Thursday, July 09, 2009

PF 2009 Part 5

Debate is debate. I think we can easily make the mistake that different kinds of debate are more different than they actually are. Their forms and structures may be slightly different, and their content may be radically different, but their underlying essence is identical. In a debate, we are trying to convince someone of something. In academic debate, we have rules to guide how we do that convincing. But in the end, it’s all about the convincing.

The unfortunate tribalism of high school forensics asserts that whichever activity the group is participating in is the best, and all the rest are less than the best. This is no different from supporting one’s football team or baseball team as the best, not because they win all the time, but because there is some inherent aspect of that particular team that just makes them better in the eyes of the beholder. It is all entirely arbitrary. There is no more reason to root for the Mets than to root for the Yankees unless one is to judge them entirely on win/loss record, which is not how fans become fans. Fans identify with something about their team, and then the fanaticism sets in, the word fan of course being derived from the word fanatic. At least the high school forensician is a part of the group that he or she is hailing as the best; since none of the Mets or Yankees fans I know are actually either Mets or Yankees, their commitment is beyond my understanding. But my inability to identify with sports fans is not the point here. The point is that, if you’re a Polician, you think Policy is the best, and you look down on LDers. LDers used to have to do their sneering at Speecho-Americans (who have their own hierarchies), but now that PF is around, LDers get to look down at Pfffters. The VCA knows that I personally feel that all forensics activities are valuable, and I have argued that at great length in the past, so I won’t repeat it here. But PF, because it is new, probably has to work the hardest to get any respect. LD used to be the upstart, but after 30 years or so that’s really not the case anymore. But on the other hand, most coaches today recall not too long ago the birthing pains of PF, its various name changes and the like, and some of us have yet to accept it as a full-blooded activity in its own right.

The students, however, know little or none of this. PF has been around long enough now that no student recalls from firsthand experience any of those birthing pains. The name Ted Turner rings no bells whatsoever. PF is, simply, PF. (By the way, a lot of what I’m saying here has been said by others, but I can’t cite who because it was a while ago and I’ve internalized it. Feel free to step forth if you’ve said it first.) But that doesn’t mean that PF doesn’t get a bum rap as the new kid on the block. It’s the newness that’s the problem. Any new kid will feel the heat.

I think that a lot of LD coaches may, no matter how much we wish to treat PF as an equal activity, come to it initially as Debate Lite. I say this not to accuse others but to accuse myself. Even the cursory lecture I gave on PF, which is about all I had to say on the subject, treated it as if it were a piece of cake once one had mastered the art of LD. But giving myself over to some serious study of the activity, including judging hither and yon for a while, has convinced me of what I instinctively knew but was denying, that PF is complete, and, done well, it’s hard. It isn’t “lite” anything. It’s PF. It’s debate. It’s good stuff.

But as I began, all debate at some point is, still, debate. It’s about convincing people that your side is right and the other side is wrong.

And I still haven’t gotten around to the specifics of applying LD to PF. Okay, next time. I promise that maybe next time I’ll get down to it.

You can take that to the bank.

No comments: