Debate camp in the United States was a
large mainstay for many years. It still continues, mostly in edited
form, across the country. The major reason that debate camps dried up
in the early 2000s was mostly due to funding. When schools no longer
have the money to subsidize attendance at debating summer camps, they
are unable to run.
large mainstay for many years. It still continues, mostly in edited
form, across the country. The major reason that debate camps dried up
in the early 2000s was mostly due to funding. When schools no longer
have the money to subsidize attendance at debating summer camps, they
are unable to run.
Another factor is the university’s
endless quest for revenue streams. Seeing summer camp as a way to
supplement dwindling revenues, dorm rental rates and room rentals for
summer camp activities are just a couple of ways the university
attempts to supplement themselves at the cost of the debate camp’s
margin. Paying good faculty for time and travel are essential.
endless quest for revenue streams. Seeing summer camp as a way to
supplement dwindling revenues, dorm rental rates and room rentals for
summer camp activities are just a couple of ways the university
attempts to supplement themselves at the cost of the debate camp’s
margin. Paying good faculty for time and travel are essential.
Even given these barriers, there are
still a number of debating summer camps in operation. Sometimes they
are referred to as debate institutes, or debate summer institutes.
still a number of debating summer camps in operation. Sometimes they
are referred to as debate institutes, or debate summer institutes.
This title doesn’t really work for most
of them. I believe they should be called debate format summer
institutes. The scope of what they instruct and practice rarely
skirts beyond the ideology of a particular format of debating, used
soley at tournament competitions at a limited selection of
universities on a few weekends a year. Hardly something worth
spending thousands of dollars of travel and fees.
of them. I believe they should be called debate format summer
institutes. The scope of what they instruct and practice rarely
skirts beyond the ideology of a particular format of debating, used
soley at tournament competitions at a limited selection of
universities on a few weekends a year. Hardly something worth
spending thousands of dollars of travel and fees.
If debate institutes would focus on the
idea of being a debate summer institute, most universities could host
a thriving and valuable summer camp experience for a much larger
number of students, engaging them intellectually in ways that their
schooling fails. Debate is a much broader concept, intersecting
almost all disciplines at the university, as well as public policy
and civic life. Exploration of the nature of debate, from invention
to delivery to critique and response of audience is something worth
spending a large amount of money and time to study. Here’s how
current debate format summer institutes could alter their practices
very simply in order to access this:
idea of being a debate summer institute, most universities could host
a thriving and valuable summer camp experience for a much larger
number of students, engaging them intellectually in ways that their
schooling fails. Debate is a much broader concept, intersecting
almost all disciplines at the university, as well as public policy
and civic life. Exploration of the nature of debate, from invention
to delivery to critique and response of audience is something worth
spending a large amount of money and time to study. Here’s how
current debate format summer institutes could alter their practices
very simply in order to access this:
Replace Debate Coaches with
Subject Matter Experts
Subject Matter Experts
Too often the debate format ideology
believes that once something becomes a debate topic, a debate expert
is all you need in order to teach the controversy and clash
surrounding the issue or issues. This leads to terrible instruction,
as I recently saw in a high school topic lecture on YouTube at a
major summer debate format institute. Since these are university
hosted and sponsored events, why not ask faculty from the relevant
schools to give short talks on the state of the debate within the
field? These would be much more dynamic and much more engaging than
what passes now. As I witnessed, the lecturer, an assistant debate
coach, suggested that if the people attending his topic lecture
wanted to learn more about the topic, they could read Wikipedia
articles. Debate coaches are experts on format, for better or worse,
and they should defer to actual subject matter experts in these
situations. Debate coaches usually know little about the topic, but do know how to research it. Giving students access to this distinction by providing the contrast between the scholar of the issue and the debate approach only makes the student more savvy on the question of how to engage multiple audiences.
believes that once something becomes a debate topic, a debate expert
is all you need in order to teach the controversy and clash
surrounding the issue or issues. This leads to terrible instruction,
as I recently saw in a high school topic lecture on YouTube at a
major summer debate format institute. Since these are university
hosted and sponsored events, why not ask faculty from the relevant
schools to give short talks on the state of the debate within the
field? These would be much more dynamic and much more engaging than
what passes now. As I witnessed, the lecturer, an assistant debate
coach, suggested that if the people attending his topic lecture
wanted to learn more about the topic, they could read Wikipedia
articles. Debate coaches are experts on format, for better or worse,
and they should defer to actual subject matter experts in these
situations. Debate coaches usually know little about the topic, but do know how to research it. Giving students access to this distinction by providing the contrast between the scholar of the issue and the debate approach only makes the student more savvy on the question of how to engage multiple audiences.
Stop Having Camp Tournaments
Tournaments tend to attract more
attention and investment than they are worth. Their very presence in
the near future tends to trump the direction and focus of debate
work, ensuring that most students are interested in working to
defeat the teams that they have identified as threatening. This
limits the aim and the scope of research and argument development to
a very narrow band use. One or two uses, and the argument as served
its purpose. Contrast this with a debate camp that considers its aim
to be engagement with the public on controversies that have no clear
solution in sight. The research and development of arguments become
long-term, much more so than the camp tournament or the trope “You
will be able to use these arguments in September at the first
tournament.” Tournament debating is fun, but it isn’t debating. It
is actually restrictive and amimetic to argumentation conducted in
the public. Without a tournament to turn the focus of the students
toward one another within the small community of the institute,
which audiences will you choose to have the students address? What
are the limits of such an intense summer experience? This goes a bit
beyond the “side-effect” argument most debate coaches make –
that participation in frequent, intense tournament experiences
create people willing and able to engage the public. I would say
first, it is not true nor-supported that this happens. Usually one
creates people who want to hang around the debate community due to
their ethos there and the comfortable familiarity of the discourse.
Secondly, cut out the middleman. It’s bad to take a drug for the
side-effects. Here we have the option of engaging the issues
directly. Why wouldn’t we?
attention and investment than they are worth. Their very presence in
the near future tends to trump the direction and focus of debate
work, ensuring that most students are interested in working to
defeat the teams that they have identified as threatening. This
limits the aim and the scope of research and argument development to
a very narrow band use. One or two uses, and the argument as served
its purpose. Contrast this with a debate camp that considers its aim
to be engagement with the public on controversies that have no clear
solution in sight. The research and development of arguments become
long-term, much more so than the camp tournament or the trope “You
will be able to use these arguments in September at the first
tournament.” Tournament debating is fun, but it isn’t debating. It
is actually restrictive and amimetic to argumentation conducted in
the public. Without a tournament to turn the focus of the students
toward one another within the small community of the institute,
which audiences will you choose to have the students address? What
are the limits of such an intense summer experience? This goes a bit
beyond the “side-effect” argument most debate coaches make –
that participation in frequent, intense tournament experiences
create people willing and able to engage the public. I would say
first, it is not true nor-supported that this happens. Usually one
creates people who want to hang around the debate community due to
their ethos there and the comfortable familiarity of the discourse.
Secondly, cut out the middleman. It’s bad to take a drug for the
side-effects. Here we have the option of engaging the issues
directly. Why wouldn’t we?
Engage the Public
Most of the
university community has no idea that a debate summer institute is
happening on their campus. A few events where students and
instructors debate for the university faculty and students about
issues facing the campus and community would go a long way to
including the surrounding population. Often, the university’s work
is critiqued as being an ivory tower, isolated and cut off from
public utility. Debate format institutes are doubly so, cutting
themselves off even from the ivory tower institution. Inclusion not
only sparks curiosity and excitement that such an event is taking
place on the campus, it allows the participants to interact with
people from varied backgrounds and varied viewpoints – well beyond
the ideology of debate format, which would be 100% of the
instructors and audiences for the debates they currently have –
expanding their thought process about adaptation, persuasion,
evidence, proof, and of course, argument.
university community has no idea that a debate summer institute is
happening on their campus. A few events where students and
instructors debate for the university faculty and students about
issues facing the campus and community would go a long way to
including the surrounding population. Often, the university’s work
is critiqued as being an ivory tower, isolated and cut off from
public utility. Debate format institutes are doubly so, cutting
themselves off even from the ivory tower institution. Inclusion not
only sparks curiosity and excitement that such an event is taking
place on the campus, it allows the participants to interact with
people from varied backgrounds and varied viewpoints – well beyond
the ideology of debate format, which would be 100% of the
instructors and audiences for the debates they currently have –
expanding their thought process about adaptation, persuasion,
evidence, proof, and of course, argument.
Teach Rhetorical and
Argumentation Theories
Argumentation Theories
The subject
matter experts that are closest to home for the debate coach are
rhetorical and argumentation theory. Most have encountered it, read
it, or written a master’s thesis on it. As for the other portion of
instructors – those who have tournament success – they might
have it via their undergraduate work, or by virtue that they were
introduced to it by their coach. Either way, the access here is much
easier to obtain. Teaching theories of rhetoric and argumentation
give students interesting frames from which to approach
argumentation beyond the over-simplistic and incorrectly taught
Toulmin model, which dominates debate format camp instruction. As an
alternative, the use of contemporary argumentation and rhetorical
theory in lectures to address the topic, the potential arguments, or
key elements of a debate would push students into thinking more
creatively about what they are crafting in the workshops, pushing
the material in ways that could go beyond the traditional, “No,
don’t write that, it won’t win” pedagogy we so often see at debate
format camps.
matter experts that are closest to home for the debate coach are
rhetorical and argumentation theory. Most have encountered it, read
it, or written a master’s thesis on it. As for the other portion of
instructors – those who have tournament success – they might
have it via their undergraduate work, or by virtue that they were
introduced to it by their coach. Either way, the access here is much
easier to obtain. Teaching theories of rhetoric and argumentation
give students interesting frames from which to approach
argumentation beyond the over-simplistic and incorrectly taught
Toulmin model, which dominates debate format camp instruction. As an
alternative, the use of contemporary argumentation and rhetorical
theory in lectures to address the topic, the potential arguments, or
key elements of a debate would push students into thinking more
creatively about what they are crafting in the workshops, pushing
the material in ways that could go beyond the traditional, “No,
don’t write that, it won’t win” pedagogy we so often see at debate
format camps.
Publish The Product
Debate format
camps are experimenting with YouTube, clearly unaware of how it
might expose them to criticism of the quality and nature of their
instruction at the debate format camp. They are okay however –
modern debating has been rendered so irrelevant to the public that
the only people who would watch a topic lecture suggesting reading
Wikipedia to learn more about the topic would be the format
entrenched crowd. A debate camp, in contrast, would work to publish,
either through video, blog, webcast, or print – the work that the
students accomplished. This is a public intervention as opposed to a
battle chest of cut cards, or a cache of possible strategies to
unleash in September upon the uninitiated in round 1 and 2 of a
local tournament. This is practice in intervention in public,
intellectual affairs. What sort of product will both convey the
value and the power of what we work on here? What would be
intelligible to someone who has not been to a debate tournament? And
what was the value-added to my writing and speaking that this
institute provided? A good product would answer all of these
questions in an engaging manner meant to sustain general audience
attention. And it would cause the audience to wonder, “Does my
university do this? Does my child have access to this? Perhaps they
should!” – which is the best ally debating could have in the world
of dwindling public funding for intellectual pursuits.
camps are experimenting with YouTube, clearly unaware of how it
might expose them to criticism of the quality and nature of their
instruction at the debate format camp. They are okay however –
modern debating has been rendered so irrelevant to the public that
the only people who would watch a topic lecture suggesting reading
Wikipedia to learn more about the topic would be the format
entrenched crowd. A debate camp, in contrast, would work to publish,
either through video, blog, webcast, or print – the work that the
students accomplished. This is a public intervention as opposed to a
battle chest of cut cards, or a cache of possible strategies to
unleash in September upon the uninitiated in round 1 and 2 of a
local tournament. This is practice in intervention in public,
intellectual affairs. What sort of product will both convey the
value and the power of what we work on here? What would be
intelligible to someone who has not been to a debate tournament? And
what was the value-added to my writing and speaking that this
institute provided? A good product would answer all of these
questions in an engaging manner meant to sustain general audience
attention. And it would cause the audience to wonder, “Does my
university do this? Does my child have access to this? Perhaps they
should!” – which is the best ally debating could have in the world
of dwindling public funding for intellectual pursuits.