The New York Sophist

Debate Stream on YouTube is streaming CEDA Nationals live. CEDA, anachronistically stands for Cross Examination Debate Association, but the debate style is that of American policy debate with all the speed, crazy citations, and wild combination of post-structuralist theory with contemporary political discourse you could want. It’s shaping up to be a good weekend.

What isn’t surprising is that it’s being streamed – American policy debate has always been much further along in the dissemination of their product via internet video (with some disastrous results) yet still the personal risk of having a viewer substitute identity for in-round advocacy seems like a non-starter for the policy debate community. And they have had the worst imaginable impacts come from internet video! 

What is surprising is that there is an on-screen, internet based flowing software that is being demonstrated on this stream. Dialectica is in an early stage in development, but it appears to be even more radical in its implications for debate than streaming video. The site allows for the user to flow a debate in a way that can be read by others and followed long after the debate is over. 

American policy debate is highly technical in the way arguments are advanced and refuted. It is also highly technical in the delivery mechanism as well. Perhaps these two practices which are at the heart of American policy debate insulate participants from the fear that any outside observer will confuse presence with belief-in-advocacy. This software allows for there to be transcription – like one would do for a musical score – of a round in order to share it with those who can “read music” but can’t attend the concert. 

I for one am excited about using this program in my courses and for debate teaching. But its presence has be thinking a few generations down the line. What could this technology be used for? Clearly, the intent is teaching – providing high-quality transcriptions in technical, strategic discourse for the teaching of how to win debates from various positions. In short, there’s nothing that different between this and chess notation – it’s good that policy debate is moving toward a standardization of this sort. But what are the larger implications in a community that cannot give up the drive to turn everything into a strategy for winning tournament debates?

The implications of this technology are far more critical to debating than the implications of internet video or audio. Could a multi-tournament record of an argument being defeated by a particular card be held up as evidence in a debate that the judge is either a part of the “debating community” or not based on whether she votes on this card? Could a team go to a tab room with 2 years worth of decisions upholding “conditionality bad” in order to get a judge struck from judging them in the future? Could a team implicate an entire school or program as being mired in racism, colonialism, essentialism, etc. by bringing up the argument strategies of those long graduated, claiming that debating in the name of that program means that you implicitly endorse the ideology of these debaters? 

What about consistency? Advocating for a particular “project” of some kind for 2 or 3 seasons, then changing tracks might be used as evidence that claims to in-round transformative advocacy are insincere. Attempts to win the ballot, stacked up over numerous 2NR and 2AR performances recorded last season seem to indicate a debater’s performance in this round is inconsistent with such claims. 

The concern here is of course that debate of any kind – American policy or BP – does not need any excuse, much less an attractive, easy to access technology, to become more inward looking. This program is amazing for what it can do for debate pedagogy and the teaching of things like “line by line argumentation” and the importance of “cross application” of evidence. But if past is prologue, the community will have to take a strong stand as to the limits of such an innovation. It doesn’t take much for debate communities to take their own practices as grist for the competitive, modernist-toned, tournament mill.

This is a recording of my lecture on teaching debate and argument. I was asked to give it at the start of the 2016 Budapest Open, and was happy to do so. Looking back on it now, I probably should have presented something a bit more animated. I was getting pretty sick at the time (wasn’t certain how sick I was getting) and decided to take it easy. This paper I hope to send out for review quite soon, as it’s the same one that won top paper at the 2015 National Communication Association conference in the Argumentation division. 

The Q&A I found really engaging. It’s good to have a group of people that interested in your ideas. I still feel that debate has a long way to go before it’s considered more than just a sideshow to the “serious work” of the university, particularly in Europe. 

I wonder what the plan would look like to make debating a serious or even appropriate subject for scholarly attention at the university level. 

Re-read this essay of mine recently after someone remarked how good it was. I wasn’t sure, but after re-reading it I think they are right – it might need a bit more attention than it gets in its original published form.

It’s funny how an old piece can come back to life for you after someone dear to you checks it out and comments on it. Maybe this one needs a bit of re-working and then it can be sent out somewhere else. I like the idea of the classroom, sans debate, as a site for disruption, rupture, and interrupture. What other things can create such an environment? 

Perhaps a genealogy of debate in the classroom is what we really need. How did debates become something that American teachers find easy to assign, and students find acceptable and normal assignments? 

Here’s the essay below. It does seem to fit in my larger thinking now about the university classroom. It’s not a passive space. Also, spoiler alert: A teaching university is a research university. But that’s for another post.

Debate as Interrupture Essay

Re-read this essay of mine recently after someone remarked how good it was. I wasn’t sure, but after re-reading it I think they are right – it might need a bit more attention than it gets in its original published form.

It’s funny how an old piece can come back to life for you after someone dear to you checks it out and comments on it. Maybe this one needs a bit of re-working and then it can be sent out somewhere else. I like the idea of the classroom, sans debate, as a site for disruption, rupture, and interrupture. What other things can create such an environment? 

Perhaps a genealogy of debate in the classroom is what we really need. How did debates become something that American teachers find easy to assign, and students find acceptable and normal assignments? 

Here’s the essay below. It does seem to fit in my larger thinking now about the university classroom. It’s not a passive space. Also, spoiler alert: A teaching university is a research university. But that’s for another post.

Debate as Interrupture Essay

“Competitors and Adjudicators are encouraged to look up information before, during, and after the debate via the free WiFi and the academic databases provided by our sponsor, ProQuest.”

“In lieu of the social we will have a round table featuring editors from the Economist, The BBC, Reuters, and The New York Times. There will be complementary wine and beer at a reception to follow.”

“The motions for rounds 4 and 5 were crafted by members of the Law Faculty, while motions 1, 2, and 3 were created by faculty from History, Philosophy, and Politics.”

“Speaker points have been eliminated from this competition; adjudication panels are to mark most preferred speaker in the round (if there is one) which will be used as a tie-break.”

“This competition will have three debates and a final round, to be judged by the public using a shift-of-opinion ballot.”

“The semifinal debate in this competition will be held immediately after a panel discussion on the motion, featuring faculty as well as private and public sector leaders on this issue. Members of the panel have graciously agreed to serve as judges for the debate.”

“Instead of fixed point totals, adjudication panels can award the total number of points however they see fit, choosing to not award any points to a team, or all of the points in the round to one team (the total being 6).” (h/t to Buzz Klinger who I believe originated this idea).

“All of the motions for this tournament will be derived from the following 3 recent books on this issue.”

“If you would like to be livestreamed, let the Org Comm know so that you may be placed in the streaming rooms.”

“Although the last two rounds are closed, chairs are required to record their oral adjudication in one of the digital video booths next to the tab room. Make sure to state the room, round, and the teams in the room before beginning your comments. Copies will be provided to each team after the completion of the tournament.”