are less common.

Sarcastic humor that shows superiority
In addition to violating expectations of language or reality, theorists notice that we tend to laugh at jokes that show superiority over a victim. This form of humor -- also called invective, innuendo, ridicule or sarcasm -- forces the audience to choose sides and identify with the superior reasoning of the speaker in opposition to the foolishness of the ridiculed person. Sharing a laugh or smile at the expense of the person being made the brunt of the joke establishes a level of identification between the audience and the speaker. Making fun of a hapless, castigated character is the second general theory explaining most forms of humor.

Irony is the underlying comic device behind witty comebacks and “put down” humor. The speaker pretends to agree with the opponent but in does so in a manner that makes the position sound silly. Irony indirectly points out internal contradictions committed by the opponent’s arguments or embedded in accepted premises.

The witty speaker assumes a superior status by following a complex set of juxtaposition rules: saying the opposite of what is meant -- while at the same time intending the audience to believe the opposite of what is said. Words are used apart from their literal meaning. On the one hand, realizing that a speaker intends us to believe the opposite of what is said violates our expectations and strikes us as funny – therefore fulfilling the incongruity theory. But, on the other hand, humor is also achieved by elevating the listener to a status of shared superiority over to the person abused by the joke.

The effect of irony becomes even more striking when expressed as a spontaneous “come back” to an opponent’s ridicule. Ideally the successful debater under such an attack will be able to reply quickly with a higher level of wit. For example, in a debate on libertarianism, an opposing debater asked my student a mocking point of information:

“So you think that our plan will cause people to run out and start selling their bodies and dealing crack cocaine on the streets?“ To which the debater replied, “No need to bring your mother into this debate.”

There are at least three types of ironic humor. The first kind is known as sarcasm, which is making fun of a person, profession or group in a mocking fashion. This is a form of biting ridicule that attacks a person to “put them down.”  Power is asserted over the victim caught in the comic trap and the audience – if not offended – will come to identify with the superior joker. 

Sarcastic humor is a way of attacking an opponent using words instead of violence and gives a sense of being in control to the other wise powerless individual. These jokes are often directed against people or groups that have power over us. Political invective permits the joker to say, “We may not be able to do anything about what you are doing, but at least we can laugh at you.”  Jokes making fun of President Bush would be an example. In fact, for some partisan audiences, even mentioning the President’s name will elicit laughter.

An example of political invective humor directed against a powerful figure would be humor publication and website The Onion’s version of President Bush’s Weekly Radio Address that exaggerates the president’s every mannerism and perceived lack of eloquence or intelligence. [viii]The barrage of Bush jokes on the Daily Show, the late night television political comedy program popular with college students, is another example of political invective. [ix] Because the ever changing drama of political discourse makes mockery and invective an inexhaustible source, debaters are always able to rely on these kinds of jokes borrowed from popular culture.
 
A second kind of irony is called irony of fate -- something happens by chance that is so unlikely that it strikes us as funny. We laugh at the fate of the victim. An example of irony of fate occurred in a quarterfinals round at the 2006 World Universities Debating Championships. A Member of Government from the University of Sydney stood up to take his place at the podium – a wood box sitting on a metal folding table designed to hold water trays. About one minute into his speech, the debater leaned on the podium and the table below collapsed. He was suddenly forced to grab hold of the podium in the air with the table on the floor. With a self-deprecating smile and exaggerated expression, he said: “This debate may get more interesting than I had anticipated. Hopefully my arguments will hold up better than this table.”

As an audience member rushed to prop up the table, one of the debaters stood to ask a question of the debater awkwardly holding the podium. “I will take your question, sir,” he replied, adding, “but I will have to hold on for dear life.”  

The debater’s quick wit and poise in the face of a ridiculous setting endeared him to the audience.

A third kind of irony used more often in debate is Socratic irony. Just as Socrates asked his students questions instead of lecturing to them, the speaker pretends not to understand the truth in a teasing way. Socratic irony makes the speaker the victim by implying that he or she is not smart enough to figure it out. It is faking ignorance to show a weakness in an opponent. This form of irony, like the others, subtly makes a point without directly telling the audience what to believe; it invites them to share in the rhetorical perspective advanced. “I certainly didn’t hear a new argument in the rebuttal, did you?” Facial expressions and shifts in pitch will hopefully make it clear that irony is intended.

Sarcastic humor is risky. One debater at the 2007 Worlds tournament tried to make a joke about cosmetic surgery by referring to the appearance of his opponent, a woman who wore a lot of ear and face piercing jewelry. The woman appeared hurt by the joke and after the round a judge talked to her about how she felt, thinking that perhaps the debater might want to present a sexual harassment claim against the debater who made the crude joke.  Sarcastic humor is best directed against a famous or well known person, group or institution, rather than a person present in the room who might gain the sympathy from the judge for the attack. This risk could explain why some debaters avoid humor altogether in competitive debate – especially in a culture stressing acceptance of everyone.
 

Types of Humor in Debate Rounds

There are three essential types of jokes employing these comic devices in debate. The first category is jokes about the physical setting of the debate. These could include making fun of the host campus, architecture of the building, or furnishings in the room. The physical setting could include the weather or other humorous attributes associated with the tournament. For example, a debater might make fun of the Taco Bell Corporation sponsoring the sports stadium for Boise State University with a giant sign: Taco Bell Arena. Debaters competing at Clark Community College might joke about the motion sensing light fixtures installed in all rooms -- which suddenly turn off when a debater isn’t gesturing wildly enough.

Debaters at the World Championship in 2002 in Glasgow, Scotland were treated to a snow storm and a cultural aversion to shoveling side walks. Contestants and judges trudged though snow and soon had wet, dripping shoes. One speaker even took off his socks and wrung them before the round. Monica Lewinsky jokes might be overheard at her ala mater Lewis and Clark College. Good-natured jabs about the military at the Air Force Academy -- or humorous allusions about a church at a religiously sponsored university or college -- could be funny if handled carefully.

An Irish Debater speaking during a debate before the National Parliamentary Debate Association championship banquet in 2003 made fun of the location of the tournament – the plain looking town of Lubbocks, Texas -- known as the home of music star Buddy Holly. “I was told that Americans have trouble understanding irony. But, when I arrived today and drove past a sign coming into the city that reads ‘Legendary Lubbocks,’ I knew then that Americans do in fact have a sense of irony.”

Self Deprecation 

Besides making fun of the physical setting of a debate, a second category of jokes is self-deprecating humor. Attacking another person or group may run the risk of offending the audience, but speakers who are able to joke about themselves are usually endearing. Revealing ones own weaknesses or flaws in a lighthearted manner shows a disarming vulnerability that will probably cause audience identification.

When Rudy Giuliani campaigned for Rick Santorum on November 6, 2006, reporters pointed out that the former Mayor and the conservative Senator held opposite views on abortion. Gueliani instantly shot back, “Well, you know, agreeing on every issues isn’t all that it is made out to be. Friends can disagree. Rick and I agree on what is most important, like how serious this war on terror is.”  Then he added with a grin, “I don’t agree with myself sometimes.” [x]

Self-deprecating jokes may take the form of bantering among teammates when partners tease each other. In the final round of the Willamette Championship in 1998 one of my students was speaking when his partner slipped him a note. The audience groaned at the lapse. Without missing a beat, the student grabbed the note as he continued making his argument, crumpled it into a wad and pitched it back at his partner like a baseball. The audience roared with laughter.

Such humorous displays are what make listening to a public presentation delightful and remind us that we do not need to be deathly serious all of the time. While humor is not appropriate in all contexts, getting the audience to laugh is a way of humanizing a debate, pointing out that the relationships shared among contestants and audience members are ultimately more important.

Jokes Related to Arguments
The third category of debate humor would be jokes directly related to arguments in the round. These jokes will concern assorted absurdities or contradictions associated with the controversy or flaws in the opposing analysis. All comic devices might be employed to attack the arguments on either side.

While entertaining an audience may endear them to a speaker, debate humor is best when used to make a point that advances argumentation. Trying to be funny merely to catch attention or to amuse the audience without helping to better explain an argument may come off sounding awkward or patronizing. Instead, exaggerating the absurdities of the other side or pointing out ironic contradictions in a funny manner can significantly add to the debater’s persuasiveness by showing off the complex skill of spontaneous wit.

Typical uses of humor to enhance arguments in a debate may include making fun of authorities or famous personalities associated with the topic. Americans have always enjoyed political invective jokes. Humorous allusions to President Bush, Senator Clinton or former Vice President Al Gore might be funny when debating topics and policies related to these authorities. A debater might borrow a late night talk show joke by suggesting a political motivation behind global warming fervor.  “I’ve got an inconvenient truth for Al Gore,” said Jay Leno. “You’re still not president.”  (Word play and sarcastic political invective.)

Again using the quarter finalist round at the 2006 Worlds tournament, Irish debaters from University College Cork made sarcastic jokes about obese Americans. The Government Whip summed up with a sarcastic jab: “We support the people of these nations to make their own decisions about how to run their economies. The Opposition is out there supporting fat American investors – my apologies to the chubby American in the back.”

Another joke in this round helped to frame one of the most persuasive points for the Government. The Government team proposed that the nation of Chad reclaim assets from Chevron Oil Company by buying back the oil and mineral rights at fair market value, pointing out that other nations do this with beneficial results.

The Leader of the Opposition argues that the plan will politicize energy resources that are detrimental to the average citizen. The debater used Russia as an example of how a nation might nationalize its oil companies, then misuse them as a political tool to keep corrupt leaders in power. He also argued that populist systems promote government give-a-ways that prop up politicians by promising lavish entitlements to voters instead of promoting the actual good of the nation.

In response to the argument against nationalization, the Member of the Government rebutted, “Unlike the Opposition, we find that public opinion does in fact have a role in democracy.”

He continued with a sarcastic tone showing his disgust at the implications of his opponent.  

“The Opposition’s attitude is like, ‘How dare these ungrateful dogs want their oil and coal back.’

But we say -- that isn’t good enough. We support the people of these nations to make their own decisions about how to run their economies.”

How humor advances argumentation and persuasion
In this brief analysis, we have seen how humor is defined and explained; now let us consider the benefits of humor as a rhetorical stratagem. Literature on the rhetorical use of humor provides three reasons why a debater might try to be funny.

The first benefit of humor is that jokes may disarm an audience or dispose an audience favorably. If an audience opposed to a debater’s position laughs at his or her jokes, they will be less hostile and more favorably disposed toward the speaker and their positions. Psychologists agree that it is impossible to experience two contradictory emotions simultaneously. A person cannot be both angry and joyful at the same time. Therefore, if a speaker is funny, he or she may be able to turn negative feelings of hostility into a more positive sense of familiarity and perhaps even acceptance.  An audience that comes in with a hostile attitude may not be completely won over by the charming speaker, but they will be set in the right direction toward incremental attitude change. “I disagree with her, but I have to admit that she is a likeable person. Maybe I will think about her position a bit more.”

A second rhetorical benefit of humor is to enhance the ethos of the speaker by putting the audience at ease and causing them to feel connected to each other as a group and to identify with the debater who is charming them with hilarity. Columnist and former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan praised her former boss for his ability to charm partisans and opponents alike. “He was a little like Art Buckwald in this; he thought laughter was a value of its own,” Noonan said of Reagan in a column about his 96th birthday. “I think he thought that people who shared a laugh had in fact just voted for something together; something funny and human just got said or done.”  [xi] Humor creates a human connection between people who may not agree on much else. It is a connecting bid – a point of contact that yields identification and commonality.

A third use of humor would be to frame an argument to help the audience see from the speaker’s perspective. If the audience laughs at the joke, they are taken into the frame of the speaker’s perspective and are more likely to listen to other, more serious points offered to persuade them rationally.

A guide book for debaters sponsored the English-Speaking Union of Scotland gives this advice concerning the value and use of humor:

“Humour will be rewarded by judges, as long as it’s relevant and appropriate to the subject (jokes might go down well in a debate about, say, football, but might be a bad idea if the debate is about abortion). A speech which has strong arguments and is funny, will normally be more persuasive than a speech which only has strong arguments. But don’t be tempted to use jokes to hide the fact that you don’t know what you’re on about. The judges will spot it. Debating is all about being persuasive.”  [xii]

An example of how humor adds to persuasiveness might be a line of argument from a quarterfinal round at the 2006 Worlds Universities Debating Championships on nationalizing energy resources of developing nations. When the Opposition team from the University College Cork argued that nationalization of oil companies would be inefficient, a Government debater from University of Sydney stood to ask a mocking point of information: “Sir, if you steal my car, do you have the right to take it just because you are a better driver?” The room packed with judges and observers burst into laughter.

In response to the absurd car analogy, the Opposition debater replied, “Politicians are good at managing the state, but not running a business. Relying on the invisible hand of the free market means that the oil companies will be managed by experts who understand how to make a profit -- to the benefit of all citizens. Instead of stealing the car, it is rather more like hiring a driver.”

While the rebuttal argument made logical sense, I got the feeling in the room that somehow the hilarity of the Government stolen car analogy had shifted the audience’s frame of reference to the pro-nationalization perspective. Later, the Member of the Government showed how he dominated the argumentative ground on this point by appealing to the comic device of exaggeration:

“The opposition argues that private ownership of oil resources is like hiring a driver and is not like  stealing a car. But, if you hire a taxi and the taxi driver bills you a one hundred and fifty godzillian dollars, I’d say, no thanks. And that is exactly what is happening in these developing nations being ripped off by American companies.”

Finally he summed up by saying, “The truth is that if someone takes your car then agrees to hire it back to you as a taxi, they still don’t have the right to charge you a fee. And it is wrong even if the thief might be a better mechanic -- invisible hand or not.”  As it turned out, this team from University of Sydney advanced to the next final round and it could be said that the University College Cork team – impressive debaters as they were – were “laughed out of the room.”

Why American policy culture debate is humorless 

International collegiate debate differs from what might be called American policy culture debate most markedly by humor. Humor is accepted -- if not encouraged -- for European, Canadian and Australian debaters as a rhetorical stratagem to win the affections and minds of the audience.
As we have seen, jokes about the setting of the debate, topics and personalities involved in controversies abound in almost every speech -- even for topics that an American might not consider appropriate for humor. It could be that British argumentation is more suited for seeing the lighter side of darker issues – constantly keeping in mind that we should not take ourselves too seriously. Or perhaps the skilled international debater has learned how to assume a tone of humor that is not offensive -- matching biting jokes and outraged sarcasm to fit the seriousness of the issue. 

American collegiate debate culture has evolved an aversion to the resources that humor offers the persuasive process. A comparison of the two styles will show that Americans often lack in the area of wit. One explanation for why American debaters are less funny could be that British competitive debate is based on a public forum model. Each debate is meant to mimic argumentation in Parliament and is essentially political speech trying to win over elected policy makers. Traditional American debate is based on a legal model, trying to reflect the ethos of the courts with all of the judicial evidence rules and formal procedures. The legal environment does not reward attorneys with a facility for humor. Politicians, on the other hand, with a populist bent may tell a joke now and then to endear themselves to the voters or the voters’ representatives as they speak in congress.

Ronald Reagan is an example of a political leader who was also a talented humorist. Reagan often told jokes, even before meetings of Congress or foreign dignitaries and is remembered as one of our most successful politicians.  In contrast, it is hard to imagine a Supreme Court judge telling jokes during a court proceeding.

Beside a civic versus legal model for debate that sets the two styles apart, politically correct values in popular culture might be robbing American debaters of the benefits of joking around. A competitive debater may weigh the advantages of trying to pull off a joke or humorous allusion compared to the risk of offending the judge and losing a round or speaker points. American concern for not marginalizing anyone and the desire to uphold the value of treating everyone equally may make sarcastic and put down invective difficult if not impossible.

Another cause for why humor is more accepted in international debate could be the emphasis on balancing manner and matter. Manner is delivery, how the debater expresses an argument. Matter is what is actually said, the logical proof and supporting evidence for a position. International debate literature maintains that manner and matter should count fifty percent each when evaluating the ideal debate. In other words, delivery is just as important and content.

Since much of humor is a person’s response to incongruities, it is necessarily an emotional experience elicited from a speaker’s delivery. The effective international debater will use non-verbal expression – exaggerated gestures, eye contact, vocal emphasis, pauses and pacing -- in presenting humorous innuendos and jokes in order to enhance the cognitive meaning of his or her arguments. But when the competitive debate culture fails to place an equal weight on delivery as well as content, humor quickly becomes too risky to justify. For a “speed talking” debater, there is no need to assume a charming personality. Interrupting an eighteen point spread with a joke is a waste of time.

An example of this reluctance of American debaters to be funny occurred when I arranged a public debate between two of my students against top policy debaters from the University of Washington. My idea was to host have a public debate in the tradition of the Irish National Debate team in which speakers argue some serious points, but always in an entertaining and funny way to delight the audience. In a press releases for the “Battle with Seattle,” I said that the debaters would use wit and reasoning to make their points. The resolution for the debate was that “The Eastside (of Seattle) is better than the Westside.”

When a reporter from our local paper came to watch a practice round to prepare for an article she was disappointed because the University of Washington team was thoroughly serious and offered few if any jokes -- unlike what the press release had promised. “I thought you said that the students would be witty,” she remarked after the practice.

The University of Washington debaters seemed unable to joke about the Eastside residence because they didn’t want to offend anyone. I even made a list of suggested jokes to no avail.

I wanted to say, “Don’t you see that it is ridiculous to say that one half of a city is better than another half? This is supposed to be light-hearted. Don’t you get it?”  In fairness to the U of W students, both were from out of state and didn’t know much about the rivalry between Seattle and it’s suburbs.

My debaters tried some joke – about Seattle blessing the world with five-dollar lattés and for being best known as home of Frasier -- and some of the humor may have succeeded, but the serious tone of the opposition dampened the light heartedness. To work, put down humor usually must be reciprocated.

The event turned out well and was one of the most watched programs on the City of Kirkland’s cable television station, but was sorely lacking in wit. The U of W students were stellar debaters in our region who advanced to the final round at the very next tournament. But, because they were trained in policy debate, based on an evidence–governed, legal format, and perhaps because they were the products of a politically correct culture that stresses not offending others, the debaters were unable to get many laughs. If my show debate experience is typical then unlike our British counterparts, American debaters may be what newspaper columnist and funny man Dave Barry calls, “Humor Impaired.” 

Celebrating debate humor  

My observation that humor is used more pervasively in World style debating stands in contrasts to most American rounds that I have judged in the last twenty-five years. Like other forms of non-verbal expression included in good delivery, humor in international debate is celebrated as an essential feature for making a point more vivid and believable. I almost get the impression that an Irish debater would be unable to debate without adding some wit.

We have seen how humor is a rich rhetorical resource that when used well enhances the rational arguments that a debater is trying to get across. It disarms an audience and puts them at ease. It frames arguments by giving the listener a new perspective. It makes listening to the round more enjoyable. We could conclude that World style debate is superior in teaching a wider range of persuasive techniques more suitable for most civic audiences that our students are preparing to address than those forms of American debate that discourage humor or light-heartedness.

Suggestions for More Humor 

One way to encourage more humor for American debaters might be to stress the importance of delivery in making decisions. I suspect that the most charming and eloquent speakers will also be the most witty, able to match the intellectual weight of an argument with the emotional pull of humorous allusions and irony. Another way to change the culture to be more open to humor might be to designate one round specifically for humor, letting everyone know that jokes and wit are desirable. One such humor round was included in the schedule at the World Universities Debating Championships in Athens in 1998.

A final suggestion to cure humor impairment might be to urge students to enter the event “Character Debate” when offered by tournaments. This is an entertaining contest of wit in which students are assigned to play the role of a well-known character or person and debate a silly resolution just for fun. Character debate gives students the chance to develop their skill for wit and humor.

Sir Thomas Moore, the preeminent debater of his time, said that when all else fails in driving out the devil, one method sure to succeed is mockery. “The devil, proud spirit … cannot endure to be mocked.” Perhaps more than anything else, our humorless debate culture needs a good exorcism.  

Works Cited

Back to Stratagem