tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:/posts The New York Sophist 2025-11-04T15:57:04Z Steve Llano tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2234772 2025-11-04T15:57:04Z 2025-11-04T15:57:04Z New Sites

I know many of you moved over here with me from Substack, but I have been thinking of returning there. I think Substack and Patreon are both pretty great places to host a blog because of the monetization aspects to them.

Feel free to subscribe to either one!

https://sophisticsteve.substack.com/

https://www.patreon.com/c/sophisticsteve

Both will email you whenever I post something. I think I'll keep the ratio at 2:1 in terms of free: paid posts. I think it's past time for me to be a bit more serious about trying to get some sort of income from writing. The National Communication Association does from our output, and so does Taylor & Francis. Both organizations assume our universities compensate us for our writing which they do not. Maybe the previous generation enjoyed that but we don't. 

Anyway feel free to hang around here as well - I might post once in a while to this blog, but mostly I like posthaven because of its permanence. I think what I will do is use this as a personal blog - stevellano.com. You can sign up to get emails there too if you want some stuff that's not exactly professional grade rhetoric writing. 


]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2233278 2025-10-28T15:17:25Z 2025-10-28T15:17:25Z Getting More than Used to the Mac

I have a Mac laptop for work. The reason why is that I don't have a computer that runs Mac OS anything at home - I have everything else which is quite a short list. Linux, Windows 11, yea that's about it - but I do have an iPad that runs the phone operating system of Apple, and I also have an iPhone, something I bought to use facetime more frequently but nobody uses facetime anymore, that anymore moment being when I finally set up my iPhone.

The iPhone is a horrible device with a terrible interface and a crap camera. It doesn't even look good. I chose the nice shade of yellow that they showed me at CostCo but sadly it is not a very nice looking yellow color. The display image looked better, this just looks like white that has been in the sun too long. 

Enough about the phone which I will never get used to. I will get used to this iMac Air which is very nice, light, but most importantly, it has a keyboard that is made for fast typing. This is the best keyboard I've used on a laptop in a long time - my most favorite keyboard of all time was my Chromebook from 2016 - the most expensive chromebook on the market - that keyboard is to die for. Thinking about it right now while typing this out on my MacBook (or is it iMac?) Air makes me miss it tremendously and consider paying a small sum to Google to return to the Google Drive life. Unfortunately Microsoft Word has my dedication, at least for the moment. 

AI doesn't interest me in computers nor does battery life. What I want is a great keyboard, a great screen, and the ability to pop in a cellular modem card. Most laptops have given that up with the prevalence of wifi. But there's nothing like just opening up a computer and just working without worrying about a password, a connection, a timer, or whether or not you can just buy a small espresso and work for 3 hours based on that receipt code. I guess I can use my phone, but then I have two devices that are losing battery power rapidly not just one. 

I'm making a lot of notes on Cicero's On Oratory and last night I was examining and thinking about Crassus's point where he says intensive writing makes the best speakers. I would say writing where the act of writing disappears makes for amazing grist for thought. Perhaps that's what I'm experiencing as I get more and more into this keyboard. 

]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2230382 2025-10-14T10:55:36Z 2025-10-14T10:55:37Z The Nobel Prize in Communication

Why no Nobel prize in Communication?

There are Nobel Prizes in:

Physics

Chemistry

Medicine/Biology/Physiology

Literature

Peace

Economic Science

The exception here is economics, which technically is not a Nobel Prize, but one that came later as a sort of sponsorship. It was started in 1969 and is supported by the Swedish National Bank.

What is it sponsoring? Market-driven economics of course!

But that’s not the argument I want to make. I want to argue that if economics can come along much later and be that important, surely communication is of that level of importance.

The Peace Prize is a strange metric. It’s often awarded to people who talk about peace but don’t really accomplish a lot. Perhaps that should be the communication prize. But instead of talking about peace from a position of power (or being a victim of someone who has a lot of power) perhaps it could be awarded to someone who offers a variant on a theory or practice on how to communicate with one another about intense or controversial things.

There are so many international communication and dialogue organizations not to mention debate organizations that focus a ton on practice. This could be motive to focus on theory and develop some new approaches.

Scholars do this all the time in communication in university departments but there’s no incentive to do it. The best you can hope is a prize at the mile long, 3 inch deep National Communication Association conference. But this does not fund research, nowhere even close. There’s no contest or real help for grants. The trouble with applying for big humanities grants is the barrier most grant readers accept: Communication seems a given. The challenge is very hard for communication scholars to get the sort of funding that one gets in other fields.

Maybe the Nobel Prize in Literature is closer than Peace for a model? The qualifications seem a bit better than the seeming randomness of the Peace Prize:

It’s all about quality. Literary quality, of course. The winner needs to be someone who writes excellent literature, someone who you feel when you read that there’s some kind of a power, a development that lasts through books, all of their books. But the world is full of very good, excellent writers, and you need something more to be a laureate. 

This is a quote from Ellen Mattson who helps choose the winner. Seems like Communication could adapt from this. Someone who has worked on the challenges of Communication consistently for a long time with an extra spark of energy or effort, something that sets them above and beyond the typical researcher. Seems like a good way to decide.

The Nobel Prize in Communication won’t solve all the issues with the communication field with it’s perception or attitude. But it would change the field of communication work, elevating the perception globally to a different level of importance. That would change the way research is done, read, and ironically communicated to others. Maybe this would move the journalists away from interviewing psychologists and political scientists on communication issues every time one makes the news cycle.

]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2227975 2025-10-03T12:52:50Z 2025-10-03T12:52:50Z Fleedom
It is almost an empty trope at this moment, like an ignored email signature. Your liberal friend, typically pining for Obama, posts that they are going to move to Canada or some other country, indicating that the end is upon us. 

I’ve been ignoring these for the most part thinking they are simply overblown responses to a President and administration that is so outside of expected politics that there’s really no response that can meet the perceived excess of Trump. 

But now there’s a new uprising of them again about the government shutdown, which is not as big a concern to those on the left as something like border patrol and immigration enforcement excess. 

When liberals say “I’m moving to Canada” they are unwittingly (or maybe wittingly) making an argument that individualism is most important. You could make a case that queer people and trans people should be considering amnesty from a foreign government - perhaps even people who are diagnosed with autism if history is any guide for the next moves of the right-wing. But people who are just missing the days of Obama’s violent neoliberal expansion of American market capitalism aren’t presenting a good look here. 

Most of my liberal friends expressing this are part of a new political philosophy I call “Fleedom.” This is the idea that if the government isn’t doing what they feel it should be doing, the proper response is to leave. 

This is a strange politics for sure and has a lot in common with quitting a game you feel is unfair instead of trying to change the rules, or argue for a different perspective on them. Fleedom is an index as to how bad we are at persuasion, argument, and debate. We have no rhetorical resources. We can’t imagine changing anything or (dangerously) anyone’s mind. 

Fleedom is also the dismissal of all those people who didn’t support the right-wing platform, voted accordingly, and are now stuck in a state where their liberties and support from the government are vanishing. What can you do for your fellow citizens if you abandon your citizenship, your country? 

Fleedom is simply panic. Nobody wants to study or practice speaking in ways that will reach people who, a priori for most liberals, are too stupid or too evil to reach. This assumption means rhetoric has no power for them. They just want to yell, hate, and insult. This is not going to reach anyone. Neither is a strategy of tragic laughter - “you got what you voted for!” - this places your audience in the position of the rube, which doesn’t really make them want to listen to what you believe the solution should be. Oh, that’s right - the solution is to beg the Canadian government for amnesty. 

This philosophy is also part of what I’ve called the “blue Trump” attitude, most clearly embodied in Andrew Cuomo and his supporters. These liberals see nothing wrong with Trump’s style of politics, they just wish he was a Democrat. This isn’t a rights regime or freedom regime at all, but one where people are compelled, without reasons, to support terrible systems just like the right-wing would have us do. 

Instead of Fleedom, study how people are persuaded. What sorts of rhetoric work for them? What are the conditions under which they believe they have found truth? What is a fact for them? This might seem gross to most liberals but unfortunately this is how democracy is meant to work. But these days I wonder how many liberals or conservatives actually want to live in democracy. Both seem to want a regime of conformity to a particular way of speaking, feeling, and being. No thanks. I would rather speak and argue with both.
]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2227562 2025-10-02T11:00:05Z 2025-10-02T16:10:49Z Everything that Matters is on the Shoulders of the Jimmys

https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/jimmy-fallon-avoid-politics-tonight-show-1236535575/


Why are we spending so much of our collective time worried about late-night talk show hosts? 

They are not smart, and not critical. They are a part of a bedtime routine for many, but are not meant to - nor should they be considered - some kind of political criticism or even a stand-in for political speech that matters. 

There is an illusion that the white men of privilege who serve as ad brokers and PR for the companies that own their networks (look at why certain guests are on and where they work) are somehow essential to democracy and freedom of expression. These people are essential to a consumer capitalist model of entertainment: Watch this free entertainment, watch some commercials (which generate a lot of revenue), and get excited about being able to give us more money watching this or that actor in a upcoming film that we also produce, read a book they published (also one of our companies), a TV show they are in (also ours), or what have you.

The hosts are marketing agents. Their goal is to give us the illusion of private access to an entertainer in a conversation. Much like the way Plato writes, we feel we are witnessing a real conversation, that we are eavesdropping and participating in a very special rare candid chat. We don't get to see the riders, the pre-interviews, or the instructions from corporate about the questions that have to come up and when the clip should be shown. This isn't free expression; this is an orchestrated commercial for the consumer products of film, books, and television shows. 

It's embarrassing that people are upset with Fallon that he's decided to avoid politics. It's embarrassing that we think Jimmy Kimmel is the champion of free speech. It's embarrassing that we think Colbert was cancelled because he was too "real" about his politics. These people simply work in PR for massive media companies. They are pawns of a capitalist system designed to generate profit from every little thing they do, including their profit! They are not political heroes nor should they be. Perhaps we can generate some solidarity with them as workers who are being exploited by the corporations they have signed their life over to, but it's hard to generate sympathy with wealthy white men for the average worker. Any sympathy is probably just mislabeled desire, or identification: When we watch these shows we rhetorically identify with the host, not the staff, crew, or even the audience. We are on the couch facing the audience; we are part of the show. This identification deliberately avoids any of the understanding of how much distinction is there between us and the hosts.

For me it's evidence that capitalism has taken all time for reflection, reading, and writing out our own thoughts - the creative sort of work that is necessary in democracy to get our thinking straight before we go create a claim for someone else to consider. Instead of that, we now have the surrogates of fools like Colbert, Kimmel, and Fallon. They are hosting hour long infomercials about entertainment. They are not worth any consideration or being in any discussion about the political. We are the discussion about the political. We should resist systems that take time away from creative, thoughtful exploits. Laughing at a conversation between millionaire entertainers is fun, but it drains energy that could be put to more valuable ends (yes you can say repressive desublimation, I know you want to you Marcuse fans).

The court jester has a long tradition in politics of being the one person in the court who can criticize the king without worry of retribution because the criticism is rhetorically deflected through an over the top comedic approach. That is not what Jimmy Kimmel does. What he does is indicate quite directly who is wrong and worth being laughed at. This is not the tradition of the jester. This is the modern sensibility that people who are wrong deserve shame and hostile laughter. This is the work of someone in line with power, unlike the jester, who is in line with the people. This is not the voice of a helpful politics in any system, let alone a democracy. These people are best removed from television, second best is to totally disregard their existence. 

]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2227560 2025-10-01T11:14:40Z 2025-10-01T11:14:41Z Perspective and Image

Secretary Hegseth's address to the military leadership yesterday shows what can go wrong if you do not consider the rhetorical situation. 

Hegseth, like many in the Trump administration, do not value words. They value power and authority, theorizing these things as more important than words or perhaps have no relationship to words other than to demonstrate power and authority. Words are the measure of deference to authority - when the king speaks, everyone must listen attentively even if it is total nonsense.

An alternative theory of words, one that works in a democracy is the idea that words are the best expression of what the speaker feels is best. They can be used to direct, unite, excite, comfort, and motivate the audience not only to do certain things but to be certain things. 

And it's very odd: Trump's January 6th speech really seemed to reveal an understanding of this. Trump's amazing speech had a crowd of regular people take on the role of members of a coup attacking police and destroying buildings, walking into secure areas of the U.S. Capitol ready to attack members of the government. But in that speech he never suggests this is what should happen. He only continuously "describes" the audience. 

Compare that to Hegseth, who really failed to develop any energy and identity with or for the leadership of the American armed forces. Hegseth comes off as someone who absolutely loves the military as a performance of a kind of masculinity he really admires. Speaking in front of people who have made a career out of the study of how to attack,defend, and neutralize enemy armies - many of which are very well disciplined and trained - one should be referencing a lot of the intellect in the room and arguing that what they are doing is clearly working, and that he stands with them as they face a very murky world ahead.

But Hegseth decided to discuss aesthetic appearance and gendered norms. Troops should not be fat. Troops should shave. Everyone should pass the most rigorous physical fitness tests. These are all very strange, unless you realize that Hegseth thinks he has a better understanding of what the U.S. military is than the generals, admirals, and other leaders in the audience. That understanding is simply this: Being a U.S. soldier is a performance of a very particular, valorized kind of masculinity. 

The other comments during the presentation that have worried people such as U.S. troops should train and practice in U.S. cities against American citizens are strange to us. To U.S. Military leaders, this sounds out of bounds or a court-martial experience to them. It's simply not part of being in the Military to them. It reveals what we already know: Trump and his supporters have a perception of what an American citizen looks like. Anyone who doesn't fit that image is fair game. Look at how ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection operate today. They take a look at those videos online to see what the Trump administration and their supporters believe non-valuable bodies and people look like. They deserve force, injury, and degradation. The military, for Trump supporters, is the performative image of what America is - scary, muscle-bound authority that cannot be stopped, like an action movie. 

The military, the way the military perceives it, is providing a necessary service of protecting a way of life, one that soldiers also enjoy. This is a life of freedoms, choices, associations, and security. They do not want to live in a world of authoritarian control. The military has a rigorous structure not because it's awesome, it's because this rigor is necessary to keep a clear head and clear perspective about where the threats lie. 

How should we perceive it? Hegseth and Trump have revealed that they hold the perspective of teenage boys, idolizing a fantasy film narrative of the military being an ideal sort of masculinity, ready to kick ass and destroy lives because they have been ordered to do it. Nobody in the military is there because they want to do this, and they certainly realize they might have to make tough choices. But Hegseth's rhetoric was nowhere close to this. I feel in closed rooms of high ranking military members there is a conversation about how to placate him without ruining the system we've developed to protect a very threatened democracy.

]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2227342 2025-09-30T11:13:24Z 2025-09-30T11:13:25Z Poverty Rhetoric
Not only do we have to support idiots like Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert and others who revel and profit in a poverty rhetoric, now here is more bad news for rhetoricians. 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8SEGRH1/

Not only has MTV cancelled Catfish, now apparently Nev has become a real estate agent?

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8SEcq66/

I mean good for you Nev if that’s your dream but here is someone who created and hosted a show that demonstrated the power of communication, conversation, and rhetoric. All sides were revealed: the deceptive nature of rhetoric and its healing and transformative properties. Catfish is the rhetoric our politics needs. 

Contrast this with Kimmel and Colbert whose rhetoric depends on the assumption that people ARE their beliefs. There’s no hope to change minds or ideas. People who think or believe opposite of Kimmel or Colbert are simply losers. They are the butt of all jokes. And let’s ensure that we believe they can’t change! This helps generate millions for these bozos. 

Yes write your comment about the importance of comedians. Catfish always brought the humor. But it was a collective laugh at the error of our ways as desiring, hopeful beings. Colbert and Kimmel focus their humor on shame and eradication. For them, the humor is based on the idea that the world would be better without their political enemies. Catfish encourages us to see even the most depraved people as mistaken. 

Kenneth Burke would like Catfish. It’s the comic frame. Kimmel and Colbert are the tragic frame. Who is leading us into civil conflict? Increased violence? Those who practice comedy through the desire to render those who are mistaken into fools that should be rendered into laughter. 
]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2226177 2025-09-25T19:30:00Z 2025-09-25T19:30:04Z Washington, Audience, Uber

Not exactly the audience for this Uber ad, but it really brings a sinister vibe to the party doesn't it?

This ad continued to appear every time I got an Uber last weekend in D.C. Finally, in the hotel pool, an ex Army special forces guy revealed that he's in town for a drone warfare convention at National Harbor. 

So here's Uber making a lot of good assumptions about audience. 

First, if you are using an Uber you're in town temporarily or visiting. 

Secondly, there's a huge weapons convention going on that is military grade.

Third, it's in National Harbor, so if you are going there or coming from there you are probably here for that.

This goes to show how targeting of persuasion works as I find the advert to be pretty scary. Most people might find it so, I would think. But the people for the convention might go by their booth to get more details and see if it's something they need to acquire for whoever they work for.

It is a little relieving that they don't know THAT much about us, isn't it?

]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2226175 2025-09-25T00:07:12Z 2025-09-25T00:07:13Z Thomas Jefferson, Rhetorician

Here's Thomas Jefferson's full personal library, as we understood it to exist with a number of placeholders for volumes that are missing or have been recorded as destroyed. 

This was an incredible place to spend some time - I think I was here for about 30 minutes and surveyed his rhetoric and oratory books. Here are some observations:

Roman books were in Latin - he had the expected Cicero works, but also an edited version of Quintilian in Latin. 

He had Greek rhetoric books in French, including the complete works of Isocrates in multiple volumes. That got my interest.

He had a number of oration and oratory/public speaking books of the time, many from the 16th century that were the standard English oration books. 

He had no English translations of any of the ancient sources. 

What should we make of all this? 


]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2225047 2025-09-20T11:37:40Z 2025-09-20T11:37:41Z Kimmel et al
The politics of boycotting a company that makes slop (Disney) a TV network that offers slop (ABC) a studio that has ruined film (Marvel) and goofy sports journalism (ESPN) to defend a tepid host of a bad advertisement for all of the above feels too easy.

Kimmel isn’t clever or funny. His whole career is based on low hanging fruit. The joke that got him in trouble was just playing a press pool clip of Trump talking. He didn’t even have to write anything for it. 

Kimmel’s job is being a hype man for the Disney megacorp. All the interviews are from the stars of film and tv that the company makes. It’s not some creative singular show that offered something to us to consider or moved our ways of thinking around. 

The danger here is that people are so willing to rally around a corporate clown. This speaks to how little serious threats authoritarian or fascist leaders have in the U.S. The real depressing thing is how few political artists, poets, and humorists there are that have access to a national audience in a way that matters. The man who made millions drinking bad beer and showing us slow motion girls on trampolines is not worth anyone’s political thought. But it’s the only sticking point we have. Maybe the authoritarians won long ago and this is just their passion play.
—]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2223036 2025-09-10T14:15:18Z 2025-09-10T14:15:18Z Rhetoric Lecture Yet Again

I have quite the collection of these "introduction to rhetoric" lectures going all the way back I think to 2014. I might make them a playlist one day. I was thinking about not posting this one, but after a conversation with a couple of friends I think it's good to have a record of all the changes over the years. 

I always try to find a contemporary example, something worth the power of rhetorical analysis, and this time I chose the Sydney Sweeney jeans ad. It didn't really impact the students as much as I had hoped, and the powerpoint slides failed me. I'm usually pretty good with video links so I'm not sure what happened. 

I think looking at these over time now gives a pretty good long term view of where my attention goes in the history of rhetoric and how much time I spend on different ideas. It doesn't give the why though, and I'm not sure about it most of the time. This one is inspired mostly by contemporary U.S. politics as I think we are mapping onto the Roman transition to empire pretty neatly. So more attention to Roman rhetoric seems like a reasonable idea.


]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2217472 2025-08-13T12:40:37Z 2025-08-13T12:40:37Z A Summer of Travels

Video production is back after a long vacation! I've decided to just post all my lecture videos in YouTube as well as behind the tuition-paying firewall where they usually live.

Those will be made this week and next, and I'll update here when the lecture series is complete. If you want to see them as they appear, feel free to subscribe to my YouTube.

I've also made another YouTube channel that is less about theory and more about practice. It is a channel dedicated to the ancient rhetorical practice of making "goblin style" vlogs. 

I use this channel for more of my personal video content and the main channel for things about debate and rhetoric. 

Here are some of the latest videos from both channels!





The channels are very different so make sure to subscribe to both if you want instant updates.

Summer draws to a close and I'm actually getting excited about teaching again. I can't believe it. It's year 18 of working at St. John's and I feel excited. I guess I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing in life? 


]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2213114 2025-07-25T17:06:00Z 2025-07-25T17:06:10Z Inspiration and Rhetoric

I used to have a very good habit of writing about 1000 words a morning to get the blood flowing. As summer came on full swing, I've sort of dropped the habit. 

But when it comes to being a writer and writing, there's really nothing more important than spending every day writing a bunch of crap that nobody is going to really care about or read. I kept a lot of it in a Word Document, but the motivation to do it has really fallen off. I think part of it is that writing for me requires an audience, or at least a conception of an audience. 

The Universal Audience is crucial to my inspiration for the production of rhetoric. I have to imagine who I am talking to, and I have to imagine it using restrictions. I think limits, restrictions, and rules are vital to producing good rhetoric. Even if you are ready to post a nasty comment about how unimportant grammar is, I'd respond by saying even if you are against conventional grammar you are using grammar, per se, to structure your thoughts. It's in opposition or negation to what is appropriate grammar. Marcuse writes about this but what's on my mind is Burke's idea of "gashouse piety," the idea that anti-pious performance has it's own liturgical structure, and that structure is based on liturgy. 

The Universal Audience, I wrote earlier today, is either the most misunderstood concept in argumentation and rhetoric or the front-runner for that award. It's poorly named, named by a legal scholar/philosopher who was taught in the early 20th century both things. This might not connect with any American reading it in translation in the mid-20th century or the early 21st. The Universal Audience simply means that when you imagine the audience you are writing for or to, you should be careful you aren't imagining an audience that is receptive - that is, they think like you do - at the expense of ethics, meaning that you give them some sort of definition, agency, and capability that is grounded in the rhetorical practices and argumentative norms of the time. 

Said a different way, the Universal audience means that you automatically conceive of an audience of all people who will read what you write or listen to your podcast and get what you mean. This is the part that is done without a lot of thought. Now, the next step that is required according to Universal Audience theory is: Did you imagine them fairly? Respectfully? Did you leave out anyone because you don't like them? 

Leaving out some people from the universal audience because they are incapable of participating in your argument is ok. What's not ok is leaving out those who are able to participate but you dismiss them because you believe them to be stupid or unworthy of the message. This is creating a vanguard audience, and it's something that discounts the value of your rhetoric if you do it. The reason why is that many who deserve access by right won't get it, and your goal of reaching the audience to alter an attitude or feeling will be lost. 

I've been thinking about the universal audience while watching the Tour de France in the mornings here in New York. It's a good way to start the day - the time difference is decidedly in my favor for a bike race that starts around 1PM in France. I've been thinking about the different audiences watching the race: Other cyclists, sponsors, bike companies, health companies, people with national pride, and of course the participants themselves watching themselves and others in the coverage in the evenings. 

I've been thinking about the creation of the argument of wanting to do this - what are the reasons someone would want to participate in this race? What justifications would they offer? What would be the explanation to a fan versus a family member or friend? 

What is certain is that they don't just get up and go. They cycle daily and they cycle in places where they are not going to be purposely observed. They cycle for themselves to get the arguments right, to get it all right for the public cycling. 

This idea has made me return to the less populated streets and hills of the daily writing practice. In the Tour, cyclists and commentators always talk about "legs." The usage has this form: "He will try to win the points today if he has the legs for it." This is obviously a biological and material claim but I think it's really more metaphorical. "Legs" stands in for the ability to push one's body past the limits it feels comfortable. What could be the metaphor for this in rhetorical daily cycling? 

Suggestions welcome, but I like the materiality and archaic nature of having the "ink" or the "voice" for it. I think voice is not a preferred term here because it has a deep practical and theoretical well of conversation in composition studies. But perhaps having the ink is a good one. I was recently at a bar writing notes in Manhattan and my pen was clearly dying. I had only brought one. What do do? The solution was to be economical. I had to force "results" with little in the tank, quite literally, and get the ideas to a complete form - a finish line - without a lot left in my tank. I think this works well. 

]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2211952 2025-07-20T14:48:28Z 2025-07-20T14:48:28Z In the Bin Podcast - Video Updates

I finally bit the bullet and replaced the audio-only episodes of In the Bin with the video versions. I made them all and uploaded them to Spotify, however when YouTube scrapes the Spotify feed it doesn't capture the video. I suppose that's because it would melt all the servers of YouTube if it pulled videos from everywhere when people link their podcasts. 

I'll do a few more of them but for now here are the most recent updates for your viewing pleasure:

Leave comments here or over on YouTube and let me know what you think. 

This week I'm preparing to leave for a long trip to Florida, so it's time to start making a lot of videos for the fall. I'd like to be mostly done with the textbook lectures by the time we leave in a week. It's an ambitious goal given all my other work that is going on but I have high hopes.

]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2209858 2025-07-10T23:01:25Z 2025-07-10T23:01:26Z Maybe A New Vlog Series

Got a new vlogging camera and really think it's amazing. I think I might do a new vlog series with it. Here's the first go:

]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2206366 2025-06-26T09:00:00Z 2025-06-26T09:00:05Z NYC Mayor's Race

I had it all wrong. I had it exactly reversed: I saw Andrew Cuomo getting about 46 or 47 percent of the vote in round one and Mamdani getting about 34 or 35 percent.

Perhaps the Democrats will learn something from this and see there is an appetite for so-called "extremist" candidates. The tide is rising and a rising tide lifts all boats. It makes little sense for the Democrats to keep saying things that are the equivalent of "that's not how salt water works!" or "people will not accept the water." 

I doubt they will learn much other than figure out ways to court wealthy donors around all this. "A leftist, socialist won the party's nomination because you only donated 25 million dollars. Do better!"

Both parties are corporate but at least in the Democrats you might still have a semi-peaceful life under such a regime, at least until capitalism fails, then it will be small-arms warfare for resources - very much like that old sci-fi TV show Falling Skies. 

Socialism isn't such a dirty word anymore. But I wonder how much of this interpretation is just my bias? It could just be that people like Mamdani because he isn't a sexual harasser. Or perhaps because his style is not traditional politician nor is it Blue Trump style, like Cuomo. In the debates, Cuomo showed he had a recognition of the distaste for "Blue Trump" rhetoric, that was very clear. However he has been riding that for so long, old habits can die hard. Old identifications die even harder!

I do love this framing from The Daily Mail about the Mamdani victory. Apparently these identifications still cause the heart to quicken and panic to set in for many!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14840063/zohran-mamdani-new-york-mayor-democrat-primary.html


]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2206362 2025-06-25T14:11:03Z 2025-06-25T14:11:03Z In the Bin this Week on the National Speech and Debate Association

Hey everyone,

I'm going to update everyone who reads this blog on new podcast episodes when they come out. Feel free to subscribe directly to my podcast on Spotify, YouTube, Amazon Music, IHeart Radio, or any other service you like.

This episode focuses on the National Speech and Debate Association as a form of discourse, not just an organization that controls and operates a discursive event. 

If you like the podcast, consider supporting it!

Some of you might remember the National Forensics League if you are old like me. The NSDA is the NFL rebranded, for rather obvious reasons. Not a great acronym!


]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2205562 2025-06-22T15:17:21Z 2025-06-22T15:17:30Z Distraction Free Writing

On social media, they relentlessly try to sell me a “distraction-free” writing machine. I of course see these ads on the writing machine I already own. In fact, I own several writing machines of various kinds. One is provided for free by my university; the rest of them I bought. Some of them I haven’t turned on in so long because they need a subscription (My little Chromebook, the light of my life, now forgotten on top of the wood-paneled speaker). I see these ads for these small devices that do little more than what I am doing now – typing characters onto a screen – but they make the promise that they are distraction free. So is this one. I just make it full screen, zoom in with a comfortable fit, and go for it.

Why would I, or anyone who owns a laptop, pay so much money for a less functional typing machine than the one that both you and I are using now, albeit with a lot of time and space in between us? I think that when these people who offer these various machines say “distraction free” they are right out of the princess bride, placing me with Montoya, convinced that word doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Writing is the practice of distraction; it’s distracting from distraction. Distraction moves into the field of view and you move, or you move it, or you move the mind somewhere else. An ancient Zen Koan has three monks looking at a flag flapping in a strong wind. One says, “the flag is moving.” The next says, “No, wind is moving.” The third says, “No, mind is moving.” This to me is the art of writing, or putting ideas down to paper. Or in this case taking one form of chemical electrical impulse and converting it into another.

What does distraction free mean to these folks? I think it means “no excuse” writing. That is, you have to get it down right. In distraction writing (terrible name but this is a blog, a working title, an idea that will take shape as we move down the page together) you just get it down. That’s enough of a struggle. Writing anything down at all with the purpose of one day sharing it with humans for the purpose of changing how they feel or think about something is intimidating, only because we don’t have a better word for it.

Distraction free is imperfection free. People think that if they take breaks when writing, look at the internet or play with various settings on their writing machine they are “not-writing” or at the very least, doing a very poor job of writing. Distraction free means no excuses. There will be no imperfections, no bad writing, because there will only be writing. There won’t be the capacity for anything else.

But writing isn’t writing. It’s a state of engagement with the page that involves so much more than just the keys, the screen, the pen, the page, etc. It involves so many things that if you were to start from scratch and discuss what would be needed to produce good writing, you’d wind up confusing your audience who just wants to learn how to write well. A great example of this is Dr. Jordan Peterson’s syllabus from his time at University of Toronto as an active professor, where he begins the writing assignment with advice on what kind of desk and chair to acquire, as well as what lighting helps with good writing.

Many people feel that whatever they write down is “writing.” Once it is on the page, it’s there, it’s written. More than that, most people seem to think that their writing is “them” in some way, like an image worse than a mirror. Like seeing a photo of yourself you express disbelief and horror right along side acceptance – “Is that what I look like?” The gap between the ego-ideal and the symbolic order is one that infects writing too – “It was so much better in my head.” That’s because it wasn’t. It didn’t exist.

Distraction free is imperfection free which is completion free which forecloses any interpretation of any writing, simply because it’s not going to be there. It can’t be perfect because it isn’t. Getting things down is a cooperative effort that doesn’t feel too cooperative. It involves walking into the kitchen, looking around the room, out the window, checking a cite or three, tabbing over to see if Karen Read is going to prison, changing the volume on Spotify, and a vast number of other factors including what your intestine is doing and that itch that keeps returning in your ear. An extra device will not eliminate any of these things, by the way, but it will add the extra step of finding a spot for your laptop or phone to sit there and refresh the game while you type away on the device that is supposed to make this process clean.

Distraction free might mean clean. It might mean surface clean, or no trace of particulate, dust or stain at all. Too clean to be any good. There have to be inperfections in everything we do not just because we are human, but because it keeps us going. There has to be some grist for the mill. There cannot be a need for oil without an irritation. There’s no need to turn the gear again if it goes around so smoothly that you don’t realize it turned. Cleanliness is next to godliness, it’s true, if godliness is beyond being alive. If godliness is nothing like life, then cleanliness fits there. It has little to nothing to do with everyday existence except as an unattainable goal.

Clean writing -distraction free – is the bizarre fantasy of the genious sitting at the clean desk with pad and pen, staring up into the mesosphere and then writing down, without edits, whatever message they have for their fellow humans. This model of writing was unintentionally parodied by President Trump during is first  term as he gave us insight into his writing process for his first inaugural address.

Although this picture generated a lot of laughs and memes on the internet, it’s scarily close to the model of composition and writing many of us have. Alone, empty desk, no distractions (eagle statue a necessary exception) with a pen and a pad getting it all out, direct, no drafts, no helpers, all of it coming right out from the mind to the page, then out through the mouth via the eye into our ears, understanding, perfection.

Contrast this image with the cottage industry of calendars and coffee-table books that feature the desks of famous writers. These images serve as evidence that we are “not writers” at all because we cannot imagine having a desk like that. But show someone a photo of someone’s home halfway through construction and they won’t flinch. Such disarray – wires everywhere, the beams and studs of the house totally visible, some drywall in place, and of course the enignmatic plastic buckets white yet stained with white paint and spackle cluster up together with the rags and trays here and there across the spotted flooring. Can’t wait to move in! We say – because we realize it isn’t finished.

But writing is finished just this fast. As soon as I typed that full stop period there, that sentence was done. Now I’ve just finished another. And again. The medium is insufficient to give an accurate count as to where I am in the process – every time I announce I have finished a line, it is already that I’ve finished two. It’s out there and all done and it better be right or someone might get the wrong idea about not only what I wrote, but about me. Writing is considered permanent, an out there expression of self that cannot be removed or even reconsidered.

We suffer again from the legacy of Socrates. In Phaedrus, Socrates warns his young interlocutor about the danger of writing pointing out that it goes out into the world, interacting with people we’ve never met, don’t know, and can’t explain its existence to them. To make the argument scarier, Socrates compares what we write to our children, and what would happen if we were to turn them loose in the marketplace alone – they would encounter strangers and not be able to communicate who they really are to them.

Writing is powerful – Socrates is right – but it is only a dangerous power when not tempered by the principles of sophistry. Socrates rejected sophistry in every formulation except his own – also communicated in Phaedrus. The principles of sophistry are more vital, more useful in addressing this issue of “distraction-free” writing than Socrates’s own version of good rhetoric. What sophistic principles do is make distraction a part of the strategy. Audience comes with distraction. We could say that being distracted from one’s own convictions in rhetoric is a version of audience adaptation. Staying too close to one’s beliefs, the self, your close feeling of identification with what you write is sticking too close to the self. It could be that you are missing ways to communicate, connect, and in the end convince the audience that you are right. Even better, you can use distraction – all the things circulating around in your head and theirs as reasons that this idea isn’t even really a change at all. They may have had it in the back of their minds the whole time, you just brought it center stage for them. Such would be the mastery of distraction where you argue that the audience is distracted like you are, but you have had an insight through it all – connecting the dots in a different way while they are all checking the news, social media, or worrying about when the next episode of that series is going to drop.

This is really just the first phase of addressing the big threat to writing and identity which we all know as Artificial Intelligence. That topic will be dealt with in some future post(s). For now, go write something and be distracted. Writing is imperfection through and through. Look at this document! The pristine white square is marred. It has squiggles all over it. My fingerprints are everywhere. You are reading it tabbing back and forth between things, just as I have written it. And we still managed to make something meaningful together.


]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2203017 2025-06-11T15:12:34Z 2025-06-15T05:32:32Z The Sophist vs. Costco

In January I wrote a letter to my local Costo making the case that they should change their ways. It was a very important and vital issue. 

I never received any response. 

Today I decided to escalate and send my original letter, with a couple of edits, to the CEO of the company. I hope my sophistic practices are still sharp as ever. Here's the letter I sent. Comments welcome!

]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2202149 2025-06-06T13:16:46Z 2025-06-06T13:16:46Z Research Trouble

Got this from the Library of Congress this morning

https://blogs.loc.gov/manuscripts/2025/06/new-walt-whitman-manuscripts-ready-for-crowdsourced-transcription/?loclr=eamss

Seems that crowdsourcing is one way that the Library can continue to do expensive, time-consuming, and precise sorts of research like this. I think it's a good idea, given where research funding is at the moment (and presumably for the future).

I don't think any future administration, even if they are Democrats, will return the research funding to Universities that it once had. I think they will be very happy not to take the political cost for cutting something they don't care about either. So long term, we all need to be thinking about alternative ways of performing research. This is a great one but only works because it's a popular, famous author and a very interesting sort of project. 

As for me, I think publishing work on the blog and YouTube is the way to go. My university cut all research support with the exception of thoughts and prayers, and would have done so under a Harris administration as well. There's no material support for the job of professor anymore. They just want you to teach, and by that they mean make the students feel that they are getting something worth the tuition. 

A rhetoricians challenge indeed. I should be more into it, but I miss the energetic combination of research and teaching together. And I am not in a financial position anymore to fund my own archive excursions. I also feel my field, run by the inept NCA, prefers a private, walls-up approach to scholarship and publication. 

A lot of challenges exist for sure, but there are still some good ideas, or at least the inspiration for some good ideas out there if you are looking around.

]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2201975 2025-06-05T11:15:50Z 2025-06-05T11:15:50Z The Failure of WUDC

Am I getting too cynical? Hardly. Although I am highly critical of both the National Communication Association and the national debate organizations such as NDT and CEDA, I haven't said that much about the World Universities Debate Championships.

In this podcast I try to lay out the roots of my criticism, so it's not just particular to WUDC. I think any debate organization that turns toward propagating its own format and culture versus contributing to rhetorical pedagogy is not useless, but dangerous.

These organizations celebrate themselves before they reach out to those outside the walled gardens they labor to perpetuate. At this time, facing these autocratic and plutocratic threats, they have nothing to say. In fact you'll see in this episode an NCA division leader continuously repeats "There is nothing that can be said" in response to the political climate of the United States.

You are a communication organization. What value does NCA have if it has "nothing to say?"

Likewise, large debate organizations should be showing citizens how to engage productively with loud, angry, undereducated people instead of dismissing them as improper. This is the replacement of the universal audience with the vanguard audience (Perelman & Olbrects-Tyteca).

As the years go by I feel more and more alone in my conceptions of rhetoric, debate, and argumentation. A World Debating Council should be offering helpful approaches to debate and argument, not staying silent unless there are fees to pay for an upcoming tournament.

]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2201860 2025-06-04T17:08:16Z 2025-06-04T17:08:17Z Listening for May and Podcast Updates

Here's my listening report for May: https://www.last.fm/user/Professor_Steve/listening-report/year/2025/month/5

Lots of Charli XCX and who can blame me after the great tour clips on social media and her amazing Coachella performance?


In the Bin podcast is on a regular Wednesday schedule, once a week. I feel like that's the most sustainable model I can do at the moment! It's also on YouTube, so here's the link if you would like to start listening over there (I'm sure you listen somewhere already!)

]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2199099 2025-05-21T11:48:45Z 2025-05-21T11:48:46Z Instead of Debate Avoidance, Teach Debating

In the latest episode of my podcast In the Bin, I ask why we don't just teach people how to debate instead of trying to avoid debate. Substituting debate with another form of discourse is stealing from ourselves.

Here's the episode. First time doing a video podcast so let me know what you think!

]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2198084 2025-05-17T01:11:25Z 2025-05-17T01:11:25Z The Basics of Debate

It's summer, so it's time to make some YouTube lectures again!

See what you think of my suggestions for setting up a debate. Comments welcome!

]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2197153 2025-05-13T11:31:00Z 2025-05-13T11:31:01Z Rochester, New York and Debate Origin Stories

Last weekend I was so lucky to be able to participate in an event at the University of Rochester celebrating Prof. Sam Nelson who has been a debate coach and teacher for a very long time. 

His old students and assistants from all over the U.S. attended the surprise and shared their stories of how Sam transformed their lives. It was really an honor to be present for all of that testimony. 

This is the vlog I made of my perspective of the trip and everything I did and thought about when I was there. This really inspired me to think about debate (what doesn't you might ask) from a variety of different perspectives. 

It was so good to see Sam and to catch up with some of the old friends and students from my time working there. I was coaching at the University of Rochester from 2001 - 2002, and again from fall 2003 through 2004. From the Fall of 2002 to the spring of 2003, I lived in Syracuse, NY and attended Syracuse University. I did stop by from time to time to say hi to the folks working there at the time and Sam. 

I'm looking forward to visiting Rochester again already!

]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2193518 2025-04-28T11:55:46Z 2025-04-28T11:55:46Z Recent Essay, Before and After


It took forever - blame Taylor and Francis because, well, it's most likely their fault - but I finally got another essay out about debate theory and history. 

This was a special issue that was supposed to come out a long time ago about the so-called 'joint championship' of Wake Forest that year, winning both the CEDA and NDT championship tournament. If you don't know what that means, that's fine - that was the point of the special issue. So join the club: What does it mean? What should it mean? 

I reread my piece and it seems ok, however I prefer the one I originally wrote which bled a lot to bring this version to the publication. I'll present them both here for you to take a look at and determine which version of the essay you think is your preference. I wrote them both so I'm happy with however you feel about it.

In the age of digital everything, why don't we have a public "track changes" way of sharing our research and work? Seems like there would be a lot of value in there for those commenting on our work or moving forward in the areas we research and write about. Comparing versions of documents is easy and interesting, yet in most publishing we only see a "final version" as if it fell out of the sky. It can really be a great source of invention for an essay to ask the question "Why was that section removed or moved?" "When did that citation first get placed?" I figure sharing the first and last version might be a good starting place. Here's the original draft:

And here's the final version that appears in Argumentation and Advocacy

Comments welcome!!



]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2192685 2025-04-24T12:51:07Z 2025-04-24T12:51:07Z Livestream this evening on YouTube

I'm really sick so I can't go to campus today. I could go and teach I suppose, but I don't want to spread germs. I always tell my students to stay away if they are sick to cut down on absences. And since it's nearly Final Exam Eve I don't want to be responsible for lowering someone's grade due to illness.

So this evening at 5PM Eastern time I'm doing a YouTube Livestream for my debate class, check it out if you like. It's open to everyone.



]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2190151 2025-04-13T14:43:30Z 2025-04-13T14:43:30Z Rhetoric and Artificial Intelligence

There’s a disturbing lack of rhetorical principles being applied to AI when they have been applied to a number of less-obvious targets like science, medicine, urban cityscapes, video games, disability signs in public places, mothering at academic conferences, air travel, grocery store aisles and so on. Maybe it’s just that AI is new, or maybe we aren’t sure how to write about it. 

It’s becoming clear to me that the decline (not death) of debate is going to have a third act like the million dollar man - “We can build him back better than he was” so goes the show’s opening line. The rhetoric of AI and AI’s rhetoric and the rhetorical implications of AI in our daily life needs a lot more publications about it. I would like to contribute if I can, but when I sit down to write about it what can I say? It seems I don’t know enough.

Then I read this great essay in Time magazine (it’s always telling me about responsibility!). I think this writer gets how to rhetorically talk about AI and digital data in a rhetorical way that scholars haven’t caught up to yet. Or perhaps scholars are less interested in talking to their students and the public about these issues (very likely). I mean, why write about something if it can’t be in a paywalled boring academic journal that most people can’t read or can’t find. 

Anyway the best part of this essay is the comparative aspects. The argument is very powerful about how something becomes policy through advocacy and then becomes an everyday way of speaking, and then an everyday way of speaking. I think this is a great start to a rhetorical theory of kindness!

See what you think: https://time.com/7273469/data-monitoring-kindness-essay/ 

 

]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2189939 2025-04-12T15:25:41Z 2025-04-12T15:25:42Z Twenty Years Ago a Summer Reading List Was Made

It might be upside down because of how it was mass-scanned with a lot of other paper material that I cleaned out of my filing cabinet years ago, but this appeared today as I was moving some files around, cleaning up, and making sure to get most of my documents out of my University administered OneDrive account. The way politics are going at Universities and with AI scraping and all that nonsense, it's time to leave Cloud City before a deal is made to keep the Empire out of there forever. You know what sort of deal I'm talking about. I've been at my university around 18 years now and I guarantee they would sell me out to any agency for a low price. Furthermore, they would sell all my OneDrive data to an AI miner and never tell me about it. So goes the OneDrive terms of service!

But back to the list - this list hit me with nostalgia and impressed me. In 2005 I was a second year PhD student at the University of Pittsburgh. I knew I wanted to study and write about the Beat Generation - not as poets but as communication and rhetorical theorists. This list indicates that. But also it indicates a student who feels their foundations aren't quite there in rhetoric or in what inspired the Beats. It's a great list from my point of view but it also makes me want to make a summer reading list 20 years later. What should be on it? What do I need to know as I move forward into the next big project, teaching against the rising waters of authoritarianism and the dismissal of process in favor of "known truth?" There's nowhere to go; the blue waters are just as dangerous. What readings will help create an island, a base of operations? Stay tuned.

]]>
Steve Llano
tag:newyorksophist.com,2013:Post/2188332 2025-04-05T18:47:06Z 2025-04-05T18:59:21Z What's up with the NDT?


(This link is an example; there are tons of NDT debates to watch on the Policy Debate Central YouTube channel)

The National Debate Tournament is seen as a tradition, the oldest, the most continuous, and the highest level of debate competition in the United States for intercollegiate debate. What’s funny about it is that the NDT is most notably an index of change. The more people think of the NDT as some traditional institution that always does debate in some traditional way, the more the motives are fanned to defend that tradition so the more changes are made to the way debate is done to preserve it. “We had to rebuild the village in order to keep the property values high!”

The NDT has changed so much even in my brief brushes with it never as a competitor, barely as a coach and most commonly as a critic and scholar of debate pedagogical history. The most important thing that has changed in order to preserve the NDT’s hold on the purest, best, most rigorous form of debate is technology resistance.

Even though we have laptops, internet, and all kinds of tools to word process and share information with one another it is still a necessary and incontrovertible part of the NDT that speeches must be orated in a room live at the same time as opponents. In contemporary debate anywhere but the NDT, recordings, blogs, social media posts, and video editing are a part of powerful arguments. It seems even a slight modification here to avoid the super spreading speeches would be for all cases and 1NC arguments to be released by the teams to one another so the speech time could be spent in investigating the connections, missed connections, and gaps in the arguments. I think this would improve the quality of debate but leave many people unmoored once they discover they have no expertise in argumentation or debate and plenty in how a tournament should be run. The gap here is huge and unnoticeable until you start trying to make the NDT look more like reasonable debate that occurs in contemporary institutions of all kinds.

Secondly is the desperate amount of energy spent to insure that nobody knows the NDT is happening except the NDT participants and the converted. If a tournament of this quality with this caliber debaters was happening at my university, I would be sure every single person walking around the perimeter of the campus knew it was happening and that I and my department (or division) were responsible for it. Such attention is unwanted, who knows why. Perhaps the NDT believes that their event is unintelligible. Most participants don’t notice this because the practice is a part of their traditions and culture. They also have the full text of anything being chirped in the air by a speaker on their computer. There’s nothing being preserved here except a very quirky and very esoteric understanding of “good debate.”

In rhetoric we have a very simple way to understand good debate: Look to the audience. Are they getting something out of it? NDT answers this question by rug pulling – there won’t be an audience; we will work hard to exclude one. Seems strange if you are the most prestigious debate competition for undergraduate students in the United States.

All this would take is the small adaptation of some video guides, commentary, commentators, and things to look for. Audiences could have access to outlines of the arguments that are coming. They could have video and audio access to expert commentators saying what’s going on in the debate and why it was a good move. NDT could keep their professional sport model of debating and just do what every other professional sport in the world does – offer commentators to explain the action and why the audience should be impressed. Also, allowing most of the debate to happen online prior to the NDT – the sharing of arguments in particular so the speeches can be more general – would be great. If you need a model for how this might play out in practice and still produce good arguments, look to the U.S. Supreme Court or any Federal District Court.

The biggest change, and the strangest one to me is the eruption of Go Fund Me pages of all kinds to bring our team to the NDT. If a team qualifies for the NDT, why don’t they just get to go? It seems like something that should be funded regardless of the institutions commitment to the tournament or debate in general. NDT should try to gather sponsors for this, but this also means accessibility must be a part of the tournament. This cuts against – like all the suggestions I’ve written above – the idea that the NDT is preserving some kind of true or better form of debating than could exist outside the annual terrarium that it puts together in some midwestern hotel. This is obviously false; there are tons of good forums (fora?) for debating out there that simply don’t meet or click with those who have identified the accidental sentiment of practice that has been passed down to make a tournament easier to win with being good at debating. There is no necessary connection between the habits of good NDT debate and good debate. There might be other good reasons to do the NDT, but those will vanish too unless the NDT and the practitioners of it can solve the funding issue.

If a Dean or VP of Student Affairs saw the video linked here they would probably feel very confident about their decision not to fund intercollegiate debate on their campus. They need an interpreter – and anyone who loves American debate traditions needs one. The NDT along with commentators needs a team of Sherpas to help those interested and not part of the high school workshop to debate recruitment pipeline understand what they are seeing and why it is powerful, it matters, and most importantly why it’s a necessary part of university life that is quickly being eroded into a job training site. The crowdfunding angle is so depressing to me and I see it everywhere. I think it should be addressed by the NDT directly and with an eye toward preserving whatever the value of doing NDT debate might be (I’m unfamiliar with the evidence other than the anecdotal and the post hoc law school success stories. There’s got to be better data out there somewhere ya?). It might be that the NDT has nothing to do with teaching rhetoric, debate, or argumentation and it does something quite different than the package suggests. We should change the packaging, or make the appeal coherent in some way to ensure that the funding will be there to have such an event.

The other solution is to distribute the NDT away from a center and to the margin. NDT could be a style of debate meant to inquire after complex, complicated, deep disagreement about national and international policy. It could become a way to approach it, much like TED has become that for research ideas or socially trendy curiosities. It could become like The Moth has become for storytelling. Both of these organizations are models for the NDT’s future – what’s the brand? High intensity, high structured debate on a policy question that is research heavy. It’s not evidence based debate, it’s evidence centric debating. That brand could make NDT something that is replicated in small venues here and there not to discover a champion, but to discover the insights on policy issues that only NDT debaters know can be revealed. The fact that the amount of people who truly get what this style and approach to debate can reveal about thought, evidence, the mind, and human communication is so slim is a source of embarrassment. It can be addressed.

]]>
Steve Llano