The New York Sophist

The world championship, before this most recent competition, had no hosts come forward to bid. Chennai was accepted without the usual time frame given to the planning of this tournament. Instead of focusing on the problems that happened in India – very well documented many other places on the web – I’d like to spend some time articulating the primary cause of these problems.

The major reason any of these things came to pass is because the global debating community is more interested in having a Worlds than a world championship. 

It doesn’t seem that way with all the attention put into rules, CA choices, adjudicator subsidies (or the promise of them), motion fairness discussions and more and more discussion about gender inequity at worlds. But the biggest barrier toward having a solid worlds tournament is the belief that Worlds should have certain features, and without those features Worlds would not be Worlds. 

These features include, but are not limited to the following: Five-star accommodation, nightly socials, free or heavily discounted alcohol, planned and discounted excursions, and large numbers of subsidized judges. 

It is the demand, either implicit or explicit, from the debating community that these be a part of any Worlds bid worth considering. But it is also these demands that probably deter many organizations from bidding to host Worlds – they realize the hard work and implausibility of providing all of the above.

Organizations that offered a bid to host a world championship – something stripped down, basic, and directly focused on the tournament portion of Worlds – would not be considered a serious bid, no matter how good the justification and planning for the competition. It is unfortunate, but I believe that the worldwide debate community has come to not feel grateful for such lavish things at Worlds, but have come to expect these things as the basic norm for any Worlds.

Consider all the controversy in Chennai – when you strip away all the elements of frustration and failure, you are left with one of the most solid, excellent competitive tournaments of all time. The motions, judge allocation, and the running of the competition were perfect. All of the issues at Chennai came from one source, and it isn’t the organization that was hosting. It is our demand that the world championships be Worlds that lead to the poor management of all the other aspects of the tournament. 

If we keep insisting on worlds containing all of these elements, something is going to have to give. It is unlikely that hosts can pull off what it is that they promise given what all of these demands cost. Debaters are lucky that this time it wasn’t the tournament that broke. Next time it might not be the case. 

What I think we should focus on is recruiting and pushing for hosts that offer certain amenities – safe and comfortable lodging, decent food, venues for meetings, competition, and general “hanging out” – and a nice break party. After that, social functions can easily be handled by the competitors as they meet old and new friends, catch up, and explore a little bit of the host city. A focus on having a world championship will give rise to a more affordable entry fee, an easier time finding a variety of hosts, and a community built around the production and critique of good argumentation and rhetoric in an intercultural, global atmosphere. Focus less on the parties and the celebratory atmosphere and more on the thing that we are meant to be celebrating. A streamlined world championship in the place of a bloated, over-the-top Worlds would provide more money for the administration of the tournament, subsidizing the aspects of the world championship that need the most assistance, such as expensive travel.

The most valuable lesson from the Chennai problems was this – the community has produced and contains remarkable leaders who are professional and capable of focusing on the task at hand, accomplishing it with amazing success. It’s remarkable that the tournament was so great given what it faced from its own organizers. Running the tournament is not the issue, and we should feel thankful. Happily signing on to a host who promises all that we demand from a Worlds is our undoing. We should be immediately suspicious going forward of any bid that suggests it can offer everything that we believe Worlds should have. There must be compromises in order for it to function at that registration price, with those donors, for that expected quality. 

The thing that most people praised about Chennai was that tournament aspect and what it brings with it: Excellent opportunities to catch up with old friends, make new ones, and experience some thoughtful and eloquent debating. What is Worlds but this? Hosting a World Championship and allowing some of the sediment of Worlds to float away would focus the world championship on what is most valuable and important about the international debate community. We should move in this direction by asking for a world championship host, not a Worlds host.

The world championship, before this most recent competition, had no hosts come forward to bid. Chennai was accepted without the usual time frame given to the planning of this tournament. Instead of focusing on the problems that happened in India – very well documented many other places on the web – I’d like to spend some time articulating the primary cause of these problems.

The major reason any of these things came to pass is because the global debating community is more interested in having a Worlds than a world championship. 

It doesn’t seem that way with all the attention put into rules, CA choices, adjudicator subsidies (or the promise of them), motion fairness discussions and more and more discussion about gender inequity at worlds. But the biggest barrier toward having a solid worlds tournament is the belief that Worlds should have certain features, and without those features Worlds would not be Worlds. 

These features include, but are not limited to the following: Five-star accommodation, nightly socials, free or heavily discounted alcohol, planned and discounted excursions, and large numbers of subsidized judges. 

It is the demand, either implicit or explicit, from the debating community that these be a part of any Worlds bid worth considering. But it is also these demands that probably deter many organizations from bidding to host Worlds – they realize the hard work and implausibility of providing all of the above.

Organizations that offered a bid to host a world championship – something stripped down, basic, and directly focused on the tournament portion of Worlds – would not be considered a serious bid, no matter how good the justification and planning for the competition. It is unfortunate, but I believe that the worldwide debate community has come to not feel grateful for such lavish things at Worlds, but have come to expect these things as the basic norm for any Worlds.

Consider all the controversy in Chennai – when you strip away all the elements of frustration and failure, you are left with one of the most solid, excellent competitive tournaments of all time. The motions, judge allocation, and the running of the competition were perfect. All of the issues at Chennai came from one source, and it isn’t the organization that was hosting. It is our demand that the world championships be Worlds that lead to the poor management of all the other aspects of the tournament. 

If we keep insisting on worlds containing all of these elements, something is going to have to give. It is unlikely that hosts can pull off what it is that they promise given what all of these demands cost. Debaters are lucky that this time it wasn’t the tournament that broke. Next time it might not be the case. 

What I think we should focus on is recruiting and pushing for hosts that offer certain amenities – safe and comfortable lodging, decent food, venues for meetings, competition, and general “hanging out” – and a nice break party. After that, social functions can easily be handled by the competitors as they meet old and new friends, catch up, and explore a little bit of the host city. A focus on having a world championship will give rise to a more affordable entry fee, an easier time finding a variety of hosts, and a community built around the production and critique of good argumentation and rhetoric in an intercultural, global atmosphere. Focus less on the parties and the celebratory atmosphere and more on the thing that we are meant to be celebrating. A streamlined world championship in the place of a bloated, over-the-top Worlds would provide more money for the administration of the tournament, subsidizing the aspects of the world championship that need the most assistance, such as expensive travel.

The most valuable lesson from the Chennai problems was this – the community has produced and contains remarkable leaders who are professional and capable of focusing on the task at hand, accomplishing it with amazing success. It’s remarkable that the tournament was so great given what it faced from its own organizers. Running the tournament is not the issue, and we should feel thankful. Happily signing on to a host who promises all that we demand from a Worlds is our undoing. We should be immediately suspicious going forward of any bid that suggests it can offer everything that we believe Worlds should have. There must be compromises in order for it to function at that registration price, with those donors, for that expected quality. 

The thing that most people praised about Chennai was that tournament aspect and what it brings with it: Excellent opportunities to catch up with old friends, make new ones, and experience some thoughtful and eloquent debating. What is Worlds but this? Hosting a World Championship and allowing some of the sediment of Worlds to float away would focus the world championship on what is most valuable and important about the international debate community. We should move in this direction by asking for a world championship host, not a Worlds host.

The book is available on Amazon, and pretty much anywhere where you would like to buy books.

Working with Sam Block and Nick Bibby was great. They are fantastic co-editors, and a real breeze to work with even when we are facing some difficult circumstances (as you do when you are editing a book of other people’s work and you have deadlines to meet and all that). It was a great time.

Every essay in the book is quite good – they range from the very highly theoretical to the very practical and down-to-earth sort of essay you might want to read to help your own judging practice. 

Let me know what you think about it in the comments!

The book is available on Amazon, and pretty much anywhere where you would like to buy books.

Working with Sam Block and Nick Bibby was great. They are fantastic co-editors, and a real breeze to work with even when we are facing some difficult circumstances (as you do when you are editing a book of other people’s work and you have deadlines to meet and all that). It was a great time.

Every essay in the book is quite good – they range from the very highly theoretical to the very practical and down-to-earth sort of essay you might want to read to help your own judging practice. 

Let me know what you think about it in the comments!

Happy to report that I was published in the  Monash Debate Review‘s latest issue opposite Shengwu Li on the question of information slides. From what I can tell, the piece has generated some good discussion, although I am sure there’s quite a bit more about the other excellent pieces on motion selection and fairness, as well as research obligations and privilege. 

Rereading our exchange, as well as digesting quite a bit of American football courtesy of my brother-in-law and his amazing sports knowledge (something I seriously lack) got me thinking about an addition to my piece I would make if we had the space. I would say that information slides are like NFL protective gear – helmets, pads, and other such gear was designed to solve a problem. The helmet was designed to prevent injuries to players, but its existence changed the way people play the game. This addition now causes even more dangerous results than it was meant to prevent. The information slide can be seen in a similar way – gear introduced to the game in order to prevent harm from occurring. However the presence of this gear means that players will – no, they must – incorporate the presence of that gear into their play style. This ends up creating situations where more harm happens. It is interesting to note the social pressures behind such harmful play styles – as we were having a conversation about NFL safety at a busy sports-bar restaurant, you could hear the crowd cheer and collectively “ooooh!” at really hard hits, then all attend to the screen for the obligatory 4 or 5 slow motion replays of the hit. Once the style is formed as a result of the introduction of the gear, it’s hard to find the argument for its elimination to be very compelling. Well, so much for the infoslide debate – you should check out our pieces and see what you think about our arguments.

Overall, this is a fantastic issue, possibly the best one I’ve read, and I’m so pleased to be included among all this great work. It goes to show that debate, as we’ve known in the US for a while, is a great platform for the generation of excellent scholarship. Unfortunately, we’ve abandoned this idea in the US, relegating debate to the land of contract hires and adjuncts, as well as graduate TA work – almost to a nearly full-time status. 

I am in conversation with a couple of folks about this matter – for the need to defend the existence of a debating program is as high as it has ever been. Programs are eliminated without much of a thought or opportunity for defense. Think to that scene from the film Ghostbusters where the researchers return to campus to find their office being cleaned out and you get the picture of where we are headed as universities continue to feel the pinch of austerity, low enrollment, or both.

A solution I am working to instill is the idea that debate programs should be the “ad hoc” undergraduate research program of the university. This means that debate club serves the function of being a center for the development and mentoring of scholarly research for undergraduates. Most places do not have such a center, and many universities rely on the individual advocacy or interest of a few professors to carry on this work. More and more though we see universities sponsoring on-campus undergraduate research days, and using undergraduate research success in advertising materials. If debate can help the university in this area, seen as vital to the competitive success of the university these days, then debate clubs and programs can enjoy security as well as some more opportunity to engage in tournament travel. More to come on this here as I think out loud a bit more about how it should be structured. St. John’s University Debate will be conducting some experiments in how we approach the praxis of running a university debating program along such parameters as well.

Finally, I believe I have an essay forthcoming in the journal Contemporary Argumentation and Debate. Not sure when that’s supposed to come out, but it’s a review of the three BP/Worlds debate textbooks that have been published over the past few years – the rise of BP in America – and my thoughts about them. I’ll post a link here when it comes out. 

Lots done and lots to do this new year. Lots of discussion to be had about debate in the public sphere, such as the upcoming Bill Nye debate as well as the tragic school shooting that was perpetrated by a disgruntled ex-debate team member. And oh yea, classes start soon. So I should stop procrastinating and log back into Blackboard!

Stay warm, and thanks for all the reads last year!