As the moderator for last week’s demonstration debate for the Tacoma Urban Debate League (TNT, 11-29), I would like to provide a firsthand view of the experience and some factual background in the hopes of increasing understanding.

Some of the online comments posted on The News Tribune’s Web site (www. thenewstribune.com) speak for themselves and deserve no response. I am interested in responding to the legitimate educational concerns that were expressed.

I have been coaching debate and teaching through debate for 27 years at schools such as Emory, Stanford, Northwestern, Spelman College and the University of California at Berkeley. It was an honor to be invited to moderate this debate at the University of Puget Sound.

The arguments addressed the potential for U.S. foreign aid to produce a positive change in the human conditions that African countries face. The evidence, presented hip-hop style, was historically grounded and based in firsthand experience as well as academic literature.

The debaters spoke to the audience’s own knowledge base about events such as Hurricane Katrina, the government’s response to disaster and poverty in the United States, and comparable U.S. aid programs in other parts of the world.

The students made claims and supported them with data and reason, as did the volunteer UPS debate team defending U.S. foreign aid. This is the essence of good argument.

Hip-hop is a form of expression, a musical-cultural genre that serves as a source of relevant social commentary on public policy to affect social change. Not one profane word was spoken during the demonstration debate, and profanity is not a requirement of hip-hop, any more than drugs are the subject of the lyrics of all rock ’n’ roll songs.

Some rock ’n’ roll music functioned to encourage social change and direct opposition to war. Some hip-hop speaks to the social conditions in the United States and the war as well as foreign aid and environmental policy. That sort of music was incorporated by the debaters because of its relevance to their debates.

Debate is defined by controversy: Without opposing views, styles and perspectives, debate becomes an endorsement without academic rigor for the status quo.

This year’s national high school debate topic was chosen because of the appalling human health conditions in African countries. It is because the status quo is unacceptable that change is being debated.

It is only through adversarial academic comparisons that research in any field advances. Tolerance of the advancement of thought is essential to democratic societies. Encouragement of the advancement of thought is the business of education and requires a broader consideration of free expression’s importance.

All forms of expression have the potential for political relevance. Although Lenny Bruce’s nightclub act was laced with profanity, it would be hard to argue that it lacked political content. Mozart’s opera, “The Marriage of Figaro,” was considered politically explosive in its time, yet its production was tolerated by the Austrian monarchy. The FBI followed John Lennon around. Other examples abound.

Anyone who has participated in academic debate should be the loudest to encourage the evolution of thought through the process of debate. If an argument or its presentation is lacking an evidentiary base, it should be easy enough for the opposing side to argue that and convince judges that such claims should be rejected.

That’s what debate is.

Judy Butler is a veteran debate instructor and founder and coach of the debate program at Spelman University in Atlanta. She is also co-founder of the Stanford National Forensic Institute at Stanford University and a 17-year instructor there.