Every debate tells a story

That's one of my favorite subjects, the narrative of a debate round, and we talked about it last night. Or more to the point, I sort of croaked on about it in a jet-legged hoarse voice and people were either entirely asleep or entirely rapt or entirely wondering when I was going to stop so they could get the hell out of there. I am reminded of Ewok's comment that if I were a regular teacher, the students would think I was a you-know-what (that seven-letter A word that, no, is not "arrogant," if you needed any further indication that math is not among the top skills of the legendary Sailors). Of course, he pegs it on the smarter/funnier line, but I digress.

A debate round is definitely a story. It is peopled by characters, and one must do one's best to establish oneself quickly as the hero of one's tale. We talked about how to do that. But the real story is the narrative of the round itself. It begins with exposition (although, as a dinosaur, I think beginning with an epigram is a good idea; hell, M. Dick begins with umpty-ump point three of them!), i.e., definitions plus a quick explanation of what the story will be about (I am going to achieve such and such a goal, and this is how I shall go about doing it, AKA values and criteria). Then the story begins. The debater who at any time in a constructive forgets the narrative of the quest for the value and wanders off on some other subject, Shandy-like (I'm still irritated that Termite thinks you can see the movie of TS and that this will somehow be the equivalent of reading the book, but I digress), is losing track of the story. The audience, the judge, loves a good story, and loves good story-telling. Milk that for all its worth.

The negative, of course, has his or her own story, which begins in previews during CX. Nothing like a little teaser, eh? Then on to telling a counter story, again with a statement first of the aim of the quest, then on to the quest itself.

In the refutations, of course, the art of story-telling matures. You have to pick and choose what to emphasize and what to de-emphasize. Sometimes there's just basic business that has to be dispensed with, arguments that no one ever wins, and then there's the arguments you think you can win on your side. A good storyteller concentrates on those arguments, because those will ultimately make the best story. In the 1AR, the aff does likewise. Then, of course, in the NR, neg does it again.

Which leads to crystallization. The presentation of the voting issues is, in fact, a reiteration of the story. You show how your side of the story is the correct one. You do this by going back to the beginning (the constructives) and drawing a line from there through the refutations out to the end, and the achievement of your quest/goal/value through the struggle of your criterion. Don't tell me it happened, show me how it happened.

High drama indeed!

And all of it is predicated on certain ideas that are always true. Certain ways to present. Certain ways to pick up all judges, not just the [fill in the blank] judges. The need to break when you're down two, which can only be done with high speaker points, which rely on great story-telling.

Speaking of which, some yabbo called me up yesterday claiming that he was trying to write an article on debate. We chatted amiably for a while (or, more accurately, I alluded to the burial places of a number of forensic bodies while his call-waiting kept clanking and he surfed porn sites or something) and I invited him to this and that event coming up. I did start a book once on debate, but I got side-tracked. By debate. I might go back to it some day, using this blog as notes (unless someone like the Nostrumite steals all these notes and writes a book himself, the dog!). But I'd like to see an interesting article or something now, especially since LD is in what seems to be a crisis mode. The journalist in question seemed to want to write about policy, for some godawful reason, so I told him that Grands would be his ticket there, but my guess is that, if he has any sanity whatsoever, 10 minutes of polician speed will send him screaming into a nice warm LD round with three parent judges and a partridge in a pair tree and all like-a that, as me grandmother used to say.

Outstanding issues:
Whatever happened to LDEP? I'll write the ps that be and find out.
The Modest Novice? I'll talk to Eric next weekend about that. The Manhattan territory is the last buy-in that is absolutely essential.
Nostrumite, Junior? If you can count (quick, how many letters in "arrogant") you'll know that the lad's little dividend is coming up any minute now. Nothing yet, is the word from Tennessee Williams High School, where the entire team is atwitter. (We've got a twitter or two on our team, but that's another subject entirely.)

And I keep coming back to this. A MOVIE IS NOT A BOOK. In our school district, it is not unusual for English teachers to screen films of the book assignments. I realize that. But I loathe it. This is like showing paintings of flowers in a botany class instead of the real thing. I like Monet, yeah, but the poppies seen from a real plant and maybe a microsope are not about the play of light on the pond at Giverny!

Jeesh.