The New York Sophist

Why do I feel that coming to an event like this, ostensibly only about debating, do I find more people interested in my research and interested in my writing than I found among the professors in my field that I studied with in graduate school?

Why is it that “the choice” – that you have to either become a debate coach OR a scholar, seem so incredibly silly when I am at these events? 


Perhaps it’s because that NCA or field of rhetoric “old guard” who assume debate is for immature thinkers to gain maturity, or for students to be introduced to rhetorical or communication theory, but after that it really is for those malformed thinkers that could have been scholars, but failed/chose not too/couldn’t cut it, are not present, and would never be present at an event that centers around teenage students, high school students, or beginning undergraduates. If this is true, how do you persuade these reviewers that debate, as a practice, as a living thing, is just as valuable as the discourse of Mitt Romney for the study of rhetoric? Does pointing at how English Composition departments are ahead of us in this respect help?


Why is it so clear that there is a field-wide bias against debate in the scholarship of the field of rhetoric, mostly perpetuated by senior scholars who either practiced debate as an undergraduate, or perhaps couldn’t “cut it” as debaters, like the negativity I experienced toward debating as an undergraduate from particular scholars in my rhetoric department at that time?

Flipping the classroom is a popular idea in teaching right now. Could debate serve as a place which we can innovate, as it traditionally has in the field of rhetoric, by flipping the scholarship of the field in an analogous way? Imagine journals containing the narratives of experiential learning from debaters that are explored in the 50 minutes of your University class for connections or disruptions to theories that often take on no more reality for students than that of a spectral powerpoint slide?

How do you persuade scholars of argument that they have the best living laboratory in which to workshop ideas, test theories, and explore the limits of propositional argumentation as an idea every weekend at a campus near them?

I’ve been thinking about how to re-create (recreate?) my public speaking class. Like a computer, public speaking gets slow, frustrating, and doesn’t help you produce anything good unless you reformat it and do a clean install of the operating system from time to time.

This essay is really full of great ideas to teach it. The thing I thought of after reading it was how to craft an assignment centered around kairos. “Trolling,” as discussed in the link, is a good idea, but what about campus issues? How was this taught in ancient times? I think a more homogeneous culture, like Athens, would have a lot more agreement on what constitutes opportunity wrapped in timing (timing wrapped in opportunity?) compared to our society.

If it can be engineered, how about an assignment that has them link up something happening in the news, or something controversial, to something they think is important. Crafting those links rhetorically takes a lot of skill and practice. Perhaps the public speaking class is the place to do that.

I’ve been thinking about how to re-create (recreate?) my public speaking class. Like a computer, public speaking gets slow, frustrating, and doesn’t help you produce anything good unless you reformat it and do a clean install of the operating system from time to time.

This essay is really full of great ideas to teach it. The thing I thought of after reading it was how to craft an assignment centered around kairos. “Trolling,” as discussed in the link, is a good idea, but what about campus issues? How was this taught in ancient times? I think a more homogeneous culture, like Athens, would have a lot more agreement on what constitutes opportunity wrapped in timing (timing wrapped in opportunity?) compared to our society.

If it can be engineered, how about an assignment that has them link up something happening in the news, or something controversial, to something they think is important. Crafting those links rhetorically takes a lot of skill and practice. Perhaps the public speaking class is the place to do that.

Lama Tsony on Crazy Wisdom

Crazy Wisdom is a new film about the life of Chogyam Trunga. I like this piece from Tricycle because of the metaphor – “he embodied a quality of fearlessness that was like licking honey off a razor blade.”


Getting the best out of a precarious and harmful situation – what a great image for it. My question now is, can this be taught? What would the Rinpoches say about teaching this? Is it an effect of Enlightenment, or a cause? Perhaps neither – perhaps it’s a rhetorical dimension necessary to recognize one as Enlightened.


Buddhists don’t like to talk about rhetoric, per se, they do like to talk about “right speech,” one of the precepts given by the Buddha. Right speech can and should include rhetoric. I’m certain it happens in Buddhist pedagogy, and has always happened. I think it’s a lot more overt than we might suspect. I think there’s some fertile ground for research here.


For practice, how does one teach the debate student to perform argumentation this way? How do you lick the honey from the razor’s edge? Sounds like a question of style to me. And a question of many hours of difficult practice.

Lama Tsony on Crazy Wisdom

Crazy Wisdom is a new film about the life of Chogyam Trunga. I like this piece from Tricycle because of the metaphor – “he embodied a quality of fearlessness that was like licking honey off a razor blade.”


Getting the best out of a precarious and harmful situation – what a great image for it. My question now is, can this be taught? What would the Rinpoches say about teaching this? Is it an effect of Enlightenment, or a cause? Perhaps neither – perhaps it’s a rhetorical dimension necessary to recognize one as Enlightened.


Buddhists don’t like to talk about rhetoric, per se, they do like to talk about “right speech,” one of the precepts given by the Buddha. Right speech can and should include rhetoric. I’m certain it happens in Buddhist pedagogy, and has always happened. I think it’s a lot more overt than we might suspect. I think there’s some fertile ground for research here.


For practice, how does one teach the debate student to perform argumentation this way? How do you lick the honey from the razor’s edge? Sounds like a question of style to me. And a question of many hours of difficult practice.