Debatable debate

Over the last week, I've been attending two separate workshops on policy debate, which I coach. I agreed to coach having had absolutely no previous experience in policy debate. I did not do it in high school or college.

Imagine Helen Keller trying to teach Peyton Manning how to read a defense.

I found out very quickly that there is an amount of turmoil within the debate community over different styles of debate. One thing to know about policy debate is that the only rules are the time limits for speeches and cross examination. Everything else has been decided by tradition.

One style of debate is often referred to as "traditional." In the traditional style, speaking ability and real-world arguments are important. Your ultimate goal is to persuade the judge that your position is the best position in the round using evidence you have researched.

The other style has evolved from this and has become known as "k" debate, or "kritik" debate, meaning "critique." This style is a bit...out there.

You see, it used to be that the people who judged debate rounds were community members who knew absolutely nothing about debate. You had to persuade 80-year old grandmothers that the Cuban embargo should be lifted, and it was your job to make certain that she understood you perfectly.

Over the years, however, the people judging the rounds have more and more often been people who have participated in debate before. These judges already KNOW most of the arguments that you could and will make in the round and they get bored easily. To fight this, debaters started speaking more quickly and cramming in more and more arguments that the other team HAS to answer, otherwise they lose. If you were to watch a debate at the national college championships, you're likely not going to understand much of what they're saying if you haven't participated in debate before just because they're speaking lightning fast.

In addition to using speed debate, there has also been a move towards what has been called "kritik" debate, or K debate. This style uses arguments that challenge a very basic assumption that has been made in the round, meaning often you end up not even discussing the topic. For example, a negative team might respond to your plan to increase transportation infrastructure by arguing that capitalism and capitalist thinking is inherently evil, and is at the root of all our problems, including our transportation problems, meaning you should reject the resolution, meaning you reject the opposing team, meaning the judge should support you. This argument is called a "Cap K" or "capitalism kritik."

So coaches at the high school level have split. Many coaches feel that kritik's only help critical thinking skills and that the speed of the activity force debaters to compete at a high level.

Others who are in favor of the traditional style argue that K debate and speed are bad because it makes the activity less accessible. It is much more difficult to judge a speed and k debate than a traditional one because presentation is completely thrown out the window. You have to have prior experience and certain skills in order to effectively judge it. This causes many outsiders to gain a negative view of the activity and lowers support from the community.

This is actually exactly what happened at my alma mater, Fort Hays State University when the debate coach exposed his butt (still covered in underwear) to a room full of people in the middle of a shouting match with another coach. An investigation supposedly "revealed" the state of debate at the college level and resulted in the entire program being shut down.

I'm figuring out where I fit in on this issue. On one level, the speed debate DOES require students to have much more agility thinking on their feet than traditional style. It also has a greater focus on the IDEAS presented in a round rather than the speaking skills. Sometimes a team that can speak well will win a round despite having the worse arguments. In my opinion, the team that makes the better arguments should win the round, regardless of how well they spoke.

At the same time though, the skills that need to be stressed are the presentation skills. We live in a society where the one who is the most persuasive will be the one to set policies for everyone else. Having the good ideas AND being the better speaker is definitely ideal.

You wouldn't think these issues would impact what you do as a coach a whole lot, but they influence everything from the tournaments you compete in to the cases you choose. By the time I get some more experience under my belt, hopefully I'll have a good sense for where I stand on it. For now, I'm finding answers to assertions that my team's perpetuating sexism, racism, capitalism, or some other -ism. Gotta prepare for debate...maybe then I'll catch de-fish. .... tee-hee.

I'm a dork.