New Semester, Only Semester

In the Zen tradition, the length of a life is always one breath. This emphasizes the Zen outlook that the present moment is the only one we can attend to, the only one we can be sure about. Paraphrasing Bruce Lee, the past is an illusion, the future is imaginary.  All we have is what is in front of us now. To speculate in either direction on the timeline is to invite – and create – suffering in our lives due to the absence of those things as certainties.

I sit here tonight overlooking the Cedar river after a very fun weekend in Cedar Rapids – a good way to end one of the most restorative winter breaks I’ve had in a while. It started with me concerned about the future and ended with me very satisfied about where I am in the present. I worried about my courses this term, now I am looking forward to them. From this weekend I have started to incorporate a new measure of life, or bird by bird, as has been recently said to me.

The proper way to measure life for me is semester by semester. And the most important lesson is that only the semester in front of you matters.

Previous semesters are illusory – you trump them up beyond actuality and often we find ourselves steaming away at particular failures or frustrations, and too much time shining light on the successes, casting the mediocre moments in shadow.

Attending to what is in front of you is best. Like competitive cooking shows, use your experience to work with the ingredients you have instead of comparing them to the ingredients you had, or that you wish you had.

This semester for me – a frozen river is an appropriate image to work with. On the surface things look still and clean – but underneath there’s a lot of activity.

This semester I focus on transforming my debate program into something new.

This semester I focus on incorporating scholarship into all aspects of what I do at the university.

This semester all I do at the university I will attempt to incorporate in scholarship.

The break began with a stimulating conversation in Texas over facebook about the role debating organizations can have in the pressing need for guided, quality undergraduate research in the university.  It ends with this frozen river, and my wonder about what lies underneath.

The same is true of my coming semester. It appears still, normal, and just as the others. The students will supply my opportunities and establish my limitations. Only these students, only now.

Bird by bird, breath by breath, life this term shall be measured. Not compared.

For it is the only semester I’m fairly certain that I actually have.

Stop Hosting Worlds

My advice to those hosting or bidding to host the WUDC in the future is to try their hardest not to be Worlds.
The world championship, before this most recent competition, had no hosts come forward to bid. Chennai was accepted without the usual time frame given to the planning of this tournament. Instead of focusing on the problems that happened in India – very well documented many other places on the web – I’d like to spend some time articulating the primary cause of these problems.
The major reason any of these things came to pass is because the global debating community is more interested in having a Worlds than a world championship. 
It doesn’t seem that way with all the attention put into rules, CA choices, adjudicator subsidies (or the promise of them), motion fairness discussions and more and more discussion about gender inequity at worlds. But the biggest barrier toward having a solid worlds tournament is the belief that Worlds should have certain features, and without those features Worlds would not be Worlds. 
These features include, but are not limited to the following: Five-star accommodation, nightly socials, free or heavily discounted alcohol, planned and discounted excursions, and large numbers of subsidized judges. 
It is the demand, either implicit or explicit, from the debating community that these be a part of any Worlds bid worth considering. But it is also these demands that probably deter many organizations from bidding to host Worlds – they realize the hard work and implausibility of providing all of the above.
Organizations that offered a bid to host a world championship – something stripped down, basic, and directly focused on the tournament portion of Worlds – would not be considered a serious bid, no matter how good the justification and planning for the competition. It is unfortunate, but I believe that the worldwide debate community has come to not feel grateful for such lavish things at Worlds, but have come to expect these things as the basic norm for any Worlds.
Consider all the controversy in Chennai – when you strip away all the elements of frustration and failure, you are left with one of the most solid, excellent competitive tournaments of all time. The motions, judge allocation, and the running of the competition were perfect. All of the issues at Chennai came from one source, and it isn’t the organization that was hosting. It is our demand that the world championships be Worlds that lead to the poor management of all the other aspects of the tournament. 
If we keep insisting on worlds containing all of these elements, something is going to have to give. It is unlikely that hosts can pull off what it is that they promise given what all of these demands cost. Debaters are lucky that this time it wasn’t the tournament that broke. Next time it might not be the case. 
What I think we should focus on is recruiting and pushing for hosts that offer certain amenities – safe and comfortable lodging, decent food, venues for meetings, competition, and general “hanging out” – and a nice break party. After that, social functions can easily be handled by the competitors as they meet old and new friends, catch up, and explore a little bit of the host city. A focus on having a world championship will give rise to a more affordable entry fee, an easier time finding a variety of hosts, and a community built around the production and critique of good argumentation and rhetoric in an intercultural, global atmosphere. Focus less on the parties and the celebratory atmosphere and more on the thing that we are meant to be celebrating. A streamlined world championship in the place of a bloated, over-the-top Worlds would provide more money for the administration of the tournament, subsidizing the aspects of the world championship that need the most assistance, such as expensive travel.
The most valuable lesson from the Chennai problems was this – the community has produced and contains remarkable leaders who are professional and capable of focusing on the task at hand, accomplishing it with amazing success. It’s remarkable that the tournament was so great given what it faced from its own organizers. Running the tournament is not the issue, and we should feel thankful. Happily signing on to a host who promises all that we demand from a Worlds is our undoing. We should be immediately suspicious going forward of any bid that suggests it can offer everything that we believe Worlds should have. There must be compromises in order for it to function at that registration price, with those donors, for that expected quality. 
The thing that most people praised about Chennai was that tournament aspect and what it brings with it: Excellent opportunities to catch up with old friends, make new ones, and experience some thoughtful and eloquent debating. What is Worlds but this? Hosting a World Championship and allowing some of the sediment of Worlds to float away would focus the world championship on what is most valuable and important about the international debate community. We should move in this direction by asking for a world championship host, not a Worlds host.

Related articles

Stop Hosting Worlds

My advice to those hosting or bidding to host the WUDC in the future is to try their hardest not to be Worlds.
The world championship, before this most recent competition, had no hosts come forward to bid. Chennai was accepted without the usual time frame given to the planning of this tournament. Instead of focusing on the problems that happened in India – very well documented many other places on the web – I’d like to spend some time articulating the primary cause of these problems.
The major reason any of these things came to pass is because the global debating community is more interested in having a Worlds than a world championship. 
It doesn’t seem that way with all the attention put into rules, CA choices, adjudicator subsidies (or the promise of them), motion fairness discussions and more and more discussion about gender inequity at worlds. But the biggest barrier toward having a solid worlds tournament is the belief that Worlds should have certain features, and without those features Worlds would not be Worlds. 
These features include, but are not limited to the following: Five-star accommodation, nightly socials, free or heavily discounted alcohol, planned and discounted excursions, and large numbers of subsidized judges. 
It is the demand, either implicit or explicit, from the debating community that these be a part of any Worlds bid worth considering. But it is also these demands that probably deter many organizations from bidding to host Worlds – they realize the hard work and implausibility of providing all of the above.
Organizations that offered a bid to host a world championship – something stripped down, basic, and directly focused on the tournament portion of Worlds – would not be considered a serious bid, no matter how good the justification and planning for the competition. It is unfortunate, but I believe that the worldwide debate community has come to not feel grateful for such lavish things at Worlds, but have come to expect these things as the basic norm for any Worlds.
Consider all the controversy in Chennai – when you strip away all the elements of frustration and failure, you are left with one of the most solid, excellent competitive tournaments of all time. The motions, judge allocation, and the running of the competition were perfect. All of the issues at Chennai came from one source, and it isn’t the organization that was hosting. It is our demand that the world championships be Worlds that lead to the poor management of all the other aspects of the tournament. 
If we keep insisting on worlds containing all of these elements, something is going to have to give. It is unlikely that hosts can pull off what it is that they promise given what all of these demands cost. Debaters are lucky that this time it wasn’t the tournament that broke. Next time it might not be the case. 
What I think we should focus on is recruiting and pushing for hosts that offer certain amenities – safe and comfortable lodging, decent food, venues for meetings, competition, and general “hanging out” – and a nice break party. After that, social functions can easily be handled by the competitors as they meet old and new friends, catch up, and explore a little bit of the host city. A focus on having a world championship will give rise to a more affordable entry fee, an easier time finding a variety of hosts, and a community built around the production and critique of good argumentation and rhetoric in an intercultural, global atmosphere. Focus less on the parties and the celebratory atmosphere and more on the thing that we are meant to be celebrating. A streamlined world championship in the place of a bloated, over-the-top Worlds would provide more money for the administration of the tournament, subsidizing the aspects of the world championship that need the most assistance, such as expensive travel.
The most valuable lesson from the Chennai problems was this – the community has produced and contains remarkable leaders who are professional and capable of focusing on the task at hand, accomplishing it with amazing success. It’s remarkable that the tournament was so great given what it faced from its own organizers. Running the tournament is not the issue, and we should feel thankful. Happily signing on to a host who promises all that we demand from a Worlds is our undoing. We should be immediately suspicious going forward of any bid that suggests it can offer everything that we believe Worlds should have. There must be compromises in order for it to function at that registration price, with those donors, for that expected quality. 
The thing that most people praised about Chennai was that tournament aspect and what it brings with it: Excellent opportunities to catch up with old friends, make new ones, and experience some thoughtful and eloquent debating. What is Worlds but this? Hosting a World Championship and allowing some of the sediment of Worlds to float away would focus the world championship on what is most valuable and important about the international debate community. We should move in this direction by asking for a world championship host, not a Worlds host.

Related articles

Adjudication

Of course I would forget to mention in the last post one of the best experiences I had this past year – working with the great authors in this book I helped edit on judging BP debate.
The book is available on Amazon, and pretty much anywhere where you would like to buy books.
Working with Sam Block and Nick Bibby was great. They are fantastic co-editors, and a real breeze to work with even when we are facing some difficult circumstances (as you do when you are editing a book of other people’s work and you have deadlines to meet and all that). It was a great time.
Every essay in the book is quite good – they range from the very highly theoretical to the very practical and down-to-earth sort of essay you might want to read to help your own judging practice. 
Let me know what you think about it in the comments!

Adjudication

Of course I would forget to mention in the last post one of the best experiences I had this past year – working with the great authors in this book I helped edit on judging BP debate.
The book is available on Amazon, and pretty much anywhere where you would like to buy books.
Working with Sam Block and Nick Bibby was great. They are fantastic co-editors, and a real breeze to work with even when we are facing some difficult circumstances (as you do when you are editing a book of other people’s work and you have deadlines to meet and all that). It was a great time.
Every essay in the book is quite good – they range from the very highly theoretical to the very practical and down-to-earth sort of essay you might want to read to help your own judging practice. 
Let me know what you think about it in the comments!