In which we consider a bit of CatNattery

I’m sort of in the slough of debate despond, the point in the season when I absolutely have zero irons in the fire. That’s when I start getting meditative.

I’ve often talked about CatNats here. It’s a crazy tournament for debaters, but I always enjoyed it, for reasons I cannot explain. Maybe it was the predictably warm weather after a season of cold classrooms, or maybe it was the possibility of nutty venues without food or water or bathrooms or breathable atmosphere. Maybe it was the crazy topics that always seemed to have been drawn out of the wrong hat. 

Those were the good old days.

I like the topics this year, and I know that a bunch of thought went into them, and they weren’t just dreamt up at random. They’re appropriate for the venue, quite general and philosophical. That’s what they should be.

I find it interesting that, among certain debate people, CatNats gets a bad rap, primarily because of its laic judging pool. The tendency of speakers to blame the listeners on their failure to communicate is classic, and transcends debate. It is, of course, on the speaker to identify the audience and present accordingly. Or, in debate terms, to adapt to the judge, rather than the other way around. But arrogance often deems that the judges are too stupid to understand the debaters, hence they are illegitimate as judges. This is the reason that $ircuit LD is a relatively closed system, and why the lesser debaters (and coaches) dedicated to the $ircuit are snooty about more traditional venues. Not all, though. The best debaters speak both $ircuit and traditional, as needed. I would maintain that the skills mastered by traditional debaters, and $ircuit debaters who speak fluent traditional, are more immediately valuable than the skills limited to $ircuit. This is true of LD and Policy both. The best of the breed thrive in either milieu. That’s what makes them the best.

That is probably why I enjoying doing States last week, because the whole thing was aimed at winning over a pool mixing styles and skills and experience, and good debating has to be about winning over anyone, not just those predisposed to like what you’re going to say. That might work in politics these days, but debaters are better than that.

Thank God someone is.

///