Lost in translation

"This house resolves that antiterrorism is the new McCarthyism." I was sitting in a classroom in Cyberjaya, Malaysia, at the annual World Debate Tournament, preparing to do battle with students from India and Malaysia.

When my opponent stood to speak, I expected him to launch into a vigorous argument comparing antiterrorist policies with Communist witch-hunts of the 1950s. Instead, I was treated to a discussion of imperialism in Japan--my opponent had confused Senator Joseph McCarthy with General Douglas MacArthur.

Once I finally had the chance to speak, I pointed out the mistake. But by that time, it was too late to alter the content of the debate. By debating rules, I was stuck with the faulty definition. It was a very long round.

This misunderstanding is typical of some of the problems with international debate. In my four years at Fairfield University, I traveled all over the world for debate tournaments. I've had to contend not only with mistranslations, but also with cultural complications, either of which can lead to defeat. The confusion between McCarthy and MacArthur was easily explained after the round, but on other issues such as justice, globalization, and the proper role of government, the differences among my opponents have run much deeper--and proved far more difficult to reconcile.

In another round in Malaysia, my partner and I placed near the bottom because the judge, from North Korea, disagreed with our description of the U.S. justice system. As the only Americans in the round, we initially figured we had the upper hand. We argued that "celebrity" criminals in America, such as Michael Jackson and Martha Stewart, often escaped harsher treatment because of their notoriety and wealth. The opposing team, meanwhile, argued that the U.S. justice system was based on the crimes involved, not how famous (or infamous) the defendant.

We lost because we argued that America's justice system is different in practice, and is sometimes unfair. "You undermined your own justice system," the judge told us. As a North Korean, she was not receptive to comments critical of government. This would not have been the case if the debate had taken place in the United States. Nothing is sacred in American debate, especially not the government.

In a debate on women in the armed forces, a male student from Malaysia argued that women's natural charms and graces were not suited for aggressive military jobs. My female partner and I pointed out that competitive debate also requires a kind of aggression, and that our presence proved that the generalization wasn't true. Afterwards, our opponent told my partner and me how refreshing it was to debate unemotional women! I asked him whether he expected us to break out in tears during the debate. He said no, but cautioned that debate made women unhappy and unable to connect with men. He then asked us if we had gone shopping yet. (We hadn't.)

At the end of each round, as we waited for the results, our team chatted with other debaters. Whenever we met someone from another country, we were grilled on everything American. A student from Australia quizzed me on the U.S. senators. I was able to name about fifteen. He had memorized all one hundred. I never figured out why. I suspect it was to unnerve Americans. It worked.

I cannot remember the number of times someone asked me why George W. Bush was reelected. It got to the point where I considered pretending I was Canadian. One debater from England told me he couldn't understand why Americans were so concerned with domestic issues such as homosexual marriage, when our international policy was starting World War III.

Still, I prefer debating foreign students. Debate is always richer when more than just the arguments are at odds. Because of our common background, American debaters often have similar opinions, values, and affiliations. This is not the case in international debate. In these competitions, arguments aren't the only things up for discussion--personal lifestyle and culture are fair game, too. The ultimate goal of debate is not merely to win the argument, but to establish dialogue. This can be tough in a country like Malaysia, especially at a time when Americans are viewed with such suspicion abroad. But if you're willing to put aside prejudices, even to lose a round or two, chances are you'll learn something. I did.

Eileen Arnold, a former Commonweal intern, graduated from Fairfield University in May.

COPYRIGHT 2005 Commonweal Foundation
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning