The Great American Think-Off is likely the only international debate competition whose finals take place in a rural Midwestern town of 1,300 people.

The brainchild of John Davis, an artist-turned-community-development visionary, the Think-Off has been held every year since 1993 (except for 2020) in New York Mills, a Minnesota hamlet about 80 miles east of Fargo, North Dakota. At the Think-Off, anyone in the world is invited to submit a 750-word essay on the year’s debate topic—always a big one, like “Are people basically good or evil?” or “Is it ever wrong to do the right thing?” In a blind-judging process, the hundreds of responses are winnowed down to the four strongest arguments—two on each side of the question—and the writers are then invited to New York Mills for a showdown.

The phenomenon of decades of serious intellectual combat among the corn and soybean fields of Otter Tail County has prompted coverage by the likes of the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. For a while, the finals were even carried on C-Span; today they’re simulcast on Facebook Live.

And in the history of the contest, there’s never been a situation quite like 2021, in which three of the four finalists had strong connections with a single institution of higher learning: the University of Minnesota. On June 12, Bill Sutherland (B.E.E. ’70), who runs a consulting engineering firm; current high school teacher Dan Tschida (J.D. ’92); and Angela Stehr, a program specialist in the U of M’s Institute for Astrophysics, faced off against each other and against Atlanta attorney and writer A.J. Gil—the only non-Gopher in the group.

The topic: “Which is more important: to win or to play by the rules?” Arguing for winning: Gil and Stehr. For rule-following: Sutherland and Tschida.

Big-Thinking Gophers

Sutherland founded MinnTech Consulting Engineers in 1984. The firm specializes in analyzing electrical failures that have produced big problems, like fires or personal injuries, and sometimes provides expert testimony in hearings and trials. “The analysis we do concerns how and why something happened, how and why we got to this point,” he says. “Ruminating on those kinds of questions with respect to what rules are for helped me to put my qualifying essay together, I think.” And he credits a U of M undergrad course on ethics with sparking a lifelong interest in philosophical conundrums.

Tschida’s life took a turn when, after parlaying his U of M law degree into a seven-year stint with a major Twin Cities law firm, he became a high school history teacher. “The moment came when I decided that if I was going to continue with law, I would need to get a lot more enjoyment out of it than I was getting,” Tschida says. “I like interacting with people, and I’m a generalist who loves discussing big ideas—so high school history teaching just drew me.”

Tschida has known about the Think-Off debate for a while and occasionally brought up its perplexing big issues with his students. Sutherland first heard about it this year. But Angela Stehr is a superfan. Not only has she attended nearly all of the debates since 2008 and submitted multiple essays, she’s also suggested many Think-Off topics. In 2021, she finally got the nod from New York Mills. “I love the event because the people who come to it really listen for the stronger argument,” she says. “I’ve actually been convinced to totally change my opinion on a significant issue because of a Think-Off presentation.”

Gearing Up for Battle

The Think-Off’s kickoff was a reception the night before the debate in the art gallery of the Cultural Center building, a refitted 19th-century furniture store on the town’s main drag. A big table of savory and sweet finger food stood at one end of the gallery, and the gift shop was open, selling Cultural Center merch along with Ittala glassware and other Finnish items (New York Mills was originally settled by Finns, and their tough-and-smart spirit pervades the town).

The finalists were there, as were a bunch of artists and art lovers—the party was also a celebration of the Center’s newest exhibition of local painting and sculpture. Sutherland, Tschida, and Stehr were in good spirits, but all three retired early to get in some last-minute debate prep. (Their lodgings were as unique as the contest itself—a bed-and-breakfast that features railway cars converted into hotel rooms on wheels.)

The next evening, attendees rolled up to New York Mills’ single public school, a sprawling building that houses classes from pre-K to 12th grade. On the auditorium stage stood three podia draped in the kind of red, white, and blue bunting that decorated the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The host welcomed us, then introduced the debate moderator, Tami Vigesaa, a sociology professor at Minnesota State in Fergus Falls.

In the first round, two debaters duke it out with each other. So the pro-winning pair, Stehr and Gil, took the stage first. They read their qualifying essays, laying out their basic lines of argument.

Stehr: “What if the rules are unjust and need to be broken? If something is really worth fighting for, it may be worth breaking the rules for.” She cited heroic rule-breakers like Rosa Parks. Gil asserted that the winners in political and social struggles make the rules, and so “winning matters, because it’s the only way to get rules worth following.” Vigesaa followed with probing questions, and the debaters questioned each other, too.

The audience determines the winner, via tear-out ballots in the evening’s program. Cub scouts—male and female, in uniform—gathered the ballots. And who did the audience decide would carry the “winning wins” banner into the final round?

AJ Gil.

One Gopher down.

The Battle: Part 2

Sutherland and Tschida’s face-off was focused on a subtle contrast. Sutherland drew on his own experience in courtrooms by asserting that paying attention to rules is vital because people in the same “game” may actually be following different rules, as when lawyers go up against technical experts. Somehow, he said, the rules have to be adjusted and agreed upon so that more contests can be win-win. Tschida focused on the long term: “In following the rules, we commit to enduring values, not temporary passions.” He won the round.

Two Gophers down, one remaining to go head-to-head with University of Florida/Villanova alumnus Gil. Now it was the battle of the J.D.s.

Gil reasserted that if we want better rules, we need to win to make them; Tschida countered that the principle of “better rules” is itself a rule, as are all guiding principles.

The winner again and Think-Off champ 2021: U of M alumnus Tschida.

In a way, the U of M carried the day. With good-natured hyperbole, the lawyer-turned-teacher was named “America’s Greatest Thinker” on the Center’s web site. But as the host pointed out at the end, all were winners. They were, after all, selected out of hundreds of intelligent arguers to wrestle with a question that will probably be engaging thoughtful people for centuries. At Oxford, Harvard, the U of M—and in places like Otter Tail County, too.

Jon Spayde is a freelance writer in the Twin Cities