Learning to Debate... Poorly.

In addition to taking a class on mass media and communications, I am also taking a debate course and an intercultural communications course this semester. One of the really interesting things about doing this is that there is a common thread weaving between them:

Mass Media wants us to look at media topics.
Intercultural communications wants us to come up with culturally relevant or debatable topics in the news or media.
Debate wants us to fight it out about them (completely civilly, and with an emphasis on actual knowledge, of course).

Last night, when I was in class until 9 : ( , we had our first practice debates. Now, not only do I have a better understanding of the debates I have watched (such as the presidential debates a few months ago), but I am also forced to address key issues that are being covered in the media today. I had written a paper on immigration reform, and to my own eyes, my arguments were weak and not as informed as they could be. The format of the debate (for which I was the opposition) helped me to critically assess the issues I have been reading about in the news.

Last year, President Obama came up with a plan for amnesty for certain illegal residents. This, I think, can be a good thing. But there are many other aspects of immigration reform that are still in the works. I can only imagine that it was addressed in the State of the Union Address (which I recorded, but have yet to watch). This is very current news, and the aspect of it changes depending on which news outlet you choose--such as CNN vs. FoxNews. I have been spending the better part of the last two weeks reading up on this issue and I have come to a conclusion about this issue: people are fighting for the sake of fighting.

Whenever one comes up with an idea or plan for more widespread reform, the other basically wags their finger and comes up with some infinitesimal detail on which to harp on. I am not really sure whether there is any point to it, aside from both sides of the debate being able to save face but not actually copping to a concession. As I was on the opposition side of the debate, I saw how easy it was to come up with excuses to halt change. It really isn't about what is best for everyone (us personally, the country, the state -- whatever), it's sort of just about being right. And not actually right right, but instead perceived as right. Because change is hard, and it's uncomfortable, and maybe it's easier not to deal with.

Anyway--that was a rant, and perhaps not providing you with as much information as you would need to form your own opinion about what is going on, but a really interesting issue that is churning around these days.