.png)
 |
| Ocey Holland Class of 2018 |
As far as intense debates go, I believe in one rule, the
silver rule. It implies that utilizing resources and controlling ones behavior
could lead to a triumphant win in a debate. Its concept regards the
sensitivities of thought, cultural ideology, and religion but nurtures the
notion that debate is about hard facts. Ideally, this rule is firmly rooted in
the conceptual implications of relevant evidence, so lets recap on the debate
that granted the birth of such an ideal.
This past Friday the McConnell Center had the opportunity to
host the debate “Jefferson vs. Hamilton:
Who’s the MVP of the American Founding?” with Michael Schwarz and Michael
Federici, both acclaimed professionals in their specific field of study at U.S.
accredited universities. The director of the McConnell Center, Dr. Gary Greg,
insisted that George Washington was the true winner amongst America’s
patriarch, and proclaimed that the debate would be on who actually finished
second in the matter.
Michael Schwarz, the defender of Thomas Jefferson,
noticeably excluded Jefferson’s lavish lifestyle but was very adamant in
pointing fingers at the detrimental decisions Hamilton failed to acknowledge
during his time in government. He went on to say that our
present day financial situations started with Hamilton, that his implementation
of the Bank of New York was the inception of economic chaos in this nation.
Michael Federici, on the other hand, stated that Jefferson’s only
accomplishment was the founding of the University of Virginia. He states that
“the Declaration of Independence was nothing but a piece of war propaganda” and
that the job of writing the document “was handed down to him because Adams was
too lazy to do it”. As the debate went on, I paid close attention to the silver
rule: stance, substance, and silence. By the end of the event on Saturday, I
had predicted the winner of the debate by the law of the silver rule.
Stance: In debate no one likes a flip flopper. Everyone
knows that a strong stance is necessary for a persuasive performance. It is
important that a presenter invests himself into his research and truly
understands the cause and effect relationship in that research. In the debate
both scholars established incredibly firm beliefs and carried them throughout
the two-day debate. It was evident that these men were well read and completely
immersed in the worlds of Jefferson and Hamilton.
Substance: You must know that substance is statistics, known
facts, evidences. Substance is the backbone of any argument. It is the
structure of debate because it can easily make an idea as solid as a rock or as
weak as a feather. A debater must present factual evidence to their audience
because an argument is just an exaggerated opinion until then. If you attended
the debate you would have noticed the redundant references to texts, articles,
journals, and biographies. The debaters knew this was significant to walking
away with a victory and what a smart move on both parts.
Silence: When debating it’s more powerful if you talk the
most right? No! It was very clear to me where the dividing line was between the
two presenters, and apparently it was evident to everyone else in the audience
according to the poll that recognized Alexander Hamilton, Michael Federici, as
the most relevant founding father of the two. I believe it all came down to the
use of silence. Michael Schwarz, while with solid facts and good intentions, was
very combative and overwhelmingly vocal to the point that Michael Federici
would have small windows of opportunities to speak. Michael Schwarz’s thoughts
were always so captivating, but with the same voice of passion there were
aggressive comments inserted that weakened the Jefferson side of the debate.
Things like “your history is utterly wrong” and “not one thing you said was
true” filled the air as Schwarz rebutted to statements made by Federici. I
learned that aggression in debate could make the audience form suspicion that
you have something to hide or belief that you have an unstable mindset. That’s
enough to kill a whole debate. Federici seemed to have known this and strategically
silenced himself throughout parts of the debate, which allowed him to come
across much more gathered than his opponent. So if you are ever looking to win
a debate, just remember stance, substance, and silence, it makes all the
difference.
Ocey Holland is a freshman McConnell Scholar studying biology. He is from Louisville, Ky.