9 Issues Facing the Lincoln Douglas Community

A long time ago I promised to comment on an article Bietz wrote for Nostrum Rostrum that had the same title as this post. As always, the Bard of Harvard-Westlake has his finger on the pulse, but also as always, writing for Rostrum doesn’t seem to generate much heat in the community. But the issues he raises are important, and one of them, the first, has been underscored over the last week or two by me and CP, to wit, “a lack of discussion by coaches.”

The online discussion that CP and I conducted regarding computers in Extemp led to explorations into many aspects of that activity. Given that my own arena is primarily LD, I admittedly didn’t know that much about Extemp, but I have always enjoyed what I’ve seen of it. Personally, I am not what you would call a news junkie. I’m more like a social newsie. I like knowing what’s going on, but politics and current events, while of interest, is not the air the that I breathe. My specific interests tend to trend to the arts and technology; I am, after all, a professional book editor with a literary background, a published author of both fiction and computer how-to (back when computers where one step up from a plug-in abacus), a gadget nut, a decent enough amateur musician, etc. But I can still enjoy a good Extemp speech because I like it when someone explains something to me in a good way, especially if I don’t know anything about that something, or only a little bit. Good Extemp speeches seem to be able to do that, so my attention is held not because I am being paid forced by social pressure to judge the round, but because I’m enjoying what I’m hearing. I’m weak on knowing exactly what the paradigm is for evaluation, but from reading CP I gather I’m on the right track. Anyhow, I enjoyed our discussion immensely. First, I learned a lot. Second, I was able to take that information and change my opinion that had generated the discussion in the first place. This strikes me a lot like a Hegelian dialectic. The exchange of thesis/antithesis led to synthesis, a new idea that was closer to the truth than our starting point.

But my opinions on computers in rounds are not the only thing that I have ever written that is, to put it mildly, controversial. I’ve got opinions on a lot of things and, short of causing personal offense or invasions of privacy or simply bad spirit, I am not averse to sharing them. I do not, however, believe that they are inevitably correct, and, further, I am always happy to improve on them. I like a good argument. I am, after all, a debate coach.

Now, I know that this blog is pretty well read around the country. I see the readership statistics. I know that whenever I start a conversation with someone, they tell me that they already knew that because they read it in my blog. (The exceptions to this are the Sailors, who can’t be bothered, and my wife, who can’t be bothered, and rightly so, at a level that puts the Sailors to shame; if she were a member of the VCA, we’d have nothing to talk about until 2017, if then.) And these people are, often, debate coaches who, presumably, enjoy a good argument. Yet, for the most part, they never comment on what I say, no matter how controversial what I’m saying may be. Now I could conclude that they all simply agree with me, but that’s bloody unlikely. And they don’t have blogs of their own as CP does in which to respond at length. So I’ve got to wonder, what’s the problem here? Why aren’t we arguing more, in the shared belief that discussion/dialogue will lead to a better activity?

CP’s 4/21 post addresses these questions. Why aren’t we sharing opinions? Why aren’t coaches talking about stuff? And, given the nature of coaching, geography and the internet, why aren’t we doing it online? Bietz, in his article, suggests that there should be gatherings of the coachean tribes at tournaments, but meetings don’t just automatically become meaningful. They need agendas and leadership, otherwise they’re just socializing (which is not a bad thing, but not the same thing). And given the nature of most tournaments, with coaches judging, there isn’t all that much of an opportunity.

I think that we need to develop the online community, because it’s a viable concept (there’s online communities for everything else, after all) and a necessary one. There are a lot of debate coaches in the country, with experience and wisdom to share, and short of personal connections, they’re keeping it to themselves, in a universe where that makes absolutely no sense, for an activity for which it makes absolutely no sense. Remarkable?

Solution? I don’t know. Maybe we all just need to sign up for a Facebook group or something. I hesitate to suggest forcing people to address some potentially new and foreign technology beyond that level. I also hesitate to suggest that it be done through the auspices of the NFL, because that body has its own agenda, and although they are certainly supportive of coaches, their focus is, well, the NFL. Does that just leave NDCA?

If so, a couple of things. First, screw membership fees. Not happening. I already spend too much money on NFL. I can’t afford tournaments. Another annual dues is a non-starter. Second, move away from the list-server. I’m getting NDCA digests now, which are, primarily, lists of the people who are on the list-server. Jeesh. And often the discussion is irrelevant to me, and irrelevant discussion is something I don’t need more of in my life. I don’t want to say that list-servers are sooooo 1999, but they’re so…1999. What can I say? Third, isn’t Bietz involved in that august body??? There’s hope there.

Meanwhile, I wish there were more arguments at this location. Feel free to disagree with me. Your opinion will be respected. Not necessarily agreed with, but respected. And if you think your opinion is worth something, why wouldn’t you want it broadcast? We’ll all learn something from it. Or at least I will. That’s good enough for me.