Should Retrofuturism be Our Future: A Glimpse into the World of University Debating

“Without further ado, I would like to invite up the first affirmative speaker to begin this debate.”

The first speaker stands up, gathers their papers, and walks over to the podium. There are about a dozen or so pairs of eyes, but that is not what is making them nervous. The motion? That we prefer a world where retro-futuristic technology was the status quo. With a final sip of water, they start the timer and begin their speech.

This is just a glimpse into the world of competitive university debating, a semi-academic co-curricular activity with a demonstrated overlap with the subject of law. University debating is a structured format, with an affirmative team and a negative team debating on a given motion. Debaters only get 15-30 minutes (depending on format) to create arguments and develop speeches of 7-8 minutes.

“Three things in this speech: first, on set-up, then on why technology is better, and why people are better off.”

The first affirmative speaker begins by explaining what retrofuturism often looks like conceptually: flying cars, teleportation, and the like. They then go on to explain that, since the ideas of this technology were created before any limits on its capacity were known, the technology that is created is likely to be more ambitious, and therefore have more utility. Finally, they explain that compared to the status quo (filled AI slop, corporate redundancies, and the destruction of the environment), having technology that aids human development, not just in a purely productivity and economic sense, but to maximise quality of life for individuals, would be a far more enjoyable world.

After 8 minutes of arguments, densely packed with mechanisms, characterisation, and burden filling, the first speaker sits down. On their face, a mixture of relief and a flash of competitive fury, as they glance over to the opposition bench, where the first negative speaker ceases whispering to a teammate, calmly collects their papers, and stands up. The two are long-time friends and debating rivals— as most people are in such tournaments. As soon as the second speaker reaches the podium, their demeanour changes from friendly calmness to poignant determinism.

“Do not buy this affirmative team when they sell you the sunshine and rainbows of retrofuturism. There is a reason that this technology did not manifest in the status quo, and that is because it is deeply discriminatory and incredibly expensive.”

The negative speaker then goes on to explain that retrofuturism is bad, as conceptions of the future began at a time when discrimination was rampant. Women and people of colour were often subjugated to specific societal roles; for example, many technologies conceptualised in the 1950s connected women with purely domestic work. Further, retrofuturism’s focus on cool-looking technology is a harm, as it would drive up the cost of technology, reducing broader access for individuals.

After all speakers finish their speeches, shake hands, and leave the room, the real work begins. Unlike in typical high school competitions, university adjudicating is competitive, with the break being determined through the quality of discussion amongst the panel of adjudicators, and (for the chair specifically) on the quality of the oral adjudication (‘OA’) delivered.

The judges sit in silence for a mere 5 minutes, gathering their thoughts and initial calls on the debate. After this time, they discuss who they each thought won and why. There are some differences, but after a productive discussion, persuading each other as to which side is more persuasive (a lot of persuasion in one debate, I know) they come to a unanimous decision and call the teams back in.

The chair stands up to give their OA, starting with a few points of general feedback (mostly on the case and perhaps teams could have done more weighing on likelihood), then giving the call, and how the panel saw the debate. After the OA, both teams leave the room— one elated, and one disappointed, but nonetheless, both teams will continue into the next round of the competition, repeating this process until the tournament ends.

This is the world of university debating, full of highs, lows, thrills and best of all, some of the most amazing, caring, and intelligent people you will ever meet. And, while this is just a brief snapshot into the life of a debater, there is much more to discover for yourself if you give it a try. 

Author’s note: If you would like to learn more about debating at ANU, please contact the ANU Debating Society at anu.debating@gmail.com or through the ANU Debating Facebook page.

Author: Emily Ezaki-Swain