The New York Sophist

To understand judging you need to buy one of those cheap anthologies of literary criticism, the dominant form of judging right now is New Criticism.

I think I’ve finally found a way to teach debate that might have value that doesn’t make me nauseated before and after I’m done. 

This is about teaching thought and argumentation under the guise of some sort of debate format.

The worst enemy of American debate formats is instrumentality.

Most debate rules and procedures are designed to eliminate uncertainty, therefore eliminating the point of the event which is to negotiate uncertainty.

Increases of instrumentality increase the distaste for debate formats

The thing to keep in mind when watching debate videos is: If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill the Buddha.

I didn’t come up with all of these, and there might be a few more, but I have to get up super early to fly, so that’s all I’m going to do tonight. Maybe more later. These posts are so behind on depth, but they are good markers of where the depth must be plumbed.

Here’s my most recent version of a talk I wrote about three years ago and have altered over time. This was the talk I gave at Cornell University on September 11, 2017. I thought it would be somewhat interesting to put a few of the recordings here for comparison. 

I play pretty loose with a lot of concepts that other professionals might find to be not so great. I think the purpose of this talk is to get people interested in rhetoric as simultaneously a thing to study, a method for the study of other things that are mostly made of words, and a thing of historical interest that has shaped our view of communication and rhetoric today.

Here’s the last one, from 2015 to see how different the approach is:

And another iteration, this one from February right after – I changed it a bit between the break. 

The changes are based on feedback from the students as well as talking to the hosts to make sure I’m presenting something that makes sense for helping the students understand “the rhetorical” enough to be able to study it for a term. This is an institution that has no rhetoricians and no rhetoric program  – although I do think they have rhetoricians in composition. 

What most of my flights look like

Of all the things you could read in the world, why the London Review of Books? And why is it particularly important for those who practice debating? 

1. Global Historical Context

There is not one writer for this publication that is not an expert in the context and history of whatever book they are reviewing or essay they are writing. They are not an expert in the fantasy-themed expertise of the debater, but in a broader sense – they can tell an incredibly comprehensive, incredibly rich story based on the information that helps you wrap your head around something as complex as Korean history or Medieval practices of art or archaeology. This is a model of how to assemble information into a form that someone can easily digest in a very limited amount of time. The books are reviewed within the context of history and other opinions, so you get a very complete story of the person, time period, or the issue that the book is about.

2. High Quality Argumentation

It’s crucial to understand these are not just summaries of books but very complex arguments about the value of the book in consideration, bringing all available means of measurement to the table that will help you see if it is any good. Aside from that, the long form journalism and the essays that regularly run show you how to develop an argument, support it, and predict some responses and questions from an audience that is both intelligent, public, and inaccessible. This is the hardest form of argumentation in the world to make work and the correspondents do it beautifully issue after issue.

3. What Journalism Should Be

This publication is master storytelling by the best journalists in the world who have total control of your attention by offering the perfect blend of their positionality, the scene, the players, and the story. The recent piece on Mosul was a heartbreaking story of what has been lost there, both personally and internationally. The writer was able to accomplish this by pulling back to give us the global view as a moment within personal stories of individuals trying to stay alive in a city under siege. These stories are hard to read but captivating. I am always moved by the reporting in the LRB in ways that traditional newspapers cannot begin to touch. I think that this style should appear more frequently in debates. I’m afraid it won’t – it requires more work than the debate world is willing to give to putting arguments together. 

4. The Don’t Know Factor

I believe that if you regularly read the London Review of Books you significantly reduce the chance that you’ll be hit by the “don’t know” factor at a competition. So incredibly frequently a reviewer will drop some point of analysis, or some evidence or reference to another system of thought or thinker in their piece it becomes invaluable to read them all. I’ve received a number of good authors, books, and ideas from asides in the reviews alone. The emphasis on contextualizing the new book within the larger conversation is responsible for this I think. So many things are connected in so many ways that it’s hard to just try to brainstorm on your own about how things are put together. These writers can help with that, and if you pay careful attention you’ll find that you’ll know more things to say on a number of topics as well. And that’s what you want when you are debating. 

5. Value

The subscription is only $50 for the year, that’s all the print issues. They are great, easy to carry, light, like a newspaper. But that’s not the best part. You also get access to the archive which is searchable. So if you would like to read everything that the LRB has written about health care or Israel or Russia, you can do so. This is an amazing resource for prep and something that I think you’ll turn to year in and year out for perspective, model arguments, and supporting ideas for the big claims that you want to run, that are fun, and that get the attention of the judges. 

6. International Perspective

Not written by neoliberal professional journalists nor by Americans who want to get wealthy as showboating journalists or fake public intellectuals, the LRB occupies a rare spot in the newsstand. It’s a British point of view, I would say, but not in an exclusive way. For the debater it’s great because it shows you what the go-to examples to support an idea would be for a British audience. This can broaden your range on making up arguments and being convincing. Further, they review books about things that American and other neo-liberal news sources avoid – older stories. You get a good perspective of arguments about the modern economy from a discussion of the colonization and exploitation of India, or a few examples of military planning and national identity conflicts from a book about the Boer War. This is an amazing nexus of ideas that only serves to enrich your ability to make connections, put things in a larger historical context, and apply a number of examples when the audience needs it. 

I leave most of mine on planes so now you know where to go find free ones. Good hunting!

What most of my flights look like

Of all the things you could read in the world, why the London Review of Books? And why is it particularly important for those who practice debating? 

1. Global Historical Context

There is not one writer for this publication that is not an expert in the context and history of whatever book they are reviewing or essay they are writing. They are not an expert in the fantasy-themed expertise of the debater, but in a broader sense – they can tell an incredibly comprehensive, incredibly rich story based on the information that helps you wrap your head around something as complex as Korean history or Medieval practices of art or archaeology. This is a model of how to assemble information into a form that someone can easily digest in a very limited amount of time. The books are reviewed within the context of history and other opinions, so you get a very complete story of the person, time period, or the issue that the book is about.

2. High Quality Argumentation

It’s crucial to understand these are not just summaries of books but very complex arguments about the value of the book in consideration, bringing all available means of measurement to the table that will help you see if it is any good. Aside from that, the long form journalism and the essays that regularly run show you how to develop an argument, support it, and predict some responses and questions from an audience that is both intelligent, public, and inaccessible. This is the hardest form of argumentation in the world to make work and the correspondents do it beautifully issue after issue.

3. What Journalism Should Be

This publication is master storytelling by the best journalists in the world who have total control of your attention by offering the perfect blend of their positionality, the scene, the players, and the story. The recent piece on Mosul was a heartbreaking story of what has been lost there, both personally and internationally. The writer was able to accomplish this by pulling back to give us the global view as a moment within personal stories of individuals trying to stay alive in a city under siege. These stories are hard to read but captivating. I am always moved by the reporting in the LRB in ways that traditional newspapers cannot begin to touch. I think that this style should appear more frequently in debates. I’m afraid it won’t – it requires more work than the debate world is willing to give to putting arguments together. 

4. The Don’t Know Factor

I believe that if you regularly read the London Review of Books you significantly reduce the chance that you’ll be hit by the “don’t know” factor at a competition. So incredibly frequently a reviewer will drop some point of analysis, or some evidence or reference to another system of thought or thinker in their piece it becomes invaluable to read them all. I’ve received a number of good authors, books, and ideas from asides in the reviews alone. The emphasis on contextualizing the new book within the larger conversation is responsible for this I think. So many things are connected in so many ways that it’s hard to just try to brainstorm on your own about how things are put together. These writers can help with that, and if you pay careful attention you’ll find that you’ll know more things to say on a number of topics as well. And that’s what you want when you are debating. 

5. Value

The subscription is only $50 for the year, that’s all the print issues. They are great, easy to carry, light, like a newspaper. But that’s not the best part. You also get access to the archive which is searchable. So if you would like to read everything that the LRB has written about health care or Israel or Russia, you can do so. This is an amazing resource for prep and something that I think you’ll turn to year in and year out for perspective, model arguments, and supporting ideas for the big claims that you want to run, that are fun, and that get the attention of the judges. 

6. International Perspective

Not written by neoliberal professional journalists nor by Americans who want to get wealthy as showboating journalists or fake public intellectuals, the LRB occupies a rare spot in the newsstand. It’s a British point of view, I would say, but not in an exclusive way. For the debater it’s great because it shows you what the go-to examples to support an idea would be for a British audience. This can broaden your range on making up arguments and being convincing. Further, they review books about things that American and other neo-liberal news sources avoid – older stories. You get a good perspective of arguments about the modern economy from a discussion of the colonization and exploitation of India, or a few examples of military planning and national identity conflicts from a book about the Boer War. This is an amazing nexus of ideas that only serves to enrich your ability to make connections, put things in a larger historical context, and apply a number of examples when the audience needs it. 

I leave most of mine on planes so now you know where to go find free ones. Good hunting!

Travelling West is always a good time. Long, but good. Started the day in Laguardia Airport which is creeping its way toward civilization one blocked lane at a time. At least there was a source for drinking water in this terminal. Made it to Denver then out to Helena without any incident, except I think I ate a low quality burrito and should have just had half of it.

For the past few years I have tried to consume an inordinate amount of my subscription reading on flights as I travel here and there. It works out great. I write a ton of notes that I forget about until the next flight when I open my notebook back up. Seat sizes and space between seats has made the use of a laptop, or even an ipad with a keyboard attachment, impossible. I think there were 13 inches between me and the seat in front of me – maybe that’s too generous of an estimate. I did pretty well reading however and will take a bit of a break from that until the flight back. 

The bag can hold quite a bit. Here’s the photo to compare to the one on Monday when I return home. I have my planner, my notebook, a copy of the latest issues of Poetry, American Scholar, Hegehog Review, and of course, several issues of the London Review of Books. 

Also visible: Phone charger, Kindle HD 8, and a copy of a book I’m reading. 

I finished the book for the Book Culture reading group but was unable to attend the discussion due to illness. Makes me pretty upset, but what can I really do about it. Better to feel well here today and not have made myself more ill by trying to go to a thing the night before travelling across the country. Also, I don’t want to get others sick, or make a bad impression as a plague carrier or something to the first meeting of a cool book group that I’ve found. I hope to be able to go next month. 

It’s nice to be out here as I don’t have to panic that this entry is late, I still have an hour on Montana time. I hope it posts that way, but if not, know that I stayed up late after being sick and travelling to share a few thoughts. Tomorrow evening starts the workshop/competition and I am trying out several new teaching ideas that I hope to film. The ideas are new, the lecture/discussion format is not. Time for some video rendering to set to cook overnight and to sleep the sleep of someone who has been up since 7AM New York Time. Whew.