The New York Sophist

Here’s a recent email response I gave on the subject of videotaping debates, addressed to someone who asked me to remove a debate they were in that they didn’t care for their performance.

I have placed your video in privacy stasis – nobody can see it at all, and I hope you’ll test that to make sure that I’ve secured it properly. It will stay hidden forever, unless I show it to an entry-level debate course at my University in New York – about 20 people or so a year.

I understand your concern to control your appearances online. A popular sentiment. But I’d like to point out just exactly who you are asking to control from access to your performance.

The video as of today has 572 hits since it was put up in 2009, almost all from the US and Canada. I think this represents the total audience for the video, since in the past week it has only received 8.

I think most people interested in seeing the video have seen it, as far as people looking for you or how you did. I bet most of the audience represented here would have been in the room if they could have been. Those who weren’t were probably restricted by work or school commitments or maybe something else. This video allows (allowed, I think they’ve done it) them to see something they would have seen anyway. 

More importantly, about once every couple of months I get an email from the developing world – India, Africa, someplace like that – thanking me for hosting these videos. Apparently they get the videos from internet cafes, download them, and use them in rural areas to train young debaters in how to speak well. Tournament performances like the one you gave and the access and ability to do them, we take for granted. This video, and the others like it that I host here, represent a level of pedagogical access that even 10 years ago people thought was a good element in a science fiction story. 


As far as future employers finding it, which is a common concern among debaters who don’t like to be taped, I highly doubt debating will achieve that much relevance to be a real threat. If they did find it, they’d probably be astounded that students do this sort of thing. Why our community chooses to fly under the radar is always a mystery to me. 

So I’ll keep the video out of the public eye until I hear from you again. I’m sure everyone who wanted to see it has seen it, and as for those who haven’t seen it yet – the people who really do need access to these videos – I’ll let you decide about them.

Best Wishes, Steve

Here’s a recent email response I gave on the subject of videotaping debates, addressed to someone who asked me to remove a debate they were in that they didn’t care for their performance.

I have placed your video in privacy stasis – nobody can see it at all, and I hope you’ll test that to make sure that I’ve secured it properly. It will stay hidden forever, unless I show it to an entry-level debate course at my University in New York – about 20 people or so a year.

I understand your concern to control your appearances online. A popular sentiment. But I’d like to point out just exactly who you are asking to control from access to your performance.

The video as of today has 572 hits since it was put up in 2009, almost all from the US and Canada. I think this represents the total audience for the video, since in the past week it has only received 8.

I think most people interested in seeing the video have seen it, as far as people looking for you or how you did. I bet most of the audience represented here would have been in the room if they could have been. Those who weren’t were probably restricted by work or school commitments or maybe something else. This video allows (allowed, I think they’ve done it) them to see something they would have seen anyway. 

More importantly, about once every couple of months I get an email from the developing world – India, Africa, someplace like that – thanking me for hosting these videos. Apparently they get the videos from internet cafes, download them, and use them in rural areas to train young debaters in how to speak well. Tournament performances like the one you gave and the access and ability to do them, we take for granted. This video, and the others like it that I host here, represent a level of pedagogical access that even 10 years ago people thought was a good element in a science fiction story. 


As far as future employers finding it, which is a common concern among debaters who don’t like to be taped, I highly doubt debating will achieve that much relevance to be a real threat. If they did find it, they’d probably be astounded that students do this sort of thing. Why our community chooses to fly under the radar is always a mystery to me. 

So I’ll keep the video out of the public eye until I hear from you again. I’m sure everyone who wanted to see it has seen it, and as for those who haven’t seen it yet – the people who really do need access to these videos – I’ll let you decide about them.

Best Wishes, Steve

Here’s a video of a middle school debate we did today on the subject of whether students should have a say in the courses that they are required to take.

Debating for public audiences (i.e. non-“debate community” audiences) is something I am finding more and more important to my pedagogy every year. I think it’s because I am becoming more and more convinced that any debate format – every debate format – naturally becomes a gravity well of practices and performances that become so attractive that no utterance can escape their pull. In other words, specific style of speech used to win tournament rounds becomes indistinguishable from “good speech.”

In this debate, I think one move that would help the debaters reach the audience would be to speak more in enthymemes – something that we tell new debaters to stop doing at practice number one.  The other skill here would be to encourage debaters to switch from the deliberative to the epidictic mode of argument. This would be argument fit for a day of celebration, the here, the now, the immediate.  Most motions and most “good debates” (as seen by the competitive community) focus on questions of policy (Aristotle would call them subjects for deliberative oratory). Deliberation deals with decisions about the future, and most of these questions are about something far removed from us and where and when we are – questions of international relations, for example.  The question is how to teach using motions that highlight these two areas of need.

What practices can help debaters attend to the audience in front of them without bowing completely to an ethic of total assimilation to what the audience wants. The audience needs to see what good clash looks like, and needs alternative models of debate compared to what they normally see on TV and the like. This is where the competitive aspects of debate have developed some really good things. This is what we can export to public audiences – as long as we can keep them engaged and keep them listening.

For those unfamiliar with American debating formats, you might be surprised to learn that built into several formats is the ability to engage your opponent on the rules of debate itself. You can argue that the argument your opponent(s) made violates the rules of good debating, hurts either your ability to debate fairly or your ability to “get something” out of the debate, or both, and they should lose because of it. This is called “argument theory,” but I like to put scare quotes around the “theory” part because I am deeply suspicious of the ability of this body of common beliefs and practices to serve as theory in any academic use of the term.

This type of debating we sometimes call meta-debate – debating about the rules of the debate – doesn’t happen that often in our big political debates. Occasionally you will find it – Newt Gingrich announcing that the purpose of the Republican debate a few weeks ago was not to have Republicans attack one another but to jointly attack Obama would be one moment. Perhaps another one would be whether or not we should televise certain trials, mostly because of the effect it would have on the arguments within the courtroom (audience, even one you are ignoring, has big impacts on how you do things).

In your interpersonal arguments, there’s much more meta-debate. Is it fair to bring up that time two years ago when you were particularly insensitive in this argument right now? Perhaps it is, if it’s evidence of a trend. But it might not be if it’s just a way to derail the deliberation you and your partner are having now. In the end, both partners are very interested in reaching some sort of agreement, or solving the issue in front of them, and accessing past arguments might not work like stare decisis. It more works as a way to communicate your anger or pain with your interlocutor.

Worlds format does not have any space for the meta-debate. There are places like this blog, or the Worlds Forum that was held in Botswana and will be held in Manila too. There are all those conversations we have in the hallways of tournaments, or in briefings about how debate should work. But these are nothing compared to having the meta during a debate, where you are also debating about the issue. Think of it as a big “even/if” argument: Even if you don’t think this argument is bad for debate, we still beat it for other reasons. All of this happening at once is like the pre-trial motions, the trial, and the sentencing happening at once. It can get hairy.

Debate “theory” is the collection of norms and practices that help keep debate fair, but more often than not they are a part of the strategy a team will deploy in order to win. The “theory” is more of a collection of normative debate “ideals” that can be accessed in order to create arguments that must be responded to by the other side or they lose. This “theory” doesn’t help advance the construction of arguments, but helps teams advance innovative ways to avoid argument – if you can’t respond to what I have said, you will lose. Unlike the way most people use the term theory – a way of constructing and understanding the relationship between highly complex ideas or practices – debate “theory” serves as a system of complex norms that participants must learn in order to find victory. It models bureaucracy and legal systems but without the backing or the historical formations that led to the analogues. It’s great training in order to learn an abstract system that is difficult to care about, but essential in order to advance your position within such an environment.

Compare debate “theory” to argumentation theory to get a sense of the difference. Debate theory is inward looking and attempts to craft arguments good for debate. Argumentation theory looks outward and is always changing itself to account for nuance and unexplained moves people make in debates. It is elastic to change based on discourse. Debate theory alters discourse to serve it; it forces adaptation in speaking style. Sometimes these changes are incredibly difficult to undo, if you have encountered long term debaters after the fact. I’m very skeptical that debate theory is a “theory” in the intellectual sense of things due to it’s function. It’s more like ideology, or better yet – a collection of norms and practices – like you would find in a religious order. And what works as very persuasive and symbolically salient within the order does not work too well outside the walls of the monastery.

An example of this is watching any NPDA team who is new to Worlds attempt to prop a motion. They define everything as narrowly as possible, to a very specific case almost and then claim that they only have to defend this small area of the motion. Principled arguments, or arguments about defending the larger parts of the motion are dismissed as not relevant, because they established what they would defend, and expect the opposition to follow suit.

This theory is called “parametrics” and it is not “theory” in so much as it helps us understand relationships within and around argument, but more about fairness. Policy debate, probably the oldest of the formats, uses one motion for the whole tournament season. In this environment, fairness is defended by allowing proposition teams the ability to narrow the debate to keep it interesting, and not to have to defend against every possible issue that could be supported under a motion. Parametrics helps sustain interest and challenge for a whole year’s worth of debates by keeping everyone on their toes with what could count as support of the motion. Think of it as debating “case studies” across a year where the list of case studies is not provided, nor is it ever really complete in any sense.

Why does WUDC not have such a system? Looking at the parametrics example I think we can come up with an answer – it just doesn’t fit what we are trying to do. I think again, we have two different models of what debate is for. In WUDC, the tradition is to develop speakers who can appeal to a broad public, whatever that might be. In American formats, the goal is to appeal to a particular expert, or even a person who is one of many experts. The analogue would be a lawyer adapting her appeal based on what she knows about this particular judge’s view of different legal issues, distinct from the specific matter in the case. I think that’s where WUDC and American formats split.

The desire to create things like judge paradigm lists and long discussions about the “right way” to counterprop don’t really have a place in Worlds. But there are people who confuse these specific practices with “good debating” on the whole, and want them present in Worlds. All judges in Worlds have one paradigm – the reasonable person. They are to evaluate arguments based on how reasonable and relevant they are to the debate. They are not to judge a team based on how well they used the normative rules of fairness to help them out. We have no need of a complex normative system of rules to debate about (you could argue we have our norms and practices, and you’d be right – but we don’t systematize them for use during debates).

Those who wish to add or include the insights of debate “theory” into worlds should question whether they desire to add it to improve Worlds or to improve their comfort with worlds. Adding the grammar of another language to make learning a new language easier will not help your fluency, just make you more comfortable and more angry when nobody understands you. Distinguishing comfort from improvement in regards to debate “theory” is a huge amount of sediment to overcome.

For those unfamiliar with American debating formats, you might be surprised to learn that built into several formats is the ability to engage your opponent on the rules of debate itself. You can argue that the argument your opponent(s) made violates the rules of good debating, hurts either your ability to debate fairly or your ability to “get something” out of the debate, or both, and they should lose because of it. This is called “argument theory,” but I like to put scare quotes around the “theory” part because I am deeply suspicious of the ability of this body of common beliefs and practices to serve as theory in any academic use of the term.

This type of debating we sometimes call meta-debate – debating about the rules of the debate – doesn’t happen that often in our big political debates. Occasionally you will find it – Newt Gingrich announcing that the purpose of the Republican debate a few weeks ago was not to have Republicans attack one another but to jointly attack Obama would be one moment. Perhaps another one would be whether or not we should televise certain trials, mostly because of the effect it would have on the arguments within the courtroom (audience, even one you are ignoring, has big impacts on how you do things).

In your interpersonal arguments, there’s much more meta-debate. Is it fair to bring up that time two years ago when you were particularly insensitive in this argument right now? Perhaps it is, if it’s evidence of a trend. But it might not be if it’s just a way to derail the deliberation you and your partner are having now. In the end, both partners are very interested in reaching some sort of agreement, or solving the issue in front of them, and accessing past arguments might not work like stare decisis. It more works as a way to communicate your anger or pain with your interlocutor.

Worlds format does not have any space for the meta-debate. There are places like this blog, or the Worlds Forum that was held in Botswana and will be held in Manila too. There are all those conversations we have in the hallways of tournaments, or in briefings about how debate should work. But these are nothing compared to having the meta during a debate, where you are also debating about the issue. Think of it as a big “even/if” argument: Even if you don’t think this argument is bad for debate, we still beat it for other reasons. All of this happening at once is like the pre-trial motions, the trial, and the sentencing happening at once. It can get hairy.

Debate “theory” is the collection of norms and practices that help keep debate fair, but more often than not they are a part of the strategy a team will deploy in order to win. The “theory” is more of a collection of normative debate “ideals” that can be accessed in order to create arguments that must be responded to by the other side or they lose. This “theory” doesn’t help advance the construction of arguments, but helps teams advance innovative ways to avoid argument – if you can’t respond to what I have said, you will lose. Unlike the way most people use the term theory – a way of constructing and understanding the relationship between highly complex ideas or practices – debate “theory” serves as a system of complex norms that participants must learn in order to find victory. It models bureaucracy and legal systems but without the backing or the historical formations that led to the analogues. It’s great training in order to learn an abstract system that is difficult to care about, but essential in order to advance your position within such an environment.

Compare debate “theory” to argumentation theory to get a sense of the difference. Debate theory is inward looking and attempts to craft arguments good for debate. Argumentation theory looks outward and is always changing itself to account for nuance and unexplained moves people make in debates. It is elastic to change based on discourse. Debate theory alters discourse to serve it; it forces adaptation in speaking style. Sometimes these changes are incredibly difficult to undo, if you have encountered long term debaters after the fact. I’m very skeptical that debate theory is a “theory” in the intellectual sense of things due to it’s function. It’s more like ideology, or better yet – a collection of norms and practices – like you would find in a religious order. And what works as very persuasive and symbolically salient within the order does not work too well outside the walls of the monastery.

An example of this is watching any NPDA team who is new to Worlds attempt to prop a motion. They define everything as narrowly as possible, to a very specific case almost and then claim that they only have to defend this small area of the motion. Principled arguments, or arguments about defending the larger parts of the motion are dismissed as not relevant, because they established what they would defend, and expect the opposition to follow suit.

This theory is called “parametrics” and it is not “theory” in so much as it helps us understand relationships within and around argument, but more about fairness. Policy debate, probably the oldest of the formats, uses one motion for the whole tournament season. In this environment, fairness is defended by allowing proposition teams the ability to narrow the debate to keep it interesting, and not to have to defend against every possible issue that could be supported under a motion. Parametrics helps sustain interest and challenge for a whole year’s worth of debates by keeping everyone on their toes with what could count as support of the motion. Think of it as debating “case studies” across a year where the list of case studies is not provided, nor is it ever really complete in any sense.

Why does WUDC not have such a system? Looking at the parametrics example I think we can come up with an answer – it just doesn’t fit what we are trying to do. I think again, we have two different models of what debate is for. In WUDC, the tradition is to develop speakers who can appeal to a broad public, whatever that might be. In American formats, the goal is to appeal to a particular expert, or even a person who is one of many experts. The analogue would be a lawyer adapting her appeal based on what she knows about this particular judge’s view of different legal issues, distinct from the specific matter in the case. I think that’s where WUDC and American formats split.

The desire to create things like judge paradigm lists and long discussions about the “right way” to counterprop don’t really have a place in Worlds. But there are people who confuse these specific practices with “good debating” on the whole, and want them present in Worlds. All judges in Worlds have one paradigm – the reasonable person. They are to evaluate arguments based on how reasonable and relevant they are to the debate. They are not to judge a team based on how well they used the normative rules of fairness to help them out. We have no need of a complex normative system of rules to debate about (you could argue we have our norms and practices, and you’d be right – but we don’t systematize them for use during debates).

Those who wish to add or include the insights of debate “theory” into worlds should question whether they desire to add it to improve Worlds or to improve their comfort with worlds. Adding the grammar of another language to make learning a new language easier will not help your fluency, just make you more comfortable and more angry when nobody understands you. Distinguishing comfort from improvement in regards to debate “theory” is a huge amount of sediment to overcome.