By Liam Lobl (Student from Ardsley High School)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Coming into high school, I knew very little about philosophy, as my school district does not offer any classes even remotely within the field of philosophy. However, I was intent on getting involved in Lincoln-Douglas debate, a one-on-one competition in which philosophical \u201cframeworks\u201d are used to evaluate and form arguments. These philosophical arguments can support or oppose a potential policy decision, weighing its benefit through a particular philosophical framework. Given the central role of philosophy within debate, I have had to conduct extensive research on different philosophies and even specific philosophers\u2019 ideas. Rather than being a chore and merely a method of preparation for competitions, as I initially expected, researching philosophy became one of my foremost passions and a primary reason I continue to participate in debate to this day. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Under my coach\u2019s guidance, I started with an introduction to philosophical concepts like utilitarianism and Rawls\u2019 Veil of Ignorance, which gave me a strong introduction and eventually leaping point into the philosophical side of debate. Compared to other philosophies, these concepts were far more accessible at the time, given that they could easily be connected to the policy-oriented debate I was already used to. Utilitarianism could be used as a philosophical framework justifying why killing people is wrong and why we must prioritize preventing war or genocide over any other impact. Rawls\u2019 philosophy can support claims that we must protect those who are most vulnerable in society, supporting the need for greater welfare programs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
As I continued with debate, I began looking at the works of philosophers like Kant, Deleuze, Wynter, Hegel, Benetar, Baudrillard, and more. By incorporating their ideas into debate, I got to actually engage with philosophical concepts, applying them to real-life scenarios and trying to understand how various philosophers would have reacted to such scenarios. One of my favorite examples of this practice can be summed up in a recent debate regarding the necessity of open borders for human migration. In these debates, I used a Deleusian perspective to critique the concept of borders, arguing against their existence as a whole. According to Deleuze, there is a gap between \u201cthings\u201d in the world and the discursive signifiers (labels) we use to describe them. For example, the discursive signifier for pieces of wood shaped in a certain way is a \u201cchair.\u201d The only thing that can bridge the gap between things in the world and their labels is affect\u2013the subconscious intensities, flows, and desires that shape the subject as it moves through time. Furthermore, Deleuze claims that societal movements cannot be successful unless they have an affective core pushing them towards success. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Given Deleuze\u2019s embrace of affect, he is opposed to the idea of nostalgia, citing it as leading to violence and forcing old ideas and regimes onto \u201cnewness,” preventing us from advancing as a species. In the context of the debate, I argued that borders are merely a nostalgic projection since they serve no real purpose in the modern world given modern global interconnectedness through technology and transportation. Borders exist because they always have, as a means by which empires would define their territorial claims. However, borders are currently the site of great violence, as borders have come to define who is and is not considered a citizen. As such, I argued against defining our world through borders and I offered alternative suggestions instead. By reading such Deleuzian arguments, I grew as a debater by engaging with arguments I was passionate about.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
My newfound love for philosophy in debate has seeped into my everyday life as well. I have become fascinated by the ways in which we can use philosophical concepts to shape law and create material change in the world. For example, a series of debate regarding the role of private entities in outer space sparked my interest in space policy\u2013a form of lawmaking that will have a great impact on humanity\u2019s long-term future. Philosophy in debate gives people the unique ability to express their values and feelings within an academic field by letting students choose from who and what they want to read. Philosophy spurs life-lasting friendships, tight-knit communities, and helps build universal skills. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Interacting with and learning from philosophers and students alike has helped harness my love for philosophy. I am confident that both philosophy and debate will continue helping me grow not only as an academic by improving my research and public speaking skills, but as a person by teaching me to be more empathetic, to consider the viewpoints of those around me and those of people whose opinions are traditionally excluded, and to weigh all aspects of a topic before making an informed opinion. As a current high schooler, I look forward to continuing learning, studying, and engaging with philosophy at the collegiate level and beyond.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"