Full Announcement

"Generally the engineering way of thinking about problems is a helpful characteristic for debating: we come to a round and are just like a factory for arguments." So stated EECS junior and MIT debater Adam Goldstein.

Bill Magnuson, his teamate and president of the MIT Debate Team, concurred, adding: "Essentially what you are doing in debate is taking a specific way of solving something and then determining what are the good and bad things about that way of solving it. The advantage in the British parliamentary system, where you have to come up with everything in 15 minutes, is that it allows us to shine in our abilities to come up with arguments very quickly and analyze things."

Both Adam Goldstein, EECS junior in VI-2 (electrical engineering and computer science) and Bill Magnuson, senior in VI-3 (computer science and engineering) are not just enjoying their undergraduate lives in MIT EECS--they are outwitting their way to making a world class name for the MIT Debate Team. (See the MIT News Office, Nov. 24, 2008 article).

Magnuson and Goldstein won the Cambridge Intervarsity Championship held at Cambridge, England on Nov. 15--beating teams from several top international universities, including the University of Oxford and Trinity College Dublin. This year's competition, sponsored by the international law firm Cleary Gottlieb drew students from more than 10 countries.

Goldstein and Magnuson noted that although most subjects that they debate are political or philosophical in nature--in line with the nearly consistent population of philosophy and/or political science students on opposing teams--they usually take other teams by surprise, not knowing what to expect from scientists and engineers. Indeed, in this case, when Goldstein and Magnuson managed to draw the number one lot for choosing the topic in the final round, they chose a counterintuitive argument for selling the seats on the UN Security Council that are currently veto bearing. (Both Goldstein and Magnuson credit former MIT debate team member Dan Barkley for this clever twist).

The audience, always encouraged in British debate style to vocalize their reactions, initially rolled their eyes and booed. On hearing the actual argument--which was totally new to them--the hecklers cheered. The Cambridge and other teams were thrown by the counterintuitive approach, mishandling all their arguments, and despite the odds that only 6% of teams that speak first end up winning rounds at worlds, the MIT team was able to pull it off.

As an EECS senior, and an M.Eng. hopeful, Magnuson admits that his professors have been generous in allowing him the extra time away from classes, adding that these experiences are an ongoing way for him to become a better speaker for end-of-term class presentations.

Goldstein pointed out that most debaters in other schools fall into the trap of letting debate become their sole interest, not finding classes as interesting or participatory as the weekend debates. In contrast, Goldstein reported that he equally likes to come back to doing things in EECS classes and labs.

Now Goldstein, Magnuson and other members of the MIT debate team are busy encouraging new members to build up the ranks of a small but powerful 20-member team. They will not have to look far beyond the ranks of their quick-thinking, analytical classmates in EECS.

congratulations Adam and Bill!