The New York Sophist

bowery mission (Photo credit: niznoz)

This debate was set up by the King’s College, as a way to engage a public issue and get public response from it. Not shown in the video was an interesting talk by members of the Bowery Mission – a homeless shelter and education facility in New York.

One of the residents watched the debate and gave some good commentary. Again, it’s not in the video, as it seemed the video was shutting down people’s comfort in addressing the assembled group with their thoughts about the debate.

I have an idea that I approached the Mission with after the debate: Would it be possible to use the residents as judges in a debating competition?

They said they would think about it. I extolled the idea that the judges would learn the art of critical feedback and giving a positive, constructive commentary on something they have just heard. This is a great job skill.  As for the students participating in the competition, it would be good for them to get some commentary from people in the public to help reduce the inevitable drive to speak like a debating automaton and reference tropes that only have meaning for a cloistered few in the debate universe.

The topics would be about homelessness and poverty. And yes, as I already addressed one student’s concern – the audience will be very biased. But that might be something we lack the capacity to train for in debate. Competition dictates that the debates must be fair and evaluated on the most even standard possible. What happens when a judge is too far gone to one side? We must offer some moments where students are forced to be creative in how they appeal to convicted audiences.

Would anyone participate? I hope so. But first I have to convince the Mission staff that this project would be worth their time. This debate, as presented here, did inspire them and make them express that they would like to participate in some way.

D. T. Fleming Beach Park, Kapalua, Maui, Hawaii, US. Best beach of US scored in 2006. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There really shouldn’t be a forced choice. One should get married however one wishes. Some people like to elope and run down to the courthouse. Some imagine a small ceremony with just close friends. And some imagine flying everyone to Maui for a week of partying on the beach. People get to choose how they would like to perform this important life moment. There’s nothing wrong with a destination wedding, so long as you can afford it and you actually want to do it.

But when it comes to hosting the World Championships, we see little variety. It seems that in order to host the WUDC, one needs to present a package that looks like a destination wedding. What 5 star hotel will host us? How many open bar parties will occur? How great will the meals be? All of these questions seem just as important as the list of superstar international debate champions that will appear as adjudicators at the tournament.

Recent, and I must say amazing, World Championships have set the bar high. But I’m afraid that the high bar is being misinterpreted as the price of entry. WUDC still lacks a 2014 host, and I think the reason why is the idea that for a World Championship to be good, it must be Destination Debating. Just in the past week or so a bid has emerged for 2014, much to the relief of everyone who likes to plan way ahead, and Council.

Destination Debating is fine. I have no problem with having a fancy tournament once in a while. I also think that if you are paying to travel halfway around the world to debate, you should get some amenities that reflect the amount of money you paid to participate. But I think that the attitude among those who might like to host worlds is that if they can’t provide an amazing, over the top experience with nightly DJs, fireworks, and alcohol that flows like wine, they should not bid. But I think that if you love debate, and really want to make a commitment of this level, what’s wrong with going down to city hall? What about a stripped down World Championship?

If it was up against a WUDC bid that even hinted at some exotic features, I’m certain it would lose in the vote. But perhaps it would start the process of lowering the bar for those who are in love with debate and considering taking the plunge.

What about a stripped-down Worlds (read: normal competition)? Would it effect the quality of the tournament for you? If Worlds were even half the quality of recent Destination Debating style championships, would this deter the best debaters from attending? My answer to these questions is clear – and it might help us return to the important elements of such a competition: Finding the best debaters in the world, working on that metric, and giving others an inspirational model of speaking to emulate and aspire to reach.

St. Augustine Library at St. John’s University (New York) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It always seems that spring is when there’s a lot of publicity surrounding the work we do in the St. John’s University Debate Society.

Here is an article that was recently written about us for our Alumni magazine. It’s the first time we’ve been in there since I started the debate program in 2007. I hope we start to feature there regularly.

This article was generated from a lengthy interview one of the writers (and St. John’s alum himself) conducted with me last Feburary. I listened to it recently and I think it’s a good overview of St. John’s debate and the purpose of debate in general. Below is a link if you’d like to listen to it – I post it because I think my articulation is pretty good of a lot of my views of the point of debate, the reason debate should be a part of the University, and my history in debate and association with it.

This interview makes me think about the importance of the digital archive, and how oral history of debate societies might be a good project that debate directors and debate societies can propose to history departments, information science departments, and other graduate students as a good project. The digital archive in 50 years will only be as good as what we put in there today.

Check this out on Chirbit

St. Augustine Library at St. John’s University (New York) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It always seems that spring is when there’s a lot of publicity surrounding the work we do in the St. John’s University Debate Society.

Here is an article that was recently written about us for our Alumni magazine. It’s the first time we’ve been in there since I started the debate program in 2007. I hope we start to feature there regularly.

This article was generated from a lengthy interview one of the writers (and St. John’s alum himself) conducted with me last Feburary. I listened to it recently and I think it’s a good overview of St. John’s debate and the purpose of debate in general. Below is a link if you’d like to listen to it – I post it because I think my articulation is pretty good of a lot of my views of the point of debate, the reason debate should be a part of the University, and my history in debate and association with it.

This interview makes me think about the importance of the digital archive, and how oral history of debate societies might be a good project that debate directors and debate societies can propose to history departments, information science departments, and other graduate students as a good project. The digital archive in 50 years will only be as good as what we put in there today.

Check this out on Chirbit

I’m starting to do a lot more with Skype and debate. I feel this technology is going to be instrumental in developing new debate programs. It’s cheap and easy to run a debate or to have a debate critiqued by someone who knows something about WUDC debating.