Denver Has Been Over But I am a Bad Blogger

Yes I kept my promise and had no more liveblogging, or any other sort of blogging at all since the first day.

Sorry about that.

As a reward, a casual, unedited and very un-serious entry to bring the Denver chapter to a close for now.

In short, I can sum it up like so: Judged all the way to finals. Loved the final. It was the same motion we’d set at the Ithaca tournament on giving terror suspects trials in civilian courts.

I encountered my old friend GDS on day 2 or 3 or perhaps both. I thought that went away after a while? Hypothesis shot down.

Got to facilitate the coaches’ dinner meeting and was really happy that I achieved my lifelong geeky dream of chairing a meeting where a motion passed by acclimation. Double cool for being a meeting of a non-organization with no standing rules or anything like that. Very fun.

And one of my teams made it to quarterfinals, which was good.

Here are my post-USU questions:

1. What is the point of a national debating circuit? Why have it?

2. What does this machine debate produce and consume? What do we give up and what do we get?

3. Is there a place where we can find persuasive arguments without language games? Asked another way, can something even attempt to be persuasion without the context of rules, procedures, and tricks?

4. How do we best maintain a “community” that is based on some stark anti-communitarian principles?

USU Denver, Day 1: Blogsperiment

This is my first attempt at liveblogging, which I take to mean a form of blogging with little editing and little attention to refinement, with the trade off bringing more attention to the moment, the impressions and the time in which the thoughts come to you. 11:15AM – Why do judge briefings fail to ever mention the idea that the most persuasive team should win? Too many concerns about the technical rules and the issues facing the judges as enforcers of rules for a closed competition instead of the judges as interested audiences that are evaluating what is persuasive, how arguments are interacting, and how proof is established (or how it hasn’t been). Questions about max of speaker points, or whether or not the closing government can have their own model seem to me to be facing the wrong direction, or encouraging the wrong sort of activity. The briefinig should be to encourage judges that they can do this, not to discipline judges into a particular “arbiter of the rules” model. I’m going to try to check myself today in my appeals to technical reasons while judging and see how I do. I hope to turn attention to quality arguments in situations not toward “so and so team broke the rules.”

1:15 – Amazing Mediterranean lunch in the sun. Delicious, even though they only let me take one falafel. Everyone is awaiting the draw. I watched a Vermont debater eat honey while being threatened to post debate videos that I have not yet posted.

4:15 – First Round was rather tepid. We all had different rankings, and I don’t feel I did the best job in adhering to my new adjudication standards. However, the judges who are not familiar with BP are really fantastic. Further evidence that the release from technical requirements is not only liberating and fun but good for making decisions based on persuasive reasoning rather than rules. Good starting motion though: This House believes that the US should make aid to Israel dependent on freezing settlements.

6PM – Second round I judged with two great judges. Great round, high quality. The motion: THB the US military should create separate divisions for openly gay members of the military. Good opening prop from two guys from Alaska I’ve never met. They ran it hardcore, total separation with gay commanders. Solid. I dug that debate the most so far.

7-ish: Wow I am total fail at this. Just had a great conversation with Rose from Pan-Pacific about her tournament in Hawaii next February. Sounds awesome. Debate on the beach. Amazing. Time for another debate.

9:30 – Rough debate. I tried my best in my tired stupor and my desire for a whiskey to muddle through some helpful pointers for the teams, all of whom seemed pretty new to the format. I think I was allright. I really hope I was, I seemed a bit confused.

10:16PM – Sitting at the bar with friends having a whiskey, updating the blog. Teams doing well. Tournament amazing. Happy to be in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. And feeling incredibly happy to be a part of this developing circuit.

So I don’t really like this. What do you think? Perhaps going back to more cogent and reviewed posts. I don’t like this.

US Nationals 2010: Preface

Having a coffee waiting to give a judge briefing for an internal University debating competition here in Manhattan. The weather is fantastic. I have Germans sitting to the left of me, and Brits on the right (is this a song reference?). And tomorrow I head off to Denver for my third trip to the US Nationals in the BP format.

Thinking to a year ago it’s impressive to me how much better the quality of each round in the US is from tournament to tournament. I remember my first US Nats in this format thinking the final round was much worse than some of the late prelims I had judged. Not an unusual feeling since most of the tournaments I’d judged were on the East Coast, and we were beginners in this format.

Now I imagine how much different this nationals might be. On the East coast the quality of debate is quite good. On the West Coast, the teams are really solid. Meeting in the middle of the country is somewhat symbolic for our heavily regional BP practices. But we are inching toward a national circuit faster than I think most of us realize. And there’s very little reflection on our practices. I think Frans Van Eemeren puts it pretty well when he writes that the problem with American argumentation scholarship for the most part is that there has been traditionally an unproblematic link between the practice of debate and theorizing good argument. The relation is one that is unquestioned – practice in debating makes someone make good arguments (don’t have the book with me right now or I would cite it, I’ll add it here when I get back to my office). How ironic to be sitting between these Europeans and thinking about going to a tournament in an international style that will host mostly American debaters and American judges. How ironic to think the country with the most varied and most access to competitive debate at many levels of schooling would have thought so little as to the connection of debate training to creating good arguers.

This brings me to my first point about this tournament. I hope this tournament doesn’t reveal an Americanization of world’s debating. I’m not sure what that looks like, but I think it would have something to do with prioritizing the distribution of information, facts, background and evidence to the judge over the art of persuading the judge that the points of advocacy being raised are correct in that round. There should not be an American style of BP, only BP.

Currently NPDA is in crisis. Their listserv lights up from time to time with reflection, disappointment and conversation that perhaps the technical or “transmission” elements of their format are trumping the intent of why NPDA was formed in the first place. CEDA/NDT continues to host semi-regular development conferences in hopes of trying to infuse their format with public and rhetorical relevance. I hope those who practice BP in the US take a lesson here and don’t want to end up in that position. We should be having these conversations now, at the beginning, but the speed sort of takes over, and the excitement of watching something grow so fast and provide so much rhetorical stimulation sort of kills the exigence for such a conversation.

We should take some moments to reflect on what we are doing, why we are doing it, and what we would like this to look like in 10 years. We have a nice litmus in the international debating community. Practices that don’t work there shouldn’t work here. And the technical transmission of correct information shouldn’t trump the art of integrating information with reasons and general appeal. Of course, every format aims for the latter, it’s just a question of not fooling yourself that your small group is some sort of general audience. This is our biggest threat.

Denver of course has personal appeal to me as well as I write about this – it’s the city where, in On the Road Sal Paradise recognizes he is alone at a party because he is becoming a part of a strange, new ‘beat generation.’ Denver was the center of the US in Kerouac’s mind, since he did see the US as a combination of both coasts, transitioning from one to the other as you move West (as he thought everyone should). He also felt due to the altitude it was a point from which to symbolically survey all of America. Denver always had mystical appeal for Kerouac and the Beats, and now it serves as a reflexive point for me at least, looking back on the last 3 years of trying to teach the BP format, or as it was referred to many times in the CEDA East region – “The Experiment.” I hope to have many good conversations, see many good debates, and of course enjoy the whole experience. I wonder what mystical experience awaits, probably nothing, but I also wonder what strange, new generation I am involved in here at this waypoint in the development of US BP debating.