The New York Sophist

My first attempt at video blogging!

This week marks the beginning of the National Forensic League (NFL) National Tournament in Kansas City. About 11 years ago at this time I was preparing to travel to my first NFL nationals ever. When I was a high school debater I remember chatting with my team mates about how cool it would be if there was a national championship in high school debating. We were very much unaware that the NFL existed, and were quite happy that the UIL state tournament in Austin was our season ending tournament. Needless to say, I was very excited and very curious what NFL nationals would be like. I am certain that everyone who is either in Kansas City or on their way will have a fantastic debating experience this week.

Reading about the preparations for the tournament over on the Global Debate Blog got me thinking – I know next to nothing about the high school or secondary school experiences of debaters in other countries. What is secondary school debating like for those outside the United States? I would love any and all comments and/or links to posts discussing it.

One of the things I am most curious about is how the secondary education debate experience normalizes the university debating experience in the U.S. For example, most high school policy debaters have a vision of CEDA/NDT debating – it’s faster in delivery, it’s deeper on the research, and it allows for more radical argumentation. It’s the same basic recipe for debating however – not much changes between high school and university debate as far as the theory, rules, speaker order, and philosophy surrounding the tournaments. I imagine the transition from one’s secondary format to the World’s format might require a bit of adjustment. It might not though, since many Australs debaters have enjoyed spectacular success at Worlds, and many attribute it to the skills and practices picked up while doing Australs format tournaments.

Another thing – are secondary school debate programs faculty directed? What’s it like to move to a student run club from such a background? In the US, those who participate in APDA sanctioned tournaments or on those teams can speak to that transition in the U.S. to student run programs. But I would like to hear some experiences that you might have had.

What are the qualifications for a good CA of a tournament?

I think most people would say that a good CA is someone who “understands debate.” They “get it.” They know what must be done when, and how to do it.  They know what makes a good debating speech and they know how to tell others what that looks like.

Some people might equate competitive success as proof that someone can CA effectively. It seems to make sense that if someone does well at debate, they understand the principles of a good debate and therefore can run a good tournament.

I wonder if this trend of selecting someone who either “understands debate” or shows competitive success are good standards for selecting the person who is most directly responsible for normalizing the judge pool at any tournament. I think that if we are not careful, we can end up substituting the good work a CA is supposed to do with technical prowess.

Before you get too critical, I am totally willing to concede that someone who is technically proficient at debating can also do a great job at being a CA. There are numerous examples from the year. I’m not really interested in playing the numbers game anyway. What I am more interested in is aims, goals and purpose – three key things that should always drive competitive educational activity.

One of the risks of encouraging a technical understanding of debate is the unfortunate discounting of arguments that would persuade the average person. If the team making these persuasive arguments was suspected of violating the technical requirements of their role, and another team made tepid arguments, but were well within the technical limitations, a panel might very well choose the tepid team. A CA briefing that is focused on the importance of tick-box rules might be cited in such an adjudication where judges might be less likely to go with what they felt was persuasive.

All of this stems from the briefing, which I think should not only highlight some of the rules, but also provide some perspective on what the purpose of the competition is. What are we preparing for by engaging in this contest? What do we hope to gain? What is the role of the adjudicator in this? These questions should be thought through by the CA and spoken about to the judges to help them keep some perspective during the tournament.

The choice of many teams to move away from a rather intense and interesting argument that might risk violating a rule is symptomatic of where we might be headed in how debates are judged. There is a place for admiring technical competence, but I think it must be evaluated along side the rhetorical elements of emotional appeal, and arguments that work in the moment.

I think that instead of wins – or technical competence – perhaps the following issues could be considered for conveners to consider or ask CAs when they invite them to serve:

DCAs – What is their function, and what qualities should they possess? How many will actually be needed to do this work? Should they all be people who are competitively successful, respected by the community, or would you consider other qualifications for DCAs?

Breaking Judges –  What will be the specific qualities that will be looked for in chairs? How much weight will feedback forms from debaters have? Is there a justification in breaking someone who has a slim debate resume over someone who has quite a long one?

The Bubble – How much, if any direct hand should the CA or Adjudication team have in setting the judging panels for rounds on the cusp of the break? Should software trump human judgment or not?

The Briefing – If there will not be an adjudication test, how will judging be normalized for the tournament? What will the briefing look like? How would you propose to explain the importance of an extension to a group of people who may have never seen a BP round before?

The Purpose –  What is it as CA that you wish to achieve? What do you think is best about debate tournaments?

These are just suggestions of how to proceed, and I think that perhaps most CA-ships are privately solicited things that are then announced later after the person agrees to it. Again, it’s not to knock the job that current CAs are doing – I have not one complaint or specific issue that I could list here even if I really wanted to – it’s more to alter the automatically replicating frame or truism facing the format – that competitive success is the only route toward understanding debate or serving it well, which could, given time and a dash of ignorance, push BP into a technical abyss that might take years to climb out of once it’s recognized.

Well the last grades are in and summer is upon me. What to do? Well, as usual, I have my always failing plans to study up on language. I feel pretty inadequate in my abilities (or lack thereof) in foreign language, so I try to spend a few hours each day practicing something. I think I am in desperate need of a German refresher, and Japanese marches slowly forward.

Aside from that I have three essays to work on. One is nearly ready to go out for review. The other two are in rough stages of just starting. Some more research is needed, and a few hours grinding out text in front of the keyboard wouldn’t hurt.

Now for the great debate activities the summer brings.

First there are two amazing community outreach opportunities that I am working on. I expect to post something here in a few days announcing one of them, and the other is just in the early stages of exploration. Both represent fantastic service-learning opportunities for debate students as well as personal teaching challenges for me.

Secondly, I have invested some grant money in an amazing web conferencing program called Adobe Connect, and hope to use that for summer practice and meetings. The idea of working on debate competition practice without leaving my apartment, or arriving at my apartment super late is definitely attractive.

Finally, I have signed up for most every electronic/teaching workshop I could find on campus and I hope they can teach me something. I hope to integrate more technology into my debate teaching in the fall.

That’s where I am this morning as we prepare to launch the summer. The official launch date, as I see it, will be Monday, when my office will be closed off from me for the whole summer, graduation will be over, and I’ll have few responsibilities on campus. Until then I think it’s time for some relaxation!