What gives? I am reading Deliberative Democratic Theory for the first time – never really been much of one to have faith in democracy other than a rhetorical commonplace that really comes in handy – perhaps more than any other commonplace out there, even family (Sorry Vin Diesel). But this is some good stuff. It’s making me think that our Constitution in the United States won’t survive, since it – like deliberative democracy – is founded on the assumption that a particular kind and a particular intensity of literacy will be a given, a priori status. This is not the case. Perhaps this is the true security threat from social media, not the Chinese government.

Anyway for a bunch of people who bray and yap without pause about rights, freedom, liberty, and oppression, NCA rhetoricians who come from a debate background don’t really mention or even cite generally any deliberative democratic theory. I’m kind of surprised (but not really). Maybe it is because this stuff wasn’t really out and circulating when debate publishing was at it’s peak (I’m saying this is the early 1980s but you can disagree). It could also be the repeated pattern we see in NCA work where people don’t cite anything other than the popular and accepted sources. The NCA folks are nothing but trendy, all racing toward whatever the popular source is for their work. The funniest moment of this for me was a paper on Buddhist monastic debate pedagogy I wrote with a Buddhist Priest and submitted only to have it rejected because it didn’t include Heidegger. This is funny for so many reasons but tragic for the stand-out reason: People who volunteer to review are somewhere between cops and authoritarians, decrying people like Trump while enjoying enforcement of the “social norms” of NCA on submitted papers.

Deliberative democratic theory has the potential to rewrite debate pedagogy I’m thinking. It’s pretty incredible, and would solve a lot of the issues that contemporary NCA debate faces: Cost, tournament norms, high level of entry, lack of judges – the list goes on. What it seems to do (and I’m not going to say too much in particular as we are submitting this idea to Alta) is recenter the practice and pedagogy of debate on the idea of the second persona instead of some abstract, technical “rules” of debate arguments. Who cares if you link if the people believe it? Studying the reception not the accuracy of transmission is a turn in rhetoric that happened in the 1970s. We should stop ignoring it and start teaching it maybe.