The first debate event occurred over a weekend at a university. The directors of multiple debate programs met in person and online to discuss the year ahead.
The first day was about “equity,” a policy of discipline necessary at competitions where fairness matters more than anything. Since the debate event is organized around the idea of a zero-sum game, where there are winners and losers, and people advance to “quarterfinals” and such, people who use terms or attitudes that offend others must be dealt with in the terms of the competition. It’s not possible to determine a winner if someone cannot argue because they are under duress from being offended.
Of course, this is only an issue if you want to have zero-sum competitions in a tournament modality. But the first day was tiring, and there was no energy or time for the debate directors to discuss creativity, imagination, or different approaches. In fact, it was assumed that “tournament” is a synonym with “debate.”
A second debate event occurred that was attended by 5 people in a public space in midtown Manhattan. The call was put out by the host for anyone who wanted to debate to appear. They did. After some general chat, there was discussion about debating the topic of self-determination movements in Hawaii. Although little was known about it between the attendees, they agreed to debate it. But first they had to settle a prior question: Was this venue too cold? The weather was nice; maybe we should debate outside? The group discussed it and relocated to a table in Rockefeller center.
The second day at the first event was about scheduling and some suggestions of variations of tournaments that could be had. There was discussion of what book would be required reading for the tournaments and when the events would happen. The scheduling conversation was very important and was mentioned many times as a way to move beyond discussion of tournament variation (which was minimal). There was no time for discussion of questions like: What is a debate? What should debate look like? What is evidence? What do we want debate to be? What would we like debate to create/produce/result in? Some people who attended do not teach debate or argumentation at all and others have no interest in teaching it. They want experiences. Some attendees didn’t care about the topic or the book that would be the required “source” for the events but did express how special it would be to be with students in historically important sites on nationally marked days. Whether the debates are discussed as they take in the sites of Atlanta or Paris, was, unfortunately not discussed. After all, there’s a schedule of events to plan.
At the second event, the debate was over in less than an hour and led to a conversation about what arguments are and what evidence is. Of course, such a conversation cannot be solved and requires continuous conversation within a context. This appears frustrating at first, however any conversation about these things – including what a debate might look like or should look like, and what rules there should be and why – is vitally pedagogically important. Such discussions bring to mind questions about concepts that masquerade as set quantities. A debate is a rather obvious thing if you don’t ask after it too much – or have a set of tournament rules and procedures that you teach instead of creative thinking.
One of these debate events is mired in the dead thinking of higher education, an industry that will not be with us much longer with its bloated fees, wasteful requirements, and egoists posing as teachers. The other, imbedded where it can be found, in public and for the public, reaches out with the structure of debate and the process of debate as the minimalistic way in for a deeper conversation about what counts and what should count in terms of debate. One is preparation for the future, the other is an under-attended celebration of the past.
Public involved, facing, and community-oriented events are an obvious better use of the time, salaries, and resources given to debate programs now. Instead of curating events for people interested in debate, events should be created by the university toward communities to get them interested – and more importantly thinking – about what debate is and what their relationship is to it.
These two events for me represent a gap in thinking, one that is quite dangerous when we think of what’s needed for the future. The university has the capability and the resources to dig deep and reach far. However attention will not come from above. It has to come from those who strongly believe that the role debate and argument have in our lives and the lives to come is much more significant than a weekend away spent striving to participate in the quarterfinals.