That Terrible Republican Debate

Image via Wikipedia

The other night I had to watch that terrible, terrible Republican debate on CNN. In between Tim Pawlenty’s impersonation of a bad John Edwards, and John King’s disturbing grunting when a candidate went over time (What’s wrong with just interrupting them, John? You are the moderator!) there were a few “arguments” made now and again. They were not good.  Why?

It’s always the same reason – this was not a debate. This was the argumentative version of speed-dating.

You got just enough time with each candidate to determine if you wanted to go to their website and read more. That was it. There were some arguments made by various candidates, here and there, but no debate was present.

In order to have a debate, one needs the following:

1. Agreement on a clear topic that can either be supported or rejected.

2. Agreement on who will represent each side of the topic.

3. Clash – One must advocate, and respond to advocacy

4. Equal Time – Each participant must have an equal amount of time to establish and refute arguments.

5. Judgement – Some decision should be rendered, even if it is by private ballot by the audience.

The Republican debate did not have any – not one – of these elements. And I wonder how many political debates do.

Will America ever see an actual debate during a Presidential campaign? We came close when the League of Women Voters used to control the Presidential Debates. But those times are long gone, stolen away by the Bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates.

The CNN debate was run by a for-profit news agency – a corporation – so it was designed to be watchable and entertaining in so far as it was also designed to be relevant to the campaign.

Eventually we need more than speed dating. What the official Presidential debates give us is not much better.

Related articles

Visual Arguments in the Wild

One of the greatest things about living in New York city for me is the graffiti. I take pictures of it whenever I can. But it has to be a certain type; I like graffiti that might serve an argumentative function.

Here’s an advert from the 42nd St Bryant Park Subway station for Mohegan Sun, a casino resort in Connecticut.

 
Typical graffiti would just write all over this image. But what this artist has done is blacked out a few teeth here and there. Does this serve an argumentative function? I think so.
First, one way of reading it is the slogan is supported by only ignorant people. Everyone knows that tomorrow can’t and won’t wait. Especially for that dentist appointment. Those with gapped teeth are ignorant, hence the slogan is ignorant.
Or, the slogan, the wealth of the people, their apparent good looks and fine lifestyle are hollow. The markings attempt to make real the argument “These people and what they represent are toothless.”
There are most likely other interpretations. However, the key work on this question – whether pictures can argue, was written in 1996 by Professor Fleming. You can read a bit of it there, but the whole thing is worth a read if you can get a copy via your library. In short, Fleming argues that pictures cannot argue because pictures cannot convey clear propositional content. Argumentation, as we know it, requires propositions. So pictures are relegated to being supporting cast for arguments – either evidence or experience that helps us form propositions – and does not argue in the proper sense of the term.
I am not sure about this conclusion. This advertisement is trying to argue that I should get away, spend, relax, and indulge – in short enjoy. The graffiti-ist is throwing a bit of dirt in the way of that, a bit of static in the signal. Just by colouring in the teeth, only a few of them here and there, she advances the proposition that this is not what it seems – therefore enjoyment is not what it seems. Something as small as a Sharpie mark can raise enough interference to where the ad could be read in an alternative and opposite direction.
Or it could be hilarious looking at these toothless people and I’m making a lot out of nothing. But  someone had to stop there and color those teeth in. And someone had to put it up there. And someone had to take those photos, pay those actors, design the campaign and decide where to put it.
Someone, some rhetor, maybe even a couple of them thought about what I would make out of this image.

 

Visual Arguments in the Wild

One of the greatest things about living in New York city for me is the graffiti. I take pictures of it whenever I can. But it has to be a certain type; I like graffiti that might serve an argumentative function.

Here’s an advert from the 42nd St Bryant Park Subway station for Mohegan Sun, a casino resort in Connecticut.

 
Typical graffiti would just write all over this image. But what this artist has done is blacked out a few teeth here and there. Does this serve an argumentative function? I think so.
First, one way of reading it is the slogan is supported by only ignorant people. Everyone knows that tomorrow can’t and won’t wait. Especially for that dentist appointment. Those with gapped teeth are ignorant, hence the slogan is ignorant.
Or, the slogan, the wealth of the people, their apparent good looks and fine lifestyle are hollow. The markings attempt to make real the argument “These people and what they represent are toothless.”
There are most likely other interpretations. However, the key work on this question – whether pictures can argue, was written in 1996 by Professor Fleming. You can read a bit of it there, but the whole thing is worth a read if you can get a copy via your library. In short, Fleming argues that pictures cannot argue because pictures cannot convey clear propositional content. Argumentation, as we know it, requires propositions. So pictures are relegated to being supporting cast for arguments – either evidence or experience that helps us form propositions – and does not argue in the proper sense of the term.
I am not sure about this conclusion. This advertisement is trying to argue that I should get away, spend, relax, and indulge – in short enjoy. The graffiti-ist is throwing a bit of dirt in the way of that, a bit of static in the signal. Just by colouring in the teeth, only a few of them here and there, she advances the proposition that this is not what it seems – therefore enjoyment is not what it seems. Something as small as a Sharpie mark can raise enough interference to where the ad could be read in an alternative and opposite direction.
Or it could be hilarious looking at these toothless people and I’m making a lot out of nothing. But  someone had to stop there and color those teeth in. And someone had to put it up there. And someone had to take those photos, pay those actors, design the campaign and decide where to put it.
Someone, some rhetor, maybe even a couple of them thought about what I would make out of this image.

 

Debaters and the Library

Image via Wikipedia

First of all, here’s an American Debate Semifinal for you to have a look at. Lots of reliance on cited sources and files in this format, you might notice. Deep research is the key to doing well in these debates.

When I was a high school debate coach, I made sure to always have an excellent and close relationship with the librarians. It was essential. The librarians would become staunch allies once they saw the research and writing skills that policy debate developed in students. When students started spending more time at the library before and after school searching for “evidence,” then the librarians had no choice but to fall in love with debate. Near the end of my tenure in that position, the librarians would ask me about the upcoming topic for the next year – they wanted to use their resources to buy essential books and other resources for the coming competitive year.

When I moved to University coaching, I found the same thing – a close relationship with the library was essential. It was beyond question that you seek out your allied librarian to help you find unusual books and articles on the annual topic. That process of discovery was really fun.

I do miss it, although I am enjoying exploring the fairly new territory (at least in the US) of WUDC debating. Of course, the librarians still know me well, but it’s mostly for my personal or professional research interests, not for the debate topic, per se. I do keep the campus news pipeline full of information about what we are doing in debate, but I think they feel a bit left out.  From time to time they ask me, “What’s the library’s role in all this?” The American assumption is that one collects lots of information, processes it, assembles a case, and then goes to debate (see the film The Great Debaters for an example of how entrenched this is).  The reason is that American debating has always been a practice modeled on adversarial decision-making (as opposed to creative or cooperative argumentation). In WUDC format, the process is different – and sometimes can be the opposite – you go seek out information after debating something because, well bluntly, you did a terrible job in putting a relevant case together. We perform some research in a general sense on various topics that we think may come up in a debate. But that research is quite different from what I used to do as a policy coach.

This article made me think that perhaps the change is in both directions. The contemporary University Library is becoming more of an information literacy center rather than a place to discover (or uncover) the dusty tomes of fact to bolster your belief.  It seems, at least from the tone of the article, that the library at most Universities is transforming itself into a place that serves in the formation of belief and opinion via information processing – one of the ways debate is valuable as a pedagogical activity as well.

This tone circulates around re-appropriation of space, resources, personnel and more. It seems to graft onto, almost directly, the recent trend in the United States of “paperless debating” – debating from a laptop instead of paper files. Still a long way off from being universal, I think, but it’s coming. I think the library is moving this way too.  Whatever the previous relationship with your library, you stand to gain something from being involved in an official capacity as a debater. Whatever new resources you might need or want for your debating experience, it seems now is the time to develop, or re-develop, that library relationship.

Policy debate and WUDC debate, the two formats I’m most familiar with, are also facing the stimulus that is behind these changes for the library. Perhaps you and your club should take stock of your relationship to the library and how familiarity at a time of great change can improve both of these vital parts of your University.

Related articles

Debaters and the Library

Image via Wikipedia

First of all, here’s an American Debate Semifinal for you to have a look at. Lots of reliance on cited sources and files in this format, you might notice. Deep research is the key to doing well in these debates.

When I was a high school debate coach, I made sure to always have an excellent and close relationship with the librarians. It was essential. The librarians would become staunch allies once they saw the research and writing skills that policy debate developed in students. When students started spending more time at the library before and after school searching for “evidence,” then the librarians had no choice but to fall in love with debate. Near the end of my tenure in that position, the librarians would ask me about the upcoming topic for the next year – they wanted to use their resources to buy essential books and other resources for the coming competitive year.

When I moved to University coaching, I found the same thing – a close relationship with the library was essential. It was beyond question that you seek out your allied librarian to help you find unusual books and articles on the annual topic. That process of discovery was really fun.

I do miss it, although I am enjoying exploring the fairly new territory (at least in the US) of WUDC debating. Of course, the librarians still know me well, but it’s mostly for my personal or professional research interests, not for the debate topic, per se. I do keep the campus news pipeline full of information about what we are doing in debate, but I think they feel a bit left out.  From time to time they ask me, “What’s the library’s role in all this?” The American assumption is that one collects lots of information, processes it, assembles a case, and then goes to debate (see the film The Great Debaters for an example of how entrenched this is).  The reason is that American debating has always been a practice modeled on adversarial decision-making (as opposed to creative or cooperative argumentation). In WUDC format, the process is different – and sometimes can be the opposite – you go seek out information after debating something because, well bluntly, you did a terrible job in putting a relevant case together. We perform some research in a general sense on various topics that we think may come up in a debate. But that research is quite different from what I used to do as a policy coach.

This article made me think that perhaps the change is in both directions. The contemporary University Library is becoming more of an information literacy center rather than a place to discover (or uncover) the dusty tomes of fact to bolster your belief.  It seems, at least from the tone of the article, that the library at most Universities is transforming itself into a place that serves in the formation of belief and opinion via information processing – one of the ways debate is valuable as a pedagogical activity as well.

This tone circulates around re-appropriation of space, resources, personnel and more. It seems to graft onto, almost directly, the recent trend in the United States of “paperless debating” – debating from a laptop instead of paper files. Still a long way off from being universal, I think, but it’s coming. I think the library is moving this way too.  Whatever the previous relationship with your library, you stand to gain something from being involved in an official capacity as a debater. Whatever new resources you might need or want for your debating experience, it seems now is the time to develop, or re-develop, that library relationship.

Policy debate and WUDC debate, the two formats I’m most familiar with, are also facing the stimulus that is behind these changes for the library. Perhaps you and your club should take stock of your relationship to the library and how familiarity at a time of great change can improve both of these vital parts of your University.

Related articles