SkyHigh JV vs JediAcad OC

I can't remember where it was, but my favorite headline when Jacques Derrida did what the Old Baudleroo just did was as follows:
Jacques Derrida "dies"

Anyhow, I’m mildly taken by the reprinted Rostrum article on computers in LD that WTF posted recently. They didn’t get a lot of takers with commentary, last time I checked. One or two brilliant collegiates attacked the grammar or each other or something similarly idiotic, which was enough to stop any meaningful discussion dead in its tracks. One does wish these wondermites would go off and lead a college life and allow the rest of us to go about our business unmolested.

There’s really two big issues that the article touches on, and one is problematic and the other is waggy (as in wild-assed-guess) futurism, or at least leading to waggy futurism. The problematic one is the use of PCs in rounds if the rounds are what they already are. That is, we do nothing but allow people to bring in their laptops. I have nothing against this in theory, provided one bans communications. It is unethical to buzz a classmate for help during a solo competition, regardless of how one does the buzzing. A text message on a cell, an IM, a quick trip ostensibly to the bathroom but instead to a teammate during prep—they’re all the same, and no one is arguing that they are not taboo. PCs would make it easier, of course, but honorable behavior is honorable behavior, and I’m willing to make a presumption for honorability ruling the day. I would have no restriction, though, on, say, Googling. If you want to find some evidence during the round, be my guest. It wouldn’t be all that useful if you didn’t already have a strategy in which to embed it, so why not? You wouldn’t be drawing in totally new material that would be of any use strategically in-round; it couldn’t be done that quickly. And if you’ve got 8000 case blocks on your computer, and the other person has a computer and could have their own 8000 blocks if they were so inclined, the playing field is theoretically level, so have at it. The only issue remaining is that level playing field. That would have to be assured. To tell you the truth, I don’t think we’re all that far from it. You can get a perfectly good computer nowadays for less than the cost of sending a $ircuit team virtually anywhere, so once you're on the $ircuit, pleading poverty is a scam. Off the $ircuit, on the other hand, I also don’t think we’re far from the one student, one laptop universe. Ten years from now, tops. The actual date doesn’t matter, really. Once you have that universe, and the field is level, and the schools have all installed wireless networks (and by then they will), it’ll be fine.

What makes this problematic (which is, by the way, a word you most certainly always use incorrectly) is the article’s suggestion that in a changing world, the skills we’re developing in LD without PCs will soon be useless, or at least irrelevant. I question that. The skills we’re developing are writing, researching, public speaking and, of course, thinking. While a computer changes the practice of writing, eliminating typewriter ribbons and erasable paper and the like, it does not change the art of writing. Neither did typewriters when they were invented. Writing with a computer may be more efficient than with a typewriter which may be more efficient than with a pen, but it’s the same process. It’s just that nowadays it’s easier to go from input to output. Researching has perhaps seen a more serious paradigm shift than writing in the connected age of the internet, but only insofar as secondary and superficial research can now be done quickly and more efficiently than in the pre-internet world. Serious research on most things probably still requires you to read a book, and while a computerized library catalog may allow you to find that book a little faster, it won’t enable you to read it a little faster. Even if Google successfully uploads the entire literature of the known universe, you’ll still have to read the book. Of course, the computer does help find some information very quickly (think, for example IMDB), and over time will probably help find more comparable factual information with similar speed, but as I say, that data is superficial. As for the public speaking part of LD, the general belief is that the internet promises the end of the office as we know it thanks to high-speed communications. The funny thing is, the office doesn’t seem to be going away no matter how high-speed communications get, generally accepted beliefs to the contrary notwithstanding. Certain non-core office chores get booted off-campus but in the main, person-to-person communication has a value worth paying for, and companies continue to pay for it by providing physical space for its occurrence. As far as I can tell, the only people who think that someday businesses will be conducted without central campuses are people who are not in businesses. And finally, in the LD recipe there’s the ingredient of thinking, and as far as I can see, the computer is fairly agnostic on that one.

My point here is that seeing some brave new world just around the corner that forensicians must prepare for is something I simply don’t share with the article’s author. I see no evidence for that world happening any time soon. As a matter of fact, I’m always surprised that today’s youth are not all that computer savvy. They’re cellphonic, they’re IMic, they’re social networkers, but they're not computists per se. The computer is just a tool, and a rather oblique one, only as good as its user. And I think we’re a long way from the ubiquitously savvy computist on a generational level. I just don’t see it.

On the other hand, there is that waggy part of the article. That was where debaters were arguing on their laptops and they and the judge were all in separate locations. The virtual tournament, if you will. This, in fact, does change the equation, because it does, indeed, remove the public speaking factor from it. (Some might argue that excessive speed does likewise, but that’s a different discussion.) The question becomes, given that, theoretically, this sort of debate would not be impossible, provided the participants were decent enough typists—if the round were conducted in l33t or text-mess or whatever it’s called, fuhgeddaboudit—what would that debate be like, and would it be worth conducting it? Maybe. As I say, I don’t feel that the need to learn public speaking is going to go away any time soon, or at least not until people forget how to talk, but that doesn’t mean there might not be some futuristic debate paradigm with values all its own. In this virtual tournament, there would be no travel expenses, so the benefits (?) of the $ircuit would become available to one and all, at least to some extent. Nobody would be going anywhere, so anyone could conceivably debate anyone else. Interesting. There would be no verbal communication; doing this with cameras, a sort of webcam conference call, would merely be a modernization of the present paradigm, and not a paradigm shift (although, of course, that would still be a possibility at the 10-year point when everyone has that laptop). Cases would be delivered across hyperspace. Time would pass and questions would be proposed (assuming a basic structure as we have now.) Then, a negative case and rebuttals, more questions, etc., with the judge overseeing it all. Given the lack of verbal communication, the effect on the content would be interesting and perhaps, from our perspective, surprising. It’s fun to think about.

Meanwhile, it's good to remember that not all things of the past should be replaced because there is a newer way of doing them. Unless you're a really fast typist, for instance, flowing in a round is easier with a pen on a pad than on a computer. Also, computers weigh less than pads, cost less than pads, and get stolen less than pads. Some people love flowing on computers, which is fine. I've tried, and found it to be more trouble than it's worth. That's fine too. Computers are not going to replace everything we do just because they could replace everything we do. We need to find the right place for change, and then we make changes in that right place. As a general rule, the marketplace (real or of ideas) does a pretty good job of determining where computers will make their mark. So far computers have wreaked havoc in, say, the travel business, and online travel resources, and online travel arranging, has revolutionized if not virtually eliminated the traditional travel agency business. There's other examples, and none of them are forced. They happen. What will happen in debate will happen. But we need to allow opportunities for change, provided those opportunities are equal. Then we see what happens. If the change is good, or productive, go with it. Otherwise, try something else. We have until the middle of the 21st century to figure something out; at that point, that asteroid we've all been hearing about will hit, and that will be that. But at least we'll have tried all the options.