Community (or, wait for the PF pasta reference)

(Before getting started, I should point out that http://blog.pfdebate.com/ is the url of the Pfffft blog not run by the Reverend Badass, the one I have sworn never to mention.)

There seems to be some confusion out there amongst the VCA, an intellectual tribe what oughta know better. I have never seriously vilified any forensic activity, and I honestly like them all, with the possible exception of Dec, although even there I can see the point, to wit, getting one’s speaking feet wet (a metaphor I promise never to use again) as an underclassman. I don’t even bother to rank the various activities, because they provide different benefits. For instance, comparing LD to Duo on some sort of value scale is pointless. They do different things, and they may go so far as to do them for different people. I’m not sure that I would argue that most LDers couldn’t learn a thing or two from some IE activity, and vice versa, but some personalities are naturally drawn to one sort of forensic activity and some are drawn to others. Nothing wrong with that, in my estimation.

Public Forum (wow, I spelled it out!) has its own uniqueness, situated primarily in the quick rotation of topics coupled with the relatively brief duration of the rounds. The former requires learning about a series of situations in fairly rapid succession, but with enough time to get a decent sense of them. I’m not saying every topic is a winner, but certainly every topic area provides valuable learning. Frankly I think the January topic is an absolute dud competition-wise because of the imbalance of the sides, whereas the subject area itself is a goldmine. One learns not only the facts of Thoreau and Gandhi and King, but also the methodology and how (and, presumably, whether) to apply that methodology. Then one switches over to February and learns the recent history of Russia, which will no doubt add up to a combination of economics, realpolitik, Putin biography, Chechnya studies, etc., that is certainly unavailable elsewhere in high schools at that depth. Then, as I say, there’s the briefness of the rounds, which is just enough time to force competitors to come up with meaningful interpretations of what they’ve researched, and to convey that meaning carefully and clearly. I don’t want to imply that I think that PF rounds are too short; far from it. Their speed keeps them interesting and entertaining. Nowadays I freely admit that I would much rather judge PF rounds than LD rounds. The former will predictably result in students grappling with a resolution in a way I can meaningfully adjudicate, whereas the latter could do that, but could also be a demonstration of pure competitive strategy meant to confound the opponent and enchant the judge while never once addressing a meaningful ethical approach to the resolution, and at the point where LD is not about applied ethical philosophy, to me at least it loses its core value.

The nature of the revolving topics of PF does keep things moving evidence-wise, as compared to Policy, where you have a year to fill your tubs, beginning at institutes. There is no question that the advantage in Policy goes to big squads with lots of kids at institutes and lots of novices and lots of evidence cutting and, often, lots of coaches. This is not my cup of forensic tea, but one would have to be pretty obtuse not to recognize the parallel to legal research, a strong inherent value of Policy. The depth of research required, and the mastery of a depth of research, are big selling points. It’s also led to smaller squads adopting critical approaches to counter larger squads that have insurmountable advantages due to their size: critiques are an attempt to level the playing field. (Since no such unlevel playing field applies in LD, critiques need to find a different rationale, and, in my opinion, have not done so successfully). In PF, on the other hand, size doesn’t matter, nor to a great extent would hands-on coaching (as in, here’s what to run, kid), because there isn’t enough time for it. There is every possibility that PF will evolve into some of the evils of LD (which, frankly, I don’t think is all that evil when all is said and done), but I would imagine that, if the activity succeeds, it will evolve its own evils. This is as it should be.

Anyhow, I obviously applaud online discussion of everything forensic, and wish there was more of it. And obviously I love the idea of an online community, which exists ad hoc in much greater strength than any attempts to establish one ex officio. In other words, I’ve grown tired of campaigning for active coaches discussions and the like online. I applaud some of what NFL is doing, but, come on, folks, once is not enough. They published a brief on Nov-Dec. It was, well, okay, and I pulled a little out of it at least. But there’s no brief on Jan-Feb, at least not yet. How much do we all pay a year to those guys per school? I could write a brief for them over a weekend, and if I charged, maybe it would be the cost of a couple of schools’ annual dues. Most schools did their brainstorming for Jan-Feb in Dec. That’s when NFL should be there providing its tools in a timely manner. And, excuse me, but no briefs for PF? If you want this linguini to stick to the wall, you’ve got to cook it a little first.

So, sports fans, all we have is each other. I, for one, believe in giving it away, and do so freely but, at the same time, only occasionally. Sometimes I just don’t have all that much to say. And mostly I believe in deep background rather than specific case briefs. But that’s beside the point. We are building a small online community of forensic resources. WTF, Pfffft ‘R’ Us, the VCA. We are doing what the powers that be have not and apparently cannot do. I applaud us, and wish us well. Even if we haven’t got a clue to what a tooth fairy looks like.