Debate: We meet, therefore we are, but we really aren't

Starting friction is greater than moving friction. This seems to especially hold true with the Sailors’ latest plebes. So far one of them has debated, at the appropriately named First Timers’ event, and that seems to conclude our program for the season. No one is signed up for anything else, because of a variety of life events ranging from christenings to confirmations to bar mitzvahs to pon farrs. I absolutely do not recall any group of novices being so bloodily busy doing something else other than being novices. My fear is that the great train of debate, which has already left the station, may be moving too fast for them by the time they decide to hop on.

Sigh...

Last night, in addition to covering the fact that there are tournaments and debaters, and the latter sort of need the former to maintain their distinction as the latter, we talked about justice, which wraps up the basic novice curriculum of Big Ideas (the others being rights, social contract and morality). I’ve simplified and organized the BIs nicely, I think, and cut out a lot of the unnecessary or hifalutin stuff that one tends to accrue over time. Stick to the basics when training plebes on stuff for the first time. We’ll get more into debate per se going forward, although that’s hard to do if none of them have ever even seen a debate!

Regarding that sigh above: Rinse. Repeat.

We also talked about the November PF topic. This is a poser because of its breadth. It’s easy enough to conquer the idea of US foreign policy: just go to the White House site and read it, given that that’s what the executive branch mostly does for a living. Threatening national security can be very broadly defined down to a single individual in jeopardy, but honestly, the links from Middle East – Instability – Terrorists – Threat to NS is pretty straightforward and unquestionably strong, especially insofar as much of our FP is in aid of maintaining stability. The real question is, how to argue it, thanks to the impossibly broadness of Middle East, regardless of how narrow one attempts to define that term. One could take a philosophical high ground approach and skip examples, but that’s not terribly convincing. Yet when one picks examples, they can be quickly mooted by counterexamples demonstrating the exact opposite, not in a line that will lead to debate clash, but in parallel lines leading to debate ships passing in the night. Once again, the wording of a resolution, where the bottom line is solid, derails the possibility of many good rounds. If it were any one country, rather than Middle East, it would be improved dramatically. By making it so broad (even if one uses the narrowest definition of Middle East), it is, literally and figuratively, all over the map.

Here’s my proposal. Let whoever comes up with resolutions come up with resolutions. Then lock them into a room with 10 high school sophomores and have them brainstorm for an hour. Then unlock the room and have them rewrite the resolution so that people can actually argue it well on both sides. Too often, the resolutions are about good topic areas, but written in a way that causes them to self-destruct.

Back to that sigh: Rinse and repeat yet again. And again. And again…