The Winningest: The Follow-up
As promised, Jason Baldwin has answered a series of questions submitted and posted by VBD readers. These questions are in response to his interview — “The Winningest” — which was posted on VBD on January 22, 2007.
You argue that it’s much better for first- and second-year-outs to serve as assistant coaches. My question is what you feel should be done when strong programs don’t exist. Why aren’t programs run by college-aged students and even high school students themselves better than the alternative of no programs?
I don’t have a general view about whether a student-run debate team is better than no debate team at all. Much, I would think, depends on the particular students involved and on the larger context in which they’re competing. I will say, though, that I am not committed to the view (which may or may not be lurking behind this question) that more debate is always better than less debate. There are worse fates for a high school student than not participating in Lincoln-Douglas debate; sadly, some of those fates may involve participating in Lincoln-Douglas debate.
I am wondering why Mr. Baldwin chooses to assert his paradigm so violently when adjudicating rounds. If he wants to garner support for his conception of the activity, should he not move toward the proverbial center?
I have never done anything violent in a debate round, and I am surprised that anyone would think I had. So rather than answer that question, I’ll pose and answer a possibly related one: Why don’t I change my message to make it more popular? The answer is that, if forced to choose, I would rather say what seems true to me than say what I believe will be popular. In fact, I think it would be dishonest for me to advocate positions that I don’t really believe.
I am personally a fan of so-called postmodern philosophy, so I was wondering how the admittedly dense writings on serious topics by authors such as Deleuze and Guattari, Habermas, Derrida, Heidegger, Fanon, Agamben, and Foucault are any worse than writings that are equally dense by Kant, Locke, Hobbes, Rawls, Aristotle, or any of the other Enlightenment/Modernist philosophers that Mr. Baldwin professes to enjoy and admire.
I would like to see Mr. Baldwin discuss postmodern philosophy and what about it makes it so terrible.
I believe the first question misclassifies several thinkers, but rather than quibble about individual figures, I will lump these two questions together and simply use them as the occasion to expand a bit (but only a bit) on what I said in the main body of the interview about postmodernism and other intellectual fashions.
I originally referred to the products of these movements as “politicized, obscurantist, oracular posturing.” That admittedly tendentious characterization sums up my main dissatisfactions with the postmodernism, critical theory, and various flavors of cultural studies that I have encountered. I believe such movements are politically motivated, sacrificing intellectual rigor and sometimes honesty itself to the idols of race, class, and gender. I believe that many of their most celebrated authors are deliberately unclear in order to appear profound and to thwart serious scrutiny of their claims (this is on the charitable assumption that they are not simply bad writers). I believe that they traffic largely in portentous pronouncements unsupported by even the pretense of argument. And I believe that most of their claims do in fact collapse upon examination. More precisely, I think that if their dark sayings were paraphrased into ordinary language, 90+% would turn out to be meaningless, wildly implausible, or true but trite.
To these charges, I might now add two more: First, whatever appearance of plausibility the more striking claims of these movements have often rests on systematic equivocation between the ordinary senses of key terms (e.g., “violence,” “text,” “power”) and the wholly different senses imposed on them by movement theorists. Second, the writings of these movements are rife with claims about the workings of the world that are evidently supposed to pack an empirical punch but that are left too vague to be tested.
All I have done is to state some very broad generalizations (probably subject to many counter-examples) about problems endemic to certain popular intellectual movements. I wouldn’t expect anyone to accept these generalizations just on my say-so. To persuade someone to adopt my views, or even to make the views tolerably clear, we would have to work through some of the disputed texts in detail, and that’s not feasible here. But perhaps the generalizations will at least suggest possibilities to explore for students who are hacking through the jungles of postmodernity on their own.
For debate purposes, though, I regard such generalizations as less important than many respondents to the interview seem to regard them. Perhaps I am right that cultural studies is a fetid swamp of leftist confusions, or perhaps my critics are right that it is instead a nourishing font of sweetness and light. So what? It is the strength of an argument, not its provenance, that matters in a debate round. Although I would advise students in search of strong arguments to avoid authors I regard as weak thinkers, one must appraise each argument on its own merits. I am less concerned that some LD students are making bad arguments (that’s part of the game) than I am that many other students are giving them a free pass.
I’m curious why many of those who disdain speed in LD seem either implicitly or explicitly to accept it in policy debate. Why don’t the same objections that apply to speed in LD also apply to speed in policy?
I don’t say much about policy debate because I don’t know much about it, and it doesn’t really interest me. I neither assert nor deny that my views about LD have implications (or analogs) for other forms of debate.
As a first-year-out, I fit the bill of an inexperienced judge. My question, then, is: How should I become a better judge? I was under the impression that learning by doing was the best way for me to become a better judge, but Mr. Baldwin is explicit in saying student judges ought not be preferred–if anything, it seems like his ideal judge pool would be composed entirely of head coaches and others with tons of experience. Where do I go to gain that sort of experience?
I believe that professional educators and other adults tend to make better judges than recent high school graduates due more to their maturity, education, and competitive distance from debate than from the quantity of their judging experience. My advice to students who want to contribute to debate after graduation is to immerse themselves in work or college for a couple of years and then come back to debate with a broadened perspective. If anyone is determined not to take this advice but still wants my input on judging and coaching, I’m happy to discuss particular situations via email.
Popularity: 2% [?]
test
149 Responses to “The Winningest: The Follow-up”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- New LD, Public Forum Resolutions Announced
- Coast2Coast: Mike Spirtos Wins Berkeley; Allison Huberlie Wins Harvard
- Public Dialog in the LD Community: W(h)ither VBDominance?
- Ben Floreancig is Indiana State LD Champion; Columbia City Claims Policy Title; West Lafayette Closes Out Public Forum
- Matt Aks Wins the Newark Debates
- Jon Kwan Takes Stanford
- Field Report: TFL State Championship
- The Winningest: The Follow-up
- Field Report: The Westchester Classic and the Northeast Novice and Second-Year Championships
- Tim DeSanta Wins Scarsdale
Posted from: 71.139.10.226
February 21st, 2007 21:32
Question 1 asks if SLP, etc. deserve to have a place in the activity. Jason Baldwin equivocates and tends to say no without any reasons why.
Question 2 shows that Mr. Baldwin does not understand what violence is.
Question 3 is a matter of comparison between pomo and analytical philosophy, but Mr. Baldwin merely reasserts his attacks on postmodernism without addressing their uniqueness.
Question 4 requires a personal email to get a straight answer to the question.
Is it just me or is Mr. Baldwin profoundly unresponsive?
Posted from: 128.36.76.38
February 21st, 2007 21:49
I’ll make a comment on this before this turns into a big flame war. Unfortunately, the unnecessary binary nature of the rhetoric and content of Mr. Baldwin’s arguments tends to obscure what at the core could be a very persuasive argument.
I think it’s quite problematic to generalize arguments which rely on the “idols of race, gender and class” as dismissively as Jason does here. The article seems to forget a lot of the reason why such traditions exist in the first place: that liberal philosophizing has ignored *empirical* reality for the sake of philosophical star gazing in terms like “neutrality” and “objectivity.” Jason makes the appeal that we should make arguments which are empirically sound, well backed by examples and real life evidence (heck, he used to write that stuff on my ballots).
But yet he forgets that a lot of the people in the cultural studies traditions, etc. criticize the “liberal thinkers” for their unwillingness to engage in the empirical realm. For example, feminists (no matter what wave) didn’t get their arguments from thin air—they happened as a result of real life oppression, chauvinism, and a system of epistemology (including in philosophy itself) which ignores women’s real life issues. The same goes with CRT (in terms of race) and down the line. This is why I force debaters I teach to study these traditions, even though they are difficult reading. There are important lessons to learn from the concepts and thinking of people who don’t just happen to be white and economically well off AND male. Recognizing literature and ideas from traditions that deviate from the norm doesn’t make one “less intellectually rigorous’ as Mr. Baldwin would assert, but instead, seems to prevent liberal thinkers from taking “a free pass”. If intellectualism is about challenging preconceived notions, then what’s wrong with running Foucault, Heidegger, Marx, etc. to challenge the core (often unsustainable) assumptions of the “great thinkers” which I believe Jason would have no problem advocating in LD cases?
This is where I think an amendment to the article here is in order. At least for me, the thoughts of the critical traditions themselves aren’t problematic, it’s how debaters present them. A convoluted section of Rawls’ Theory of Justice (the least word efficient and clear book I’ve read in 3 years) makes me beat my head against the desk as forcefully as an Agamben rant.
Debaters seem to ignore the idea of what I would call “argumentative patience.” Spreading Nietzche, Agamben, Heidegger, etc. at 300wpm is incredibly presumptouous—assuming that judges and opponents will just understand all of the nuances, difficult language, etc. from a first pass. That to me seems to be the more grave issue to take issue with–the refusal of debaters to take complicated ideas and synthesize them so that they are readily understandable, and hence, debateable in round.
Instead of treating the cards of critical theorists in a vomit fest fashion, with no explanation of key terms–I know I’d like to see people define their terms, use plain english to explain what they are asserting from such authors, and take the care to be clear. Although this has improved in recent history, I think more of this work is in order.
Further, one thing for sure that I’ve noticed, is a lack of audience adaptation for debaters–specifically, writing that is difficult to decipher, harder to outline, and would make for bed time reading after a long night of grading college papers for me.
That combined with extremely difficult postmodern works and poor case structure/delivery makes for a headache (I mean this literally) of a situation for all involved—and at least from me, the fastest route to a 20 and a loss.
To me, it’s not the quality of the thinkers we cite that’s the issue, its’ the quality of the analysis, explanation and delivery of difficult ideas (liberal tradition or no) that we should be emphasizing.
What’s needed is an appeal to make whatever ideas we take accessible and debateable for all.
To this extent, someone arrogantly ranting about the intellectual primacy of Locke and Rawls is no better than someone arrogantly picking up Agamben and Foucault.
Now before I go back to bed and get ready for a nice day of reading books on the “idols of race, gender and class” for a dissertation proposal, I’d like to quickly make one final point, this one dealing with the quesiton about the approrpiate role of younger debaters/coaches. While in theory Mr. Baldwin’s ideas make sense, they seem to lack an understanding of real life conditions. It is hard enough to get sufficient younger students to want to coach this activity–especially with freshman classes, parties, etc. It is even more rare when people 3 years out and above come back and do this kind of work. Attempts to
push away younger judges, coaches, etc. and to call their work “less mature and educational” (even if true) makes little practical sense. In an activity where coaching at all levels is difficult to find, and judges willing to get up at 6am on a saturday morning/sunday morning to judge are even harder to find–we should be encouraging younger students into helping out AT ALL LEVELS of responsibility, as opposed to shoving our noses up, and implying that teir work (judging, coaching, etc.) is second-class.
Heck, mentor them, tell them how the game is done, give them advice on handling the more sticky issues, be a friendly base of support–but don’t throw this rhetoric of education and maturity at them which demans their work. There already is a lack of support for debate, why tighten the rope on those people who lose fun weekends, blow hours of time in the library, and lose lots of money to help people who otherwise would never get to learn from this activity?
While Mr. Baldwin says that there are fates worse than not being able to do LD, I hope this isn’t the choice that we are willing to impose from the outside on those people who (somehow)
want to give up homecomings, social status, free weekends, etc. to learn the massive amount this activity has to offer. Let those people who are enthusiastic about LD (in all of its forms) have that choice–but to preemptively close it out to them on the assumption
that this is an experience which is expendable for some people (i.e. those for whom student-run programs are the only option) is easy for Mr. Baldwin to say after having
the benefits of the activity. Imagine what would have happened if I told Mission San Jose that stance when they were just starting out my freshman year of college.
What’s needed now is less of this played out posturing about what is the “best way” of debating, what to read, etc. It would be more productive to find things from within that can be improved, like accessibility, pedagogy, etc.
Mr. Baldwin’s posts to the VBD/rostrum have the potential to be helpful in this regard, but sadly, they seem to be as steeped as the people he critiques in the same dirty pool of argumentative posturing and one-sidedness that precludes substantive reflection.
Posted from: 67.123.6.157
February 22nd, 2007 00:08
I don’t say much about policy debate because I don’t know much about it, and it doesn’t really interest me. I neither assert nor deny that my views about LD have implications (or analogs) for other forms of debate.
I feel that this is a brushing-off of what could be an interesting argument for speed in LD. If you are unwilling to condemn fast debate in one avenue, but continue to condemn it in LD, the burden would be on you to provide some relevant distinguishing characteristic between the two, wouldn’t it?
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 22nd, 2007 10:18
as if the initial interview wasnt pretentious enough, this may be the most smug and least informative follow-up of all time. there are at least some advocates for things i dont like who i still respect (like cherian or donald rumsfeld) but jason isnt even willing to defend args beyond ‘i believe this to be true, and you should as well, although when pressed on the specifics i will explicitly avoid answering your question.’ so here’s my totally unsolicited advice to jb: take a lesson from rummy and at least develop a flamboyant personality to distract from how absurd what youre saying is.
Posted from: 71.195.77.97
February 22nd, 2007 11:24
“I believe that they traffic largely in portentous pronouncements unsupported by even the pretense of argument. And I believe that most of their claims do in fact collapse upon examination. More precisely, I think that if their dark sayings were paraphrased into ordinary language, 90+% would turn out to be meaningless, wildly implausible, or true but trite.”
I wonder what happens if we do that with your interview / follow-up.
Posted from: 68.175.61.249
February 22nd, 2007 11:38
A question for Jason, based on this follow-up:
Aren’t all philosophers politically motivated? Especially philosophers like, say, John Locke, John Rawls, and Robert Nozick?
Posted from: 66.41.180.32
February 22nd, 2007 11:44
In the same sentence as Donald Rumsfeld, I truly believe I can retire happy now! Michael, are you also suggesting that I have a flamboyant personality? ;)
Posted from: 74.70.149.223
February 22nd, 2007 14:53
More precisely, I think that if their dark sayings were paraphrased into ordinary language, 90+% would turn out to be meaningless, wildly implausible, or true but trite.
that is 10% more meaning than JB
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
February 22nd, 2007 15:10
I am sure Rumsfield is relieved to know that he still has the respect of Mangus.
Mr. Baldwin doesn’t like certain theorists. He explains generally why, while of course prefacing that an actual textual discussion is not possible. He is met with vitriol as if he insulted someone’s religion or mother. I really don’t get it. Are we all really supposed to agree about the relative merits of philosophers?
Habermas can defend himself. The name calling towards Jason for stating his views of philosophers is really inappropriate, and ultimately antithetical to academic discourse. Jason did not insult anyone here. He stated his impressions of certain theorists, that is all. Perspective.
Posted from: 75.73.206.15
February 22nd, 2007 15:11
I like how he condemns things as deliberately obfuscative, but then characterizes it with a half dozen other 4 syllable words in rapid succession.
Posted from: 75.73.206.15
February 22nd, 2007 15:17
A/T Mr. Pashler (the post popped up after I posted):
He doesn’t condemn the people in any public fashion (or does he, and I haven’t heard about it?). It would be quite another thing if he published articles in well-respected philosophical journals about how the now-dead Foucault is silly, the now-dead Derrida is psycho, the now-dead Nietzsche is a nihilist, the now-dead Heidegger is obfuscatory, what have you. If he actually put his opinions in a place where people that are smarter than us would have the opportunity to respond to them, I would have no problem. I feel like he’s only expressing his ideas of philosophers to us because we are still young and impressionable, and that he doesn’t have much solid foundation for actually bringing his ideas to people that have heavily read both postmodernism and Enlightenment philosophy. Resorting to criticizing dead philosophers to high schoolers rather than criticizing living philosophers to experts seems sort of shady to me.
Posted from: 74.70.149.223
February 22nd, 2007 15:33
A/T: Pashler
You are right name calling is bad. I take it back.
However, Attempting to argue without providing a specific example or analysis is antithetical to academic discourse.
Here’s a Baudrillard excerpt:
Such is simulation, insofar as it is opposed to representation. Representation stems from the principle of the equivalence of the sign and of the real (even if this equivalence is Utopian, it is a fundamental axiom). Simulation, on the contrary, stems from the Utopia of the principle of equivalence, from the radical negation of the sign as value, from the sign as the reversion and death sentence of every reference. Whereas representation attempts to absorb simulation by interpreting it as a false representation, simulation envelops the whole edifice of representation itself as a simulacrum.
Witness the cloister of Saint-Michel de Cuxa, which one will repatriate at great cost from the Cloisters in New York to reinstall it in “its original site.” And everyone is supposed to applaud this restitution (as they did “the experimental campaign to take back the sidewalks” on the Champs Elysees!). Well, if the exportation of the cornices was in effect an arbitrary act, if the Cloisters in New York are an artificial mosaic of all cultures (following a logic of the capitalist centralization of value), their reimportation to the original site is even more artificial: it is a total simulacrum that links up with “reality” through a complete circumvolution. The cloister should have stayed in New York in its simulated environment, which at least fooled no one. Repatriating it is nothing but a supplementary subterfuge, acting as if nothing had happened and indulging in retrospective hallucination. In the same way, Americans flatter themselves for having brought the population of Indians back to pre-Conquest levels. One effaces everything and starts over. They even flatter themselves for doing better, for exceeding the original number.
Not the clearest thing but if you read it and read the context it makes sense. The argument is that simulation is unique because it has no respect for reality. Restoring the cloisters doesn’t make it authentic, its still a representation. However the relocation is an attempt to make it more authentic to disregard reality.
Posted from: 169.229.77.223
February 22nd, 2007 15:52
I’m glad Mr. Baldwin is so honest in his answer to my question, if nothing else (the last question in this post). It’s nice to know exactly where someone stands, I guess. I was hoping that a show of good faith might lead to some sort of substantive discussion, rather than a “get outta here if you disagree with me!” type of attitude (which both sides of any dispute are guilty of, generally). Ssdly, Mr. Baldwin doesn’t seem to have the same sort of hopes that I do. Quite frankly, while I have a lot of respect for Mr. Baldwin’s successes, and respect his right to his own opinion, I think my attitude towards him is slowly becoming the attitude he has towards first-year-outs and young people who want to see this activity prosper – perhaps he ought to “immerse [himself] in work” rather than showing that he cares about debate.
Posted from: 169.229.77.223
February 22nd, 2007 15:54
If it isn’t clear, “this post” in the parenthetical is in reference to the item posted by Mr. Cruz, not my response to same. I think this clarification might confuse even more, but you know what i mean…
Posted from: 74.70.149.223
February 22nd, 2007 16:02
I want JB to talk about PoMo and Debate but with more depth.
Posted from: 150.212.2.148
February 22nd, 2007 16:09
bryce if you think this is only about critical theory i think youre the one who needs a dose of perspective
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
February 22nd, 2007 16:28
Yeah, clearly I am lacking the proper perspective…I am beginning to realize this ends when we vote to have Jason drink the hemlock…
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
February 22nd, 2007 16:53
His first paragraph insinuates no debate is better than debate with first year outs. That’s enough for me to stop reading.
Posted from: 205.188.116.204
February 22nd, 2007 17:14
Yeah because if a person makes one point you don’t agree with then nothing they say can be true.
Posted from: 169.232.243.217
February 22nd, 2007 18:00
i think he means to imply that baldwin is a morally repugnant buffoon.
Posted from: 74.70.149.223
February 22nd, 2007 18:02
Mr. Pashler, I agreed with you that my approach wasn’t constructive and that instead i ought to engage his arguments civilly. I am now doing that. I don’t want Jason Baldwin to drink hemlock, debate differences don’t mean that I hate him as a person. I do, however, disagree with what he is saying. I don’t think it is an intellectually honest discussion when vague arguments are made and theres no in depth discussion. I’ve decided to tackle on the issue of postmodern philosophy and dispel that conception that it is all meaningless.
Posted from: 74.70.149.223
February 22nd, 2007 18:10
“Yeah because if a person makes one point you don’t agree with then nothing they say can be true.”
In this case the rest of the article isn’t that great either. Potential abuse? maybe. In-round abuse? none.
This is the only point of agreement : It is the strength of an argument, not its provenance, that matters in a debate round … one must appraise each argument on its own merits.
Posted from: 129.116.10.31
February 22nd, 2007 18:14
Two points:
1. I agree very strongly with everyone who has pointed out the problems with Mr. Baldwin’s answer to the question about student-run debate teams. I think if he wants to claim that the question is too general, he needs to establish some specific conditions under which no debate is preferable to student/college coach driven teams.
Additionally, I find it very striking that he claims that participation in debate can actually have a negative effect on high school students, because typically the rhetoric of more traditionally-minded people (obviously a loose characterization) has been that they are merely not getting as much as they could out of the activity. I don’t think it’s too much of a leap to say that outside of extremely rare situations, debate is always going to have positive effects on education. Is he seriously suggesting that debaters who go fast, see debate as a game, etc. will actually be worse off than if they had not done debate at all? That seems patently absurd, and empirically untrue.
Overall, I think this dialogue hints at something much wider in the community, which is the importance of established coaches and teams. I completely agree that the voices of people who have been involved in the activity for a long time are a positive influence. However, I think for all of the talk that goes towards describing the celebrity culture in debate, we have completely ignored the way established programs have created their own culture. I know when I was a relatively unknown debater, I was far more afraid of seeing the names “Greenhill” and “Apple Valley” appear on the pairings, and always felt that regardless of actual skill (and I am not, not saying they were untalented), those debaters would always have a perceptual advantage. This is entirely distinct from the notion of a “celebrity culture“, because there wasn’t a website where these debaters became well-known; rather, coaches and teammates could take the time to introduce them to judges and other competitors. Also, people are always skeptical to talk about the kind of influence these coaches have in tab rooms, understanding procedures, etc. My argument is that while experienced coaches are a good, we should attempt to broaden debate by not locking out younger coaches and student-driven teams.
2. I agree that Mr. Baldwin is free to voice his opinion about theorists. The problem is when he feels free to completely dismiss those arguments in debate through the ballot. I found this interesting:
“Although I would advise students in search of strong arguments to avoid authors I regard as weak thinkers, one must appraise each argument on its own merits.”
Unfortunately, I doubt its sincerity. I think it’s reasonable to impose a standard of clarity on argumentation. I don’t think anyone actually disagrees with that, we just differ in where we set the bar. But the idea that a particular author is always unclear, or at least cannot be made clear in a debate round, does not make sense to me. I do not see the difference between saying the ideas of certain authors are off limits and just intervening against political positions you don’t like. Obviously, we are not all going to agree on the “relative merits of philosophers”. But if I were to announce that I would only vote for things written by French authors after 1950s because I think everything else is a “fetid swamp”, everyone would rightfully call bullshit. I don’t see how you could plausibly claim that you have the right to vote for authors you like, and I don’t. If Mr. Baldwin is really saying he would vote on a clear and persuasive Heidegger case, then I apologize and merely redirect this at anyone who wouldn’t
Posted from: 68.252.225.134
February 22nd, 2007 18:44
1. “I am wondering why Mr. Baldwin chooses to assert his paradigm so violently when adjudicating rounds. If he wants to garner support for his conception of the activity, should he not move toward the proverbial center?”
I’m not sure who asked this question, but i think it should be re-asked while including the specifics that mr.baldwin cleverly sidesteps by changing the question. If the initial question is charged with specific examples of said “violent adjudication” i would think that mr.baldwin would have a hard time getting out of a pressing question by saying “that is false”
2. I second wade
Posted from: 67.170.247.77
February 22nd, 2007 18:52
The blatant sidestepping of the second question is even more amazing considering that Jason didn’t even bother to act like he was being responsive- he just invented a new question and answered that instead.
Posted from: 67.170.247.77
February 22nd, 2007 18:55
sorry to sound repetitive, i couldn’t see roytman’s post.
Posted from: 66.43.218.33
February 22nd, 2007 19:26
Finding myself a member of the group of people that Baldwin mentioned in response to the last question I am curious as to whether or not anyone knows Baldwin’s email. As I don’t have much time to spend on checking forums if someone could email it to me at al.hiland@gmail.com I would appreciate it.
Posted from: 64.12.117.8
February 22nd, 2007 20:12
“Yeah because if a person makes one point you don’t agree with then nothing they say can be true.”
["In this case the rest of the article isn’t that great either. Potential abuse? maybe. In-round abuse? none.
This is the only point of agreement : It is the strength of an argument, not its provenance, that matters in a debate round … one must appraise each argument on its own merits."]
Oh, the wonders of sarcasm.
Posted from: 209.6.236.19
February 22nd, 2007 20:28
Speaking only to the issue of Jason’s comments on postmodernism, because I am somewhat more skeptical of some of the other claims he makes and am not the right person to defend them, I have to ask what exactly it is that all of you want from him? You asked him to explain at greater length what his problems are with postmodernism. He did so, while fully admitting that he could not substantiate many of his allegations without developing a close reading of the texts which obviously isn’t possible in a forum like this. So how precisely is he being dismissive? What more is he supposed to do? I mean, are you seriously suggesting that as a graduate student in philosophy he has no better way to spend his time than trading thoughts with some kid about how to interpret a random ass Baudrillard passage that was plucked from out of nowhere? The vast majority of you who have been critical of him have nowhere near his level of expertise in philosophy, and yet you feel entitled to not only contemptuously dismiss what he says but to demand that he prove his claims to your satisfaction. Why should he care if you aren’t satisfied with what he has to say? Especially given that his reward for trying to give back to the activity is to put up with this nonsense and to be told that his motive for giving back to the activity is just brainwashing high school students so as to compensate for his own inadequacies. In light of the level of discussion that his ideas have received here and the truly bizzare accusations that have been leveled against him, I’m surprised that he’s been willing to engage in the amount of dialogue that he has. It certainly isn’t merited.
Posted from: 70.128.124.106
February 22nd, 2007 20:35
while i respect sohail and mean no insult to him, i think his contribution on this thread is representative of the problems anthony is discussing re: argumentative patience. sohail posts for us some baudrillard (which probably isn’t the greatest example to use here, since baudrillard literally advocates writing and speaking in obscure ways), and then tells us that, while it’s not clear when read, it makes perfect sense in context. the problem lies in the initial premise that every debater and judge is familiar with that context, which is not a reasonable assumption to make. as such, the onus is on debaters to present these arguments in which they are true without that context (which is probably not true of baudrillard in this instance) or present the whole context necessary for understanding of these arguments. this is why many critical debates are vastly underdeveloped. i am no opponent of the use of criticisms or critical theory in debate rounds; in fact, i think it has a very legitimate place, and some of the arguments are brilliant. however, it is necessary that debaters lay the proper foundation in order to make certain types of arguments, especially if they are socioeconomic or anthropological in nature. unless you keep simulacra and simulation under your pillow, exactly what baudrillard is musing about in that excerpt is fairly difficult to grasp. my point here has little to do with what jason is saying, but just that i think that debaters should be attentive to their audiences’ and opponents’ knowledge bases when presenting critical argumentation.
Posted from: 129.116.10.31
February 22nd, 2007 20:42
Nathan: This is the same argument Bryce has already made. I think it is completely fair for Mr. Baldwin to personally dislike postmodernism. There are certainly elements of it I do not like either. But the argument I’m making, which I know a lot of people have made before, is that those personal preferences should not be judging preferences. It’s unfortunate that there probably won’t be a follow-up to the follow-up, but I’m sure that there are others who feel similarly and are probably reading this thread. I think Mr. Baldwin has made his case against postmodernism as well as anyone can expect, but if he’s a grad student in Philosophy, it seems like he would at least enjoy responding to Berryhill’s really good – and equally qualified – post.
Posted from: 129.116.10.31
February 22nd, 2007 20:44
and I agree with o’connell. a lot.
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
February 22nd, 2007 20:45
I think some of the reactions to what Jason’s saying are a little over blown. I understand where the anger is coming from, since it’s hard not to get offended by the none-too-subtle implication that first- and second-year-outs are harming their students by coaching debate and that it would be better if those students didn’t have a chance to debate in the first place. But at the same time, we’ve had a number of discussions in recent weeks about the importance of being able to call people out and honestly voice substantial criticism. If Jason honestly thinks I’m ruining debate, he ought to say so. The main thing I do find objectionable in the Q&A is the amount of hedging that Jason does rather than saying something more potentially offensive but less ambiguous. But I do think it makes sense given how hard everyone jumped all over him after the initial email. Anyone who knows me knows that I agree with virtually none of what Jason says about debate, but him saying it doesn’t do me or anyone else any harm–at worst, I just have to not read it.
That said, I also do agree with him with respect to his criticisms of continental philosophy. At the very least, his views on this subject are much more in the mainstream than his views in debate or than most people on this thread seem to realize. Jason is certainly not saying anything about pomo that hasn’t been said by thousands of academic philosophers already. Saying it in a forum not populated by academic philosophers but instead by people who tend to hold a lot of pomo lit in fairly high regard isn’t horribly presumptuous or anything.
The debate between analytic and continental philosophical methodology is way to big to be resolved in an interview or even a VBD thread, as evidenced by the fact that it hasn’t been resolved yet in academia. But to respond very briefly and unthouroughly to Anthony’s post, most philosophers in the Enlightenment/modernist/analytic line of thinking would say that the whole point of their discipline is to study things (from being, mind, knowledge and ethics to more concrete subjects like mathematics, science, law and so on) at the highest possible level of abstraction from any particular empirical context. The study of these things within a particular social context is the province either of the sciences (particularly of the social sciences like sociology with regard to the issues like race, gender and class that you mention) or of one of the bastard children of philosophy like applied ethics (God, I hope no one reading this thread is really into those and now hates me for life…). The analytic philosopher would further argue that all of these disciplines need to operate within some sort of broader context–in order to interpret empirical facts, we need abstract machinery, or else we would have to develop an entire picture of the world from scratch each time we came to a new empirical context/society. Of course, the continental philosopher’s response to all this would probably claim that there’s very little beyond trivial truths that can be said at the highest level of abstraction (hence, for instance, the rejection of metaphysics by most/all of them) and that you have to introduce some level of context almost instantly in the process of moving down the latter of knowledge if you want to say anything substantively true. That’s where the real debate is, which goes way beyond what I have the time to engage right now. But suffice it to say that there’s at least a very strong case to be made for the analytic project.
Posted from: 209.6.236.19
February 22nd, 2007 20:59
Just a couple of quick clarifications to clear up any confusion as to what I am saying before I stop procrastinating and go do real work.
First I would certainly exempt Anthony’s post from the general characterization that I was giving of the quality of the posts in this thread, and I am sympathetic to some of what he has to say.
Second, I am not seeing where Jason said that he will categorically refuse to vote for arguments that he does not like. All he says here at least is that he often finds arguments drawn from postmodernism to be weak arguments. That doesn’t seem to be anything more than being honest about his background and letting debaters know that it might take more work to convince him to vote on a critical argument than it would some other judges. But if I am missing something and he is indeed saying that he would take his personal complaints against postmodernism as sufficient reason to refuse to vote for any postmodern arguments in a debate round, then I agree with you that this is illegitimate. How exactly to define judge intervention is a tricky issue, but however we might define it I have never been an advocate of it. So let me reiterate: I have no intention of defending every single thing that Jason has said about debate or responding to every single objection that people have made to every single thing he has said. No two intelligent people will agree on every particular about a complex subject. I meant only to defend his position on postmodernism and to ask what exactly it is that people were looking for from him on that specific subject. That’s the only point I am addressing.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
February 22nd, 2007 21:10
the abstract machine rears its ugly head! oh, how ironic it is that you mention abstract machinery when explaining the value of state philosophy.
Posted from: 71.212.13.232
February 22nd, 2007 21:12
I never got around to posting on the last Baldwin thread, but I feel like I need to offer a perspective of someone else who debated (admittedly only locally in the PNW) during the same era as Mr. Baldwin and has judged and coached ever since.
First off, I would just like to say that I am sympathetic to many of Jason’s points, but I do feel like his delivery is almost deliberately provoking a more intense reaction than it needs to. I would rather engage in a productive dialogue than a flame war. Rather than identify individual posters, I’m just going to do this topically.
I have judged LD for 14 years. There is no question that I am a better judge now than I was during my first few years out. During that stage, it is very common to get too involved arguing against the debaters instead of just listening. That said, I don’t think we should discourage first and second year out from judging, but I do think there is something to be said for using more experienced judged in later rounds when possible.
On the issue of the speed. The idea that criticizing speed in LD means that speed must also be criticized in policy is silly. They are different events with unique benifits. If someone says they don’t care about that event, why not just take them at their word? In my mind this would be kind of like saying that someone who criticisez the NBA for being too physical must also attack physical play in the NFL. I will admit that in the past I have probably been much more concerned about speed in LD than CX, mostly because I actually did LD so I have a stronger emotional attachment to the activity. That said, my experiences judging eight rounds of policy this past weekend might have pushed me over the edge with it as well. The teams are essentailly relying on the judges already being familliar with their arguments, otherwise the speed simply would not work. Is this really where we want LD to go? I coach both types of debate and judge at least semi-frequently, but I can’t keep up with or follow a lot of this. If I am not enough of a specialist, how are we going to possibly find enough who are to judge?
Finally, on the issue of pomo, etc. If you disagree with JB on this issue that is fine; but I also don’t see what more you want from him. A specific critique of ever French author used in debate? The central issue to me is that any ideas in debate need to be explained clearly and well. I haven’t encountered these arguments in LD much yet, but my experience from watching policy debate is that they are often not applied clearly. The time frame in LD will likely make it even more difficult.
A final thought. When I was in high school, Washington state had enough policy teams to run four divisions at many local tournaments and a growing LD circuit that usually managed three.
Now, we are lucky to run two and sometimes one division of policy, and LD, which kept growing until around the year 2000 seems to be declining a bit too…replaced by of all things Student Congress. I believe that debate is benificial to students…all debate. I want debate to grow and prosper.
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
February 22nd, 2007 21:47
“the abstract machine rears its ugly head! oh, how ironic it is that you mention abstract machinery when explaining the value of state philosophy.”
Is this addressed to me? If so, what on earth does it mean? What “abstract machinery” do I reference (in all the fields of philosophy I’m familiar with, the term “machinery” has a fairly specific meaning, which nothing referenced on this thread would meet), what is “state philosophy,” and what’s ironic about the connection supposedly being drawn between the two?
Posted from: 76.211.66.124
February 22nd, 2007 22:05
cherian, i think it’s a joke that might be marginally humorous in context, but only confuses us without a proper knowledge base.
Posted from: 76.211.66.124
February 22nd, 2007 22:13
err, christian. my bad.
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
February 22nd, 2007 22:13
OK, cool.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 22nd, 2007 22:52
uh i cant speak for anyone else but jason’s distaste for certain authors isnt really my objection to the way he approached this follow-up series of questions. its more that he didnt actually answer any of the questions substantively.
Posted from: 75.5.197.66
February 22nd, 2007 23:03
“I believe that professional educators and other adults tend to make better judges than recent high school graduates due more to their maturity, education, and competitive distance from debate”
If that isn’t ageism, I’m not sure what is….
Posted from: 74.70.149.223
February 22nd, 2007 23:20
A/T: MJOCON (no offense taken)
I’m not saying baudrillard is good in round. What i meant by that was to show that baudrillard and other postmodernists don’t have to be seen as warrant less obscurantists. Even baudrillard can have a passage that makes sense and is insightful. I’m not advocating Baudrillard in round. Im just saying as a school of thought PoMo isn’t ridiculous. I don’t think that passage if read clearly and slowly (or slower that you regularly) is that hard to grasp. Maybe I am misunderstanding it, but i think that if you make an honest attempt to make the argument clear it will be.
A/T: Nathan
Jason Baldwin doesn’t study that branch of philosophy. I do agree that as a whole he knows a lot more than I do thats why I am so curious to know what the problems are. You are right in that he probably has better things to do but you cant fault me for wanting to know how he arrived at his conclusions. I think he has expressed that he wants to convince debaters to debate a certain way and to ignore certain schools of thought and im willing to be convinced if there is a good argument. Sometimes I do feel like speed is bad for debate, alot of kids (including myself) use it as a tool to overwhelm rather than to make intelligent substantive arguments. Sometimes certain writings in postmodern thought are either too hard (gift of death was too much for me) or the conclusions and warrants are crazy or lacking (D and G)
The Baudrillard passage is from Simulation and Simulacra, not nowhere.
The one thing that i do realize from Nathans post is that he is right in that im being unappreciative and dismissive. I see where he is coming from and want to genuinely discuss the issue. I apologize for being rude or whatever.
Posted from: 74.70.149.223
February 22nd, 2007 23:23
btw i like analytic philosophy too
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
February 22nd, 2007 23:36
it was a deleuze and guattari joke christian.
my bad for not stating initially that i’m a gigantic nerd, i was just amused that you used the exact terminology that they use in explaining the merits of analytic philosophy, which is something they’re rather against.
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
February 23rd, 2007 00:04
OK, that makes more sense.
Posted from: 24.7.65.244
February 23rd, 2007 00:53
while i disagree with jason in most regards, including regarding philosophy (i study intellectual history, which is probably the exact methodological opposite of analytic philosophy), i will say that there’s at least something to the claim that speed in policy makes more sense than in LD. policy has 8 speeches and most arguments are made with evidence. LD has 5 shorter speeches (even the NC is not as long as any of the constructives in HS policy); as a result, many (if not most) fast rounds tend to feature analytic blip wars rather than nuanced arguments and deep comparisons between them. of course, this should not be read as a dismissal of speed in LD, but rather as an injunction to think more critically about the practices we choose to endorse.
Posted from: 134.173.89.164
February 23rd, 2007 04:21
I want to weigh in on the analytic/continental issue. Since the subject of qualification has been raised by Nathan F, I suppose I should say something about my background. I guess I’m not an “expert” on the subject, whatever an “expert” in philosophy is, but I did just get a PhD offer from a top 10 department (is this as good as having stayed in a Holiday Inn Express?). My application included a writing sample that advanced an externalist solution to the lottery paradox (jargon that will only make sense to students of analytic philosophy; such much for the crystalline clarity of the subject), so let it be known that I am no naïve lover of sexy French “theory”.
I’m basically going to focus on some remarks by Christian, and hopefully incidentally address Baldwin in the process. I think Christian’s way of framing the difference between “analytic” and “Continental” philosophy gets things dead wrong, and I find his characterization of “analytic” philosophy one-sided.
First, the term “Continental philosophy” is often used to lump together a variety of philosophical (or other intellectual) traditions, most of which have no significant relation to one another. These traditions include: Marxism and its offshoots (this obviously includes members of the Frankfurt school and perhaps more controversially people like Baudrillard, who would not self-identify as a Marxist and indeed has a criticism of Marxism, but nevertheless advances a set of theses which look very much like an extension of the claims of the Frankfurt school), Phenomenology (including Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, and perhaps more controversially Levinas and Derrida), psychoanalysis (the current exponents being predominantly Lacanian), other miscellaneous offshoots (e.g. Foucault, whose thought is heavily derivative of Heidegger and Nietzsche), and some predecessors who have not yet been fully assimilated into the “analytic philosopher’s” canon of acceptable historical philosophers (for instance Hegel and Nietzsche). Most of these traditions are basically of historical interest today (there are few contemporary exponents of Phenomenology).
There is nothing which unifies this category, other than that a certain brand of professional philosopher who is usually very self-conscious about defining her project as “analytic” philosophy (whatever that is) tends to find it suitable to reject all of these thinkers out of hand. This approach, however, just strikes me as ignorant and historically negligent. There are interesting connections between phenomenology and early analytic philosophy. As Michael Dummett points out in “The Origins of Analytical Philosophy”, both Frege and Husserl (in part thanks to the criticisms of Frege) were vitally interested in explaining logic in a manner which evaded psychologism. Michael Friedman has also recently argued that there was no major institutional divide between “Analytic” philosophy and “Continental” philosophy (principally represented by Phenomenology) prior to the Second World War. Carnap attended the famous Cassier-Heidegger debate. And for decades English-language Heidegger commentators like Hubert Dreyfus and John Haugeland have urged a reading of Heidegger which maintains that his thought anticipated many crucial developments in the development of 20th century “analytic” philosophy. Commentators have attributed to Heidegger, among other things, a version of a functionalist account of the mind, a proto-externalist theory of content, a sophisticated approach to the paradox of rule-following, an approach to the philosophy of science which anticipates Davidson in crucial respects, and a set of arguments which lay the foundations for an influential criticism of strong AI.
Heidegger is hard to read. So is Hegel. But this is typical of philosophers who wrote before the professionalization of the discipline. Historical figures like Kant and Hume warrant enormous exegesis, and it is simply laughable to claim that even so paradigmatic a figure of “analytic” philosophy as Wittgenstein is some kind of model of clarity and rigor. Wittgenstein is as abstruse as Heidegger, merely in a different way. The Wittgenstein of the Tractatus is given to terse, unexplained, and often seemingly unargued assertions, but the situation is still worse for an exegetical perspective with the Wittgenstein of the Investigations, who proceeds via informal dialectic which explicitly strives to avoid stating philosophical “theses” of any kind. Heidegger generates an immense amount of technical machinery and jargon to get his arguments into motion, but once you get the “Heideggerese” down it isn’t like he isn’t saying anything but the “meaningless, wildly implausible, or true but trite.”
Nor is it true that all “analytic” philosophers take themselves to be at odds with “Continental” philosophy of all sorts. I’ve already mentioned “analytic” Heidegger commentators, but there are philosophers working on contemporary problems who, in their moments of historical reflection, are nonetheless able to take “Continental” thinkers seriously. Robert Brandom is currently working on a book on Hegel, and just a few years ago published a collection of historical essays which featured pieces on Heidegger and Hegel alongside ones on Leibniz and Spinoza as well as ones on Frege and Sellars. John McDowell (who Baldwin listed in his initial selection of approved philosophers) described his work “Mind and World” as a prolegomenon to Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit”. In the course of the book, he drops references to Gadamer and Marx right alongside ones to the traditional analytic lineup. Richard Moran spends a fair portion of “Authority and Estrangement” discussing Sartre’s views concerning the irreducibility of the deliberative (subjective, first-person) perspective to facts deemed acceptable by a theoretical (scientific) conception of the world. Baldwin simply doesn’t speak for the whole of the field.
To be sure, there are quadrants of “Continental philosophy” which probably no professional philosopher would ever touch. I am doubtful, for instance, that traditions like Marxism and psychoanalysis can reasonably be considered part of philosophy. Classical Marxism seems to straddle the gulf between political philosophy and political science. Later offshoots of Marxism seem to aspire to something else entirely. And both the Marxist and psychoanalytic traditions abound with non-falsifiable or simply plain unjustified empirical claims. Nevertheless, I am suspicious of the “analytic philosopher’s” willingness to dismiss these traditions out of hand because of the way the authors write. To dismiss a view one has made no attempt to understand seems decidedly unphilosophical.
Ultimately, it seems wrong to characterize the “analytic/continental” split as a difference in methodology. “Continental philosophy” seems to refer to (1) some historical philosophers who are of significant interest even within the pale of “analytic” philosophy and (2) some European intellectual traditions which don’t really seem to be philosophy, but might be of interest to other fields, and might still conceivably be of interest for debate rounds.
The second issue which I wanted to raise with Christian concerns his characterization of “analytic” philosophy. As I understand him, Christian is recommending a view of analytic philosophy as simply systematic philosophy which aims at a comprehensive or synoptic picture of the world. He contrasts this with a “Continental philosophy” which is conceived of as radically skeptical. This seems wrong to me. There are skeptical analytic philosophers and there are systematizing Continental philosophers (e.g. Hegel and Heidegger). Indeed, most early analytic philosophy was staunchly opposed to any attempt to develop a synoptic picture of the world, much less engage in speculative metaphysics. The dominant meta-philosophical positions in the history of analytic philosophy were (1) the view that philosophy is “conceptual analysis,” or developing a “logical geography” which explains relations between concepts, and (2) the Wittgensteinian conception of philosophy as therapy, or freeing us from intellectual knots tied by the development of philosophical thought. Neither of these views is particularly systematizing. If anything, the Wittgensteinian view seems to have quite a bit in common with Heideggerian de-struktion/Derridean deconstruction, in methodology if not in aims. The “conceptual analysis” and “therapy” views are still popular with some professional philosophers. John McDowell, for instance, is a proponent of Wittgensteinian “therapeutic” philosophy. Needless to say, I don’t think there is anything like a unified “analytic project”, much less one which is obviously distinct from that of historical Continental philosophers (Heidegger and Husserl, for instance, seem to have taken themselves to be engaged in a project which is very close to the Sellarsian mission of reconciling the “manifest” image of ourselves as intentional agents with the “scientific” image of the world as essentially an updated version of atoms in the void)
Posted from: 66.37.233.51
February 23rd, 2007 07:01
I realize I’m not contributing to the discussion with this post, but wanted to interrupt briefly to congratulate Christian on his 02-22 post – an excellent explanation.
Another example of how it boggles the imagination why anyone would imply having intelligent coaches with a sincere intention towards contributing to the debate community, like Christian, would be worse than no debate.
Posted from: 71.195.77.97
February 23rd, 2007 08:32
When I read Mr. Baldwin’s words, I don’t even know if I can read the content, since the vacuous and pretentious arguments make my head hurt. I’m sure he has the same experience when reading any of the authors he doesn’t like, so I guess we can agree to disagree.
Posted from: 71.195.77.97
February 23rd, 2007 08:44
If JB wants to stop hearing authors he doesn’t like, why doesn’t he just stay in South Bend during TOC and finish his dissertation already? He did get struck by virtually the entire pool for several years before 2006, and the only reason he judged last year is because he managed to convince the always lucid JW to remove MJP days before the tournament. Incidentally, the change in system caused me to judge one round (not that I’m complaining–I at least partially attribute the fact that I coached a quarterfinalist and runner-up to the extra time I had to coach my kids), while several debaters had JB in the back, a judge they have more distaste for than JB has for Heidegger. I’m glad he had the opportunity to indulge his ego, and save us from the monsters of “weak thinkers.” I took the graduate sequence in formal logic at Pitt while I was an undergrad, and I (about 90% sure at this point) will most likely be completing an MA program in the Department of Logical Semantics at the University of Warsaw next year as a Fulbright Scholar (a department started by arguably the most important logician of the 20th century). Am I just tainted by having also studied Continental philosophy that I can’t possibly understand clear, logical and precise argumentation?
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
February 23rd, 2007 08:52
Just a quick response to Eric before I run off to classes (I’ll post a longer one as soon as I can):
I think you read much more into my post than what I was actually claiming. I don’t claim that there’s a fine, clearly drawn line between analytic and continental philosophy, let alone analytic and continental philosophers. The generalizations I’m making are certainly imperfect. I make no claim to anything resembling expertise on with respect to continental philosophy, so I’m sure anything I say about it will be open to counter-examples.
I’m not sure what you mean by “radically skeptical,” but I don’t think I’m attributing that feature to continental philosophy either. My point isn’t that continental philosophy rejects anything resembling absolute and unqualified truth claim (though many continental philosophers seem to at least come close) but that the general trend in continental philosophy is to couch these claims not in terms of universal axioms but in terms of particular empirical assertions about human psychology (e.g. pscyhoanalysis) or society.
You seem to claim that the only distinction between analytic and continental philosophers is that continental philosophers are people whom self-identified analytic philosophers label that way and consequently dislike. But it seems pretty implausible that there aren’t any consistent methodological or substantive differences–surely more people would have noticed by now and dropped the labels if that were the case. So, if the differences I’m describing aren’t at least part of that package of distinctions, what is (I mean that honestly–if you have a different way to conceptualize the distinction, I’d certainly be open to accepting it over my own)?
Posted from: 71.139.10.226
February 23rd, 2007 09:37
For the people defending Jason Baldwin on postmodernism – can you read? The question asked for a comparison between continental and analytic philosophy. Jason Baldwin ignored that, and ranted about postmodernism. That is the issue.
Posted from: 128.62.103.77
February 23rd, 2007 10:50
Agree with Miask. Seriously, “I found ___ more persuasive, so I voted for them” is the least educational excuse for an “RFD” I’ve heard in any important elim round.
I question how Mr. Baldwin finds it reasonable to talk about how first year outs may malign the educational value of debate when he refused to even come close to an explanation of his decision in the finals of TOC.
At least most of the first year outs will reference specific arguments and things that happened in the round that influenced your RFD.
Posted from: 207.80.127.240
February 23rd, 2007 11:51
I had the opportunity to meet Jason at the Big Bronx tournament and found him to be an intelligent, principled, and thought provoking man. He should not be criticized for abiding by what he says is his paradigm. There are so many judges that say one thing (eg.I will accept progressive argumentation or I’ll accept speed)and then vote a debater down because the debater used one or the other. This happened to my debaters at Barkley Forum and Stanford. I would much rather have a traditional judge like Jason in a round with one of my students than someone that gives a paradigm that isn’t true.
Posted from: 134.84.74.103
February 23rd, 2007 12:04
Daniel–Much of the criticism of Jason re: pomo (e.g. Berryhill’s) has centered on the content of his views along with the way he presented them in his answers. There’s nothing wrong with addressing the former criticism without contesting the latter.
Posted from: 209.6.236.19
February 23rd, 2007 13:33
Eric: I should first clarify that I didn’t raise the subject of qualification because I think that only authorities are entitled to speak on a topic or because I was demanding that anyone who wants to speak on this topic state theirs. You’ll notice that I never mentioned what qualification I would have to speak on this subject in any of my posts, and that’s certainly not because I assume that I am so well-known in the debate community that it doesn’t need stating. If all of the posts in this thread had been civil and intelligent, I’m sure I never would have raised the subject of qualification in the first place. But from the tone and content of many of the posts it was evident that they were written by people with little to no expertise about philosophy, and yet dripped with arrogance nonetheless. I mean, suggesting that Jason needs to brainwash high school students because he can’t pick on people his own size or that a reasonable way to proceed in this discussion would be to post passages by relevant figures ripped from their original context and share our interpretations? Some of this is truly bizarre stuff and I just think that people should imbibe a little humility. Just to pluck a random example for illustrative purposes, I imagine that if I were to have a prolonged legal discussion with Anjan there might arise points on which we disagree, but I certainly wouldn’t condescend to him as if he was a moron because of it; after all, he does know a lot more about the law than I do. Some people have earned the respect to speak about particular topics without being heckled, and I would think that Jason is among that group when the subject is philosphy and its uses in debate rounds.
As for the substance of your post, it was a fine example of how intelligent discussion on this topic could proceed. I won’t pretend to have the wherewithal to address all of it, but let me throw a few thoughts out there. I’m with Christian in being a little suspicious that in defending Continentals from the smears of Analytics, you yourself resort to constructing a conspiracy theory that Analytics are obsessed with erecting boundaries and fencing off the Other that seems just as paranoid as the view of Continentals that you attribute to Analytics. You are of course right that Continental philosophy is a broad category encompassing a diverse range of views, and I assume that’s partly why Jason spoke in terms of Postmodernism not Continentental. And you are also of course right that any intelligent examination of Continental philosophy would have to take each thinker on his or her own and give that person a fair hearing. But I don’t see how that prevents us from making certain general inferences about overarching divisions among philosophers regarding substance and especially style. While I can conveive of a Republican candidate whose policies I might support, that doesn’t block the inductive inference from years of experience that it is characteristic of Republicans to favor policies that I do not support. Jason was outlining a broad take on Continental philosophy while all the while admitting that each thinker deserves a separate hearing and that he can’t support his broad take without detailed textual work. That seems fair to me.
My own view on the Continental/Analytic split is this. There are philosophers labeled as Continental that I find interesting, such as Sartre or Foucault. There are also those I find maddening, such as Heidegger or Derrida. I don’t doubt that agonizing and careful reconstructions of Heidegger or Derrida could produce views worth examining, but if in fact you are right that what we get from all of the technical machinery and jargon that makes Heidegger so impenetrable are views that others have stated and defended with greater clarity and rigor, then what’s the point? Life is short, and I don’t have the time to scrutinize every thinker’s corpus before deciding whether they are worth devoting attention to in the first place. So judgments often have to be made on the basis of impressions of intelligibility and worth. As you point out, there are famously difficult thinkers who are very much incorporated into the analytic tradition, such as Hegel and Nietsche and Wittgenstein. And obviously philosophy is not meant to be easy, and requires a certain amount of patience and interpretive charity. As an aside I am not sure I concur with your selection of Wittgenstein as a paragon of the analytic tradition, since as I’m sure you know there are analytic thinkers who get frustrated by Wittgenstein and there are departments where he is certainly not regarded with the level of respect that he commands at say Pitt or Harvard. Russell seems a more logical choice to me, but that’s obviously not a point worth fighting over. Anyway, my basic point is just that in my experience with Continental philosophy (or especially with Postmodernism) I think that the analytic tradition is right to regard this work with some skepticism. That skeptical attitude is a defeasible presumption, though, as is proven by the many examples you cite of dialogue between the traditions. Based on this way of looking at things I think that analytic philosophers come off as far more reasonable in their treatment of Continental philosophy than you give them credit for. The conclusions reached by different analytic and continental philosophers may be similar, but that doesn’t change the broad difference in style that seems indisputable and that to me favors the analytic tradition. Martha Nussbaum’s famous review of Judith Butler in The New Republic probably says most of this better than I can, but alas I’ve already written all of this so there you go.
Lastly I should say congratulations on your success in the application process. Where did you get into, where else did you apply, and where are you thinking about going?
Greg: It’s this accusation that Jason is somehow difficult to understand that might baffle me most. I disagree with him on some of these issues and it is certainly reasonable to insist that there is more to be said on some of these topics than he said in his brief responses to the questions, but he is without exaggeration one of the best writers I’ve ever read. To allege that he is vacuous and pretentious is a claim that I won’t even pretend to take seriously.
Congratulations on your accomplishments in life, though I will admit that the basis for your seeming belief that the fact that there is a 90% chance you’ll get an MA at a department founded by Tarski 75 some odd years ago serves as proof of your ability to understand logical argumentation or is relevant to this discussion in any way eludes me. Other than that all I can see in your two posts are a series of ad hominems against Jason and professions of your own greatness, which I’ll let stand without rebuttal as a testament to your contribution to this discussion.
Essentially, I see that because you work on Continental thinkers you are understandably upset by Jason’s claims, but does that really warrant all of your insults? And has anyone yet once explained what more they could have expected Jason to do in this forum to substantiate his claims?
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
February 23rd, 2007 14:27
Two quick notes: First, as regards language and manner of presentation in analytic and continental philosophy, I think no one would deny that there are analytic philosophers who are a headache to read. The contrast between analytic and continental philosophers in this respect isn’t so much about clarity as it is about precision. Again, I haven’t read enough continental philosophy to substantiate this claim thoroughly, but it seems to be that the difference between a dense passage from Nietzsche and an equally sense passage from Frege (or the appropriate contemporary equivalents like, say, Kripke and Zizek) is that, if I know how each term is being used in the respective passages, there’s much less ultimate ambiguity about what Frege is saying than there is about what Nietzsche is saying–experts don’t need to have the same kind of interpretational wars over Frege as with Nietzsche in order to address the substance of what he’s saying). Of course, part of that has to do with the fact that they’re dealing with different subject matter, but even when that’s not the case (say, comparing Nietzsche’s criticisms of religion to Bertrand Russel’s), the same general pattern holds (not universally, of course, but generally). The primitive notions that analytic philosophers introduce to define their terms (existence, objects, sets, properties, and so on) are much more intuitively accessible than those introduced by their continental counterparts, even if you want to argue that they’re no less problematic.
Wittgenstein is an obvious counter-example to much of what I say above, but I think he’s much to far from being a paradigm of analytic philosophy to be useful in that regard. He tends to be seen as an analytic philosopher because he worked in an analytic department on what have traditionally been seen as analytic problems, but his approach to those problems (e.g. the “Don’t think but look” injunction) has a distinctly continental flavor. At the very least, he straddles the line to a certain extent.
Second, I agree with Nathan that there isn’t much more Jason could have done to answer the question posed to him in a reasonable amount of space. He says “Continental philosophy has such-and-such traits,” with the obvious tacit claim being that analytic philosophy does not (or does to a significantly lesser extent). That’s a succinct and clear explanation of his position. To substantiate that position at all substantively would require him to cite large passages from representatives text on both sides of the dichotomy, covering a reasonably wide topical and chronological range, and taking a couple thousand words at the very least. The only thing that he could have done beyond what he did is to reference some sources that contain that sort of extended argument, but people almost certainly would have jumped on him for doing that too (as avoiding the question).
Posted from: 24.6.153.235
February 23rd, 2007 18:18
DANIEL MOERNER IS MORE OF A WINNER!
Posted from: 71.139.26.245
February 23rd, 2007 18:20
Christian – my mistake. I see what you mean.
Posted from: 74.70.149.223
February 23rd, 2007 18:33
“proof of your ability to understand logical argumentation or is relevant to this discussion in any way eludes me. ”
I mean this with no disrespect to Nathan, who is a very cool guy from what I’ve heard, but I think it is a proof in that Miask has shown to have competency in this field and thus is able to contribute to it constructively. Just like you said (“The vast majority of you who have been critical of him have nowhere near his level of expertise in philosophy”) JB has studied philosophy more than I have and thus knows more than me. He definitely does know more than me about Hume (he has a paper on Hume on jstor that is pretty interesting). You suggested qualification implicitly by saying that we didn’t have the level of expertise which admittedly I do not have. Miask is just saying that he does have the qualifications to challenge JB’s claims.
More to the point, even if certain philosophers are difficult I think that reading them can be rewarding and their thought can be made more accessible. Theres no reason why it cant be.
Posted from: 74.192.156.32
February 23rd, 2007 21:04
http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2006/06/16/consider-coaching/
Posted from: 69.249.68.171
February 24th, 2007 15:33
Without committing myself to either faction in this debate, I think it’s important to recognize that Jason is specifically referring to critical theory, post-modernism, and “various flavors” of cultural studies. The gist of this grouping seems to convey its author’s aversion to the various spinoff movements that continental philosophers have produced and not to the work of the philosophers themselves. To me, this distaste is well warranted. Foucault is frequently invoked to prop up stale, liberal arguments that are undergirded by totalizing, foundationalist assumptions he would have rejected. Deconstruction, more often than not, has become a political tool and its American practitioners often spout avaricious nonsense that seems to owe a lot more to Rage Against the Machine and Noam Chomsky than Levinas and Blanchot. The nuanced, scholarly, criticism of Edward Said have been supplanted by the bombastic charlatanism of Gayatri C. Spivak…i mean…when your book says, in big bubble letters, “She’s doing it again…” you know you’ve left serious scholarship behind.
To counter Jason’s dissatisfaction with movements that summarize Virginia Woolf’s work with the term “hymenal rupture,” assert that sexuality dissappears as a referent in the realm of hyperreal simulacra, or that the number 1 is a phallic signifier by arguing that Heidegger and Derrida are, in actuality, really good philosophers seems to miss the point…or at least an important point which is that how people run Derrida may be a bigger problem than the fact that people run him.
It seems to me like making this a debate over the merits of various schools of thought is short-sighted; before we even argue over whether or not different theorists merit consideration we ought to deal with the problems of implementation and interpretation that continue to plague debate, academia, and the culture at large.
Posted from: 150.209.139.70
February 24th, 2007 16:27
After having read this whole thread (I don’t know why I did), I feel like there is at least one more point to be discussed.
While this discussion of the difference between analytical or Continental philosophy is something that I am not qualified to speak of, it is that exact lack of qualification that I think hints at what Jason’s real point is. And I quote:
“Although I would advise students in search of strong arguments to avoid authors I regard as weak thinkers, one must appraise each argument on its own merits. I am less concerned that some LD students are making bad arguments (that’s part of the game) than I am that many other students are giving them a free pass.”
Jason, like many judges, may have their biases towards a set of thinkers or even a given school of thought. However, as at least evident from a somewhat seemingly inconclusive distinction on the differences between analytic and Continental philosophy, philosophy in debate (for at least some rounds) is more easily welcomed when not attached to a name. Also thoughg, evident through JB’s willingness to take time explaining himself to a bunch of high-schoolers, he is interested in the ideas presented and the presenters themselves, more so than hearing a philosopher’s words from a book he’s already read.
While I acknowledge this claim is very much against the status-quo, there is much to be said for an un-labeled, un-cited discussion of important philosophical ideas rather than an unclear application of those philosophers through unclear quotations.
Using philosopher quotations in-case removes a debater from having the obligation to explain their argument. Such labeling feeds into the problem of single unclear extensions determining the outcome of a round. In such instances, while the education that comes from strategic debating is still there (though the actual value of that strategic education may be in question) the educational value of the debate unquestionably goes down.
In removing the absolute obligation of a debater to explain their argument, debaters lose the value of a) learning to communicate complex ideas b) obtaining a fuller more comprehensive and internalized knowledgebase to be carried out longer than the 2 and a half month timespan that a topic is active. I’m not saying including quotes is inherently bad and ought not be done; instead, the general application of ideas without being attached to a name is more acceptable across a wider array of judges and also teaches debaters how such philosophy operates in the real world.
When debaters start blindly accepting the quotations of a philosopher as evidence, then justifications, assumptions, and ethical systems that ought to be questioned go untouched. If this premise is not obvious enough, simply consider how many rounds you (judges, coaches, or debaters) have taken part in where the normative conflicts are unclear because philosophical ideas were explained mostly through quotes. This, if nothing else, does great detriment to the educational value of the activity.
While I do not claim the educational value to be paramount to strategic value or whatever else, I hope I made at least a basic case for what it means to ADAPT to a wider array of judges that may have certain philosophical preferences while perhaps increasing the educational value of debate by ensuring debaters are forced to reflect on ideas they present.
Posted from: 129.116.10.13
February 24th, 2007 16:53
Jake:
“The gist of this grouping seems to convey its author’s aversion to the various spinoff movements that continental philosophers have produced and not to the work of the philosophers themselves.”
I really don’t think his argument is reducible to merely the “spinoff movements” of postmodernism. For example, the arguments regarding unclear writing, interpreting terms apart from their normal definitions, and the lack of verifiability are clearly applicable to Foucault, Derrida, etc. and not merely the movements they have spawned.
For the rest of your post, I would say two things. First, I think a lot of your post is entirely too vague. I would be interested to hear who makes these “stale, liberal arguments” and who these American practitioners who spout “avaricious nonsense” are. I agree that they exist, but that not everybody in the fields you sweepingly indict fit this model. Second, there is the implicit assumption that authors who cite prior authors, but are not entirely faithful to their work, deserve censure. I see no reason why authors can’t build on some concepts, deny others, etc, nor why this phenomenon is limited to the cultural studies you have a problem with. Aquinas relied heavily on Aristotle’s approach to reason, but obviously said things that Aristotle would dispute.
However, you’re completely right that there are problems of interpretation in debate and academia. I think there might have actually been a reasonable chance of synthesis between Mr. Baldwin’s position and the positions of most “progressives” in the community on this point if the way debaters run postmodernism wasn’t often dishonest and inaccurate (and not just a way for the in-crowd to validate their own intellectualism).
More broadly, I think we’ve done this discussion a disservice by limiting it to precise definitions of what “true philosophy” is. It’s kind of ironic on the part of the defenders of postmodernism to limit it to a philosophy discussion, since one of the central beliefs of many postmodernists has always been the blending of typically disparate disciplines such as philosophy. For example, Linda Hutcheon writes in “Theorizing the Postmodern”:
“If elitist culture has indeed been fragmented into specialist disciplines, as many have argued, then hybrid novels like these work both to address and to subvert that fragmentation through their pluralizing recourse to the discourses of history, sociology, theology, political science, economics, philosophy, semiotics, literature, literary criticism, and so on.”
This also accounts for the tendency for postmodernism to blend traditional distinctions between philosophy and literature, and why so many comparative literature departments focus on postmodern thinkers. In other words, I completely agree with Mr. Baldwin that postmodernism should not be taken as serious philosophy. Postmodernism doesn’t take ITSELF as serious philosophy. But does that mean it is completely valueless for debate? No. Does anyone really believe that the only field of interest to debate is philosophy, and not political theory, sociology, etc? No. A lot of analytic philosophy is utterly irrelevant to debate: philosophy of mathematics, the mind, religion and others.
I also think this hints on some other topics Mr. Baldwin has brought up, namely, the tendency of postmodernists to become deeply involved in political movements. Exactly. Postmodernism rejects traditional distinctions between theory and practice just as much as it rejects traditional distinctions of discipline. But to imply that this means that postmodernism is wholly untrustworthy in matters of interpreting the world we live in, and ethics, is foolish. Jon Cruz asked something particularly insightful above: “Aren’t all philosophers politically motivated? Especially philosophers like, say, John Locke, John Rawls, and Robert Nozick?” People don’t always write for academic approval and the lofty goal of “finding truth”, they are often deeply politically motivated and use texts to spread messages and encourage activism.
In conclusion, I don’t think it’s a big loss if postmodernism does not deserve the shiny title of “serious philosophy”. Interpreted clearly and relevantly, it has the likelihood to enrich debate rounds and the community as a whole.
Posted from: 205.188.116.204
February 24th, 2007 19:07
to follow up on roytman’s call for specifics…
Mr. Baldwin-
This year you judged me on three occasions, and on two of these occasions you served as part of a pannel (octas of Bronx and during the RR). The other members of the pannels were former debaters that were courteous enough to flow the entire rounds. You, however, chose to “take notes” on the constructives and write nothing thereafter.
Had you been a parent judge, I would have accepted your way of following the round as part of the game and done my best to adapt to the pannel. However, knowing your background (and that you are capable of flowing the rounds as well as or better than the other judges), I was extremely frusturated that you proactively chose to put my opponents and I in a more difficult position than necessary.
I think those incidents were prime examples of the “violent assertion” of one’s paradigm because they showed a level of disrespect for the debaters and a lack of consideration for the situation.
Having somewhat redefined the initially vague term, I hope you’ll offer a second response to the question.
That said, I certainly appreciated your post-round commentary and your willingness to discuss a position with me at length. I think your input in the activity’s development is valuable, and you’ve been nothing but friendly towards me so I’m sorry if this comes off harshly.
Matt Aks
Posted from: 71.50.220.197
February 24th, 2007 20:16
I don’t think some of the persons responding understands why everyone reacts so negatively to Jason Baldwin. Jason Baldwin is a big a**hole. Not only does he use his position in the debate community to satisfy his ego (c.f. his whining about not getting to judge at TOC), he has used Rostrum articles to make one-sided attacks on numerous people across the debate community, as well as a couple anonymous ad homs in his initial interview. He may have the tact not to name names, but his attitude is repugnant.
My response is merely on par with JB’s attitude. Maybe I should take the higher road, but I get great pleasure from knowing that Jason may read it and get angry. I didn’t mean to turn this into a dick-waving contest about qualifications–I just wanted to point out that Jason may be a little presumptuous in his attitude, especially given how long he’s taken to finish his PhD. I’m technically as qualified as he is in terms of formal degrees that we have earned.
Posted from: 71.50.220.197
February 24th, 2007 20:21
I wanted to clarify the last point – Jason should not be so presumptuous about the validity of his own arguments. Relative to his audience, and, in fact, many of his detractors, he is hardly an established, intellectual authority on the issues he speaks of. I don’t see why we should just defer to and trust his un-explained intuitions about rather contentious issues in contemporary philosophy, like he’d rather have us do. (I mean, maybe he actually wants us to challenge his ideas, but he sure doesn’t want to answer said challenges in a reasonable manner. It’s kind of like the annoying debaters that repeat the exact same argument in each speech and think it has somehow become more brilliant each time they say it, when really you just want to claw your eyes out each time they repeat the argument.)
Posted from: 70.111.201.136
February 24th, 2007 20:48
I’d like to ask if Mr. Baldwin himself did actually leave the activity for some years before returning to it.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
February 24th, 2007 21:26
calling the majority of postmodern philosophy “serious” or even distinguishing between the serious and the non-serious (silly? joking? absurd? zany? strange? monstrous? peculiar? unintellectual? gaudy? decadent? precocious? snooty? badass mother fucker? ) is exactly the sort of statist distinction that many postmodernists and poststructuralists would critique. in conclusion, state philosophy is whack, yo.
Posted from: 71.212.13.232
February 24th, 2007 21:35
This is for Matt Aks,
Why exactly does anyone have an obligation to flow your debate round? It is the perogative of every judge to decide how they want to take in a round.
My handwriting is pratically illegible at times, but I have a very good memory. Unless I flow on my laptop, the odds that I actually look at my flow after a round are very low. Why flow then? I guess I probably have normally done it to reassure debaters whom I know want me to “flow,” and I know that ’s what I wanted when I debated.
That said, there is no magic objective “flow;” everyone hears the round through their own lens and that affects how they view the round. If some judges think they evaluate better by listening more and writing less, that is their perrogative.
Posted from: 129.116.10.13
February 24th, 2007 22:03
Not all postmodernists think the state is a bad thing. But yah aside from that my point is basically the same as Rebar’s.
Posted from: 209.6.236.19
February 24th, 2007 22:09
Sohail: Obviously I understand the point behind why Greg was listing his qualifications; I was just noting that the manner in which he did it was somewhat peculiar. And obviously there are many philosophers who are very difficult to read who are still worth reading, as I acknowledged above. But I don’t think that this undermines either of my two central claims about the Continental/Analytic distinction: first that clearer is better, and second that it can be reasonable to have a defeasible presumption that certain intellectual traditions tend to produce thinkers that are more unintelligible and obfuscatory than others.
Jake: I think that you are right that Jason’s comments are even more powerful and accurate when applied to those who claim to speak for Heidegger and Derrida than they are when applied to those thinkers themselves.
Josh: I think you are right that debaters have a tendency these days to name-drop rather than argue sometimes, and maybe this would get better if people relied less on quotations, I’m not sure. But when debaters take ideas from someone they should obviously attribute those ideas to that thinker by name, even if they don’t quote from him/her. I don’t imagine that you were saying anything otherwise, but your post did leave this point ambiguous and so I thought it worth clarifying.
John: Your defense of postmodernism is only successful if we assume that the intellectual standards that we apply to various disciplines should be radically different. I’m not sure that I would characterize the discussion thus far as one about what counts as “true philosophy,” but I think that the point of the discussion has been to establish what intellectual standards are characteristic of sound thinking in general. To plead that postmodernism is some hodgepodge of disciplines doesn’t seem to do anything to address this argument. Also, I don’t think that you are giving a very accurate reconstruction of Jason’s comments about the political motivations of postmodernists. His claim was that it seems that postmodernists are willing to sacrifice intellectual rigor and perhaps even honesty for the sake of political ends. You might think that claim is going way too far or is self-evidently false, but at any rate that is his claim. Saying that Rawls or Nozick themselves had political convictions obviously does not then establish any sort of equivalence between postmodernism and analytic philosophy or dispute Jason’s claim in any way, because it does not show that they would have been willing to sacrifice intellectual rigor or honesty to further their political convictions. And for my part I see no reason to believe that they would have: each is more than forthright about admitting the weaknesses in their own views, which is not an acknowledgment you would expect from someone whose primary aim is to propagate his views rather than do good philosophy.
Greg: You have certainly gotten the message across that you don’t like Jason, and obviously it is not my aim here to convince you that you should. I was hoping to have a substantive discussion about the merits of Jason’s views, and thus far I cannot see how you have contributed to realizing that goal in any way. If that is not your aim, then so be it I guess. And as I made clear in my last post my point certainly was not to suggest that we should all bow down to Jason and take his word for whatever he says about philosophy because he knows more than all of us. I just think that the amount of time he’s spent learning philosophy means that when he speaks about philosophy he shouldn’t be dismissed and disrespected by those who know practically nothing about the subject. While I wouldn’t group you in with those who know practically nothing, I also wouldn’t exempt you from the requirement to show some respect. Jason may state his views forcefully, and it may even sometimes be clear who is he criticizing in the community. But he’s never resorted to calling someone an a**hole, which is more than can be said for you. I can see how his provocative claims fall well within the ambit of the vibrant discourse that I thought people wanted to see more of on this forum, but name-calling I have a harder time seeing as productive. Lastly, you say that Jason just repeats himself without actually justifying his views, while you never once address my argument that no one has ever specified what more you could have reasonably expected him to do here. So you are the one who is saying the same thing over and over again without addressing opposing arguments, which you are undoubtedly correct is definitely annoying.
Rebar: ???
Time for me to go do some more statist philosophy.
Posted from: 75.73.206.15
February 24th, 2007 22:28
Chris, I think the point was was that JB was not following the “Golden Rule”…
Either way, I don’t know Mr. Baldwin, but these interviews with him make me not want to associate with him.
Posted from: 129.116.10.13
February 24th, 2007 23:13
Nathan: I think your post is a good example of when people will insert subtle adjectives into an argument to make it seem better than it is. For example, when you claim that “[my] defense of postmodernism is only successful if we assume that the intellectual standards that we apply to various disciplines should be radically different,” it is unclear why the standards need be radically different. Are the thinkers in question radically less rigorous? If you believe this is the case, then you need to substantiate this a bit more. We’ve moved from a simple “difference” to a very large difference, because it is obvious that there are at least some differences in writing style, etc. between disciplines. Additionally, if we choose to focus merely on writing styles, we run into a couple of problems, namely that:
a. there is nowhere near the homogeneity in postmodernism required to make the claims you’re making,
b. there are other explanatory factors, such as translational errors.
But I agree that this would require a more in-depth examination of texts, which nobody seems to want to get into at the moment. Fair. Let’s accept that these generalizations are at least fraught with difficulty and inaccuracy.
More to the point, I think you are constructing a completely different discussion. If it were truly to discuss whether or not intellectual standards are good, there would not be pages and pages of the intellectual history of analytic and continental philosophy. It seems very clear that the discussion which is really being had is whether or not philosophy has certain doctrinal traditions which are anathema to postmodernism. In terms of that argument, my argument is that a preference of philosophy departments towards the analytical does not demonstrate a widespread belief that postmodernism is useless. This is significant, because if this claim is true, yours and Mr. Baldwin’s claim towards a kind of majority consensus is entirely irrelevant. If postmodernism is a “hodgepodge of disciplines”, then it seems fairly obvious that we should look to how those other disciplines view the subject as well. Then I would point to the far greater acceptance of postmodernism in law, sociology, and other such departments in various instantiations.
I think that brings me to a broader point, which is that something must account for this greater tendency to embrace postmodernism. At a glance, concepts like “genealogy” and “ethnography” do seem more suited to a doctrine like sociology. I would very loosely hypothesize that the tendency of postmodernists to focus on the experiences of particular groups (cultural studies?) finds a synthesis with sociological thinking. Mr. Baldwin is pretty aware of this when he tells students they might be more likely to find these thinkers in sociology departments.
On the issue of intellectual rigor and honesty. For a defender of analytic philosophy, it’s interesting that these terms are only implicitly defined and often equivocated in your writing. I would ask what defines intellectual rigor? If it is using certain forms of data as opposed to others, then it seems we can’t answer this question without answering the question of what discipline postmodernism is suited for. If it means the length of time spent explaining concepts and considering them before writing, then the claim seems self-evidently absurd. On honesty specifically, this is a claim I wished I had focused on in my original post and will now. To say that postmodernists can’t write very well is one thing. But to say that postmodernists are deliberately skewing facts and positions for political reasons is a serious charge and I’m sure you as well as anyone would know that there needs to be far more evidence than you have given for that.
My initial claim was responsive to Mr. Baldwin’s because it argued that despite a blending of theory and practice, we should not interpret postmodernists as lazy liars. There are entirely non-malicious reasons why postmodernists choose to speak about politics the way that they do. A non-postmodern example might be Marx’s Communist Manifesto, which is a text that at least has some relevance to political science departments, but clearly was written to create change. You say that my argument fails because it does not prove that Rawls and Nozick lied for the sake of politics. But my claim entirely was that there is no clear connection between having political motivations and lying for their sake. In other words, my claim is not that both camps skew the facts, it’s that neither do, and that more significantly, if all you have proven is a political connection, it is not evidence for the larger claim you and Mr. Baldwin are making.
So my position is currently twofold. First, the idea that postmodernism is a blending of disciplines is entirely relevant because there is a clear distinction between the standards and practices of different disciplines. Second, that nothing which has been previously said has done a sufficient job in proving that postmodernists are academically dishonest.
Posted from: 66.32.104.160
February 24th, 2007 23:31
Hehe, I think it is interesting that I saw Jason Baldwin reading The Theory Toolbox at the Vestavia Tournament :).
Posted from: 71.50.220.197
February 25th, 2007 00:29
My reason for continuing to insult Jason Baldwin in every possible public forum is that I hope some day he will get the point and leave the activity that, for the most part, doesn’t really want him around anyways.
Posted from: 69.107.88.132
February 25th, 2007 00:35
“we would have to work through some of the disputed texts in detail, and that’s not feasible here.”
although we haven’t actually looked at specific texts, i think we have had quite an educational discussion on analytic vs continental philosophy. i believe it would be quite feasible to look at specific texts of authors that jason baldwin is criticising and have an educational discussion of the merits of jb’s views.
Posted from: 71.50.220.197
February 25th, 2007 00:38
Really, let’s honestly have a debate about this. If Jason Baldwin weren’t involved in debate any more, would we lose anything from it? We’d have loss pretentious Rostrum articles loaded with [mostly false] accusations lodged against random people, as well as misguided, asserted indicts of any trend that Mr. Baldwin happens to disagree with. We’d get less uncomfortable every year at TOC when he isn’t there to stand around and give every other person a death stare. It’s not like he coaches anyone. It’s not like he explains his RFD when he judges rounds. I’m not sure what good his continued role in the activity does.
Posted from: 71.77.43.196
February 25th, 2007 09:28
First, I am not posting my name because I genuinely fear retaliation from debaters and judges if I did. You, the
community, ought to be ashamed of yourselves in this regard.
The next thing you ought to be ashamed of is the offensive and ridiculous way in which you have asserted your arguments.
Weeks:
“Agree with Miask. Seriously, “I found ___ more persuasive, so I voted for them” is the least educational excuse for an
“RFD” I’ve heard in any important elim round.”
I fail to understand how a judge voting for claims they agree with and ignoring ones they don’t is uneducational. I would
hope (though sadly this may not be the case for some) that every judge does this to some degree; otherwise rounds become
not a contest of persuasion which rewards reasonable argumentation, but a contest of who can develop the most ridiculous
argument that no one understands, but will become a crystal clear impact to nuclear war when it is dropped. What you really
mean is that a judge who evaluates rounds by deciding which arguments were more persuasive is a bad judge, that instead
judges should judge rounds on ‘the flow’. I only hope you take this paradigm to its natural extension. If you know a lawyer,
why don’t you have him spread the jury out and tell them that they are bad people if they ignore your arguments that
convicting your client leads to extinction, because they went clean dropped. Since persuasion is unimportant in
argumentation, why don’t we just start making extensions on VBD discussions and decide them that way? I’m sorry, but I
seriously doubt you would be able to repeat the claim you just made with a straight face to any intelligent person outside
of debate, and if you can, I find that extrordinarily scary.
to follow up on roytman’s call for specifics…
Aks:
You are espousing the same ‘violent assertion’ of a judging paradigm that you want us to reject. You find a judge who
decides to adjudicate a round based on which debater better persuaded them to be violently asserting their paradigm, but
a judge that blindly accepts the notion that they know nothing and have nothing but a piece of paper to adjudicate the
round to be an impartial adjudicator. Every judge’s beliefs preclude some types of argumentation. What if I wanted to
argue that speed and the flow are bad in front of a flow judge? The notion that speed and the flow are bad measures of a
debate round appeals to a person’s inherent reasonability, which these judges have predetermined has no place in a debate
round. Ah, the irony. Seriously, would it not be hypocritical to judge a round on any criteria except on the ones a judge
believes to be important? Mr. Baldwin is not being disrespectful; he probably feels that you are being just as disrespectful to
him by not even attempting to persuade him.
We in the debate community need to step back for a second. When we graduate, some of us will look back on debate as a fun
game they played in high school. These debaters will be equipped with several unique skills; the ability to speak extremely
quickly, the ability to understand (or often the false belief that they understand) continental philosophy, and the ability
to understand what goes on in this ‘game’ which is increasingly turning inwards. Others will looks back on debate as an
activity where they learned to speak persuasively, develop a meaningful perspective on the question posed by the resolution,
and develop reasonable arguments which appeal to a wide audience. They will be able to apply their work in debate to real
life situations, whereas I seriously doubt that debaters learning the most trendy agruments for Nihlism or why language
dosen’t exist will find any meaningful real-life application for their ‘knowledge’. I choose the second option, and have
already beeen able to apply my experiences in debate to my real life – I have had my political and moral viewpoints
challenged by articles I read and by cases I heard; I have had meaningful discussions related to debate topics with people
outside of the debate comminuty, and when I graduate, I will be able to look back on high school debate as an activity
that shaped me into a persuasive thinker and advocate.
Mangus:
Apply your comments to your own post and follow-up and I think you have made an excellent point.
Greg Miaskiewicz:
What scares me is that I think that you’re serious. High school debate has become an activity that is increasingly turning
inwards, losing more and more of its relevance to the real world. Mr. Baldwin has spent more effort than many of you deserve
trying to persuade you to step back and look at the direction in which debate is going. The quality of many of the posts
here has confirmed that debaters have become so screwed up that many are incapable of making reasonable arguments. You’re
getting the logical extension of the ‘progressive’ paradigm, and I hope you’re happy. I would like to repeat my suggestion
that we extend the progressive paradigm to forum discussions; since persuasion isn’t important, let’s decide these
discussions based on who can make more arguments and more extensions. Why don’t posters who disagree employ that strategy
of claiming that language dosen’t exist, and since that means we can’t accept your post, we should presume to theirs? In
our next discussion of philosophy, why don’t we argue that philosophy dosen’t exist, or if it does the question is vague
so we can’t accept it. We could then argue that even if you don’t buy that, a particular form of discourse used in a post
means we should reject the argument; remember, we’re people before we’re debaters, and we have an obligation to reject
forms of discursive domination. Seriously, the point is that none of us would EVER accept the progressive paradigm outside
of the context of a debate round, yet somehow in the context of ld we are willing to argue that it is a good thing. Mr. Baldwin
is simply extending the reasoning he uses in normal life (you would think someone shrieking at 500 wpm on the street was
a freak) to ld debate. For that, he is being mocked by the ld community.
Here’s my message in short. If you want to continue advancing the viewpoint that the progressive paradigm has any
educational, communicative, or other value, then extend this viewpoint to the rest of your life. If not, realize
that everything you espouse is a contradiction, that you don’t even buy the arguments you are advancing, and that
all that you have worked for in ld debate is essentially meaningless. And wow, you guys have some nerve to pounce on
Mr. Baldwin for pointing it out.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
February 25th, 2007 09:35
for the purposes of discussion, we should refer to “continental” or “postmodern” philosophy as “monstrous” philosophy from now on.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
February 25th, 2007 09:52
and to mr nathan f, who i have not yet had the distinction of meeting, cowabunga + much luck on your quest into that which is of the state, i too dig el philosophy de la state. especially IR.
And to anon2, quit jacking my schtick.
i have a brilliant idea: mandatory reading list of approved texts/methods for high school LD debate; the punishment for deviation will be explusion from the activity.
but serriously folks, hasn’t anyone thought that maybe the current system ain’t half bad? some judges dig persuasion, some vote on the flow, and some just want to talk about how bad the state is. dealing w/ all the kinds makes us better debaters and speakers b/c we gots to be both smart and persuasive and crazy and fast and monstrous. everyone is happy, JB gets to do his thing (which isn’t all that bad), Miask gets to do his thing (which isn’t all that bad either), Mikey Mang gets to do his thing (see a pattern?), and big dawg Nate-F gets to do his thing (rad!). you don’t have to agree on this shit, that’s why there are “paradigms” that “vary” from “judge” to “judge” totalizing ideas of the right harm us all.
DBL PST 4 LIE_PHHHH
Posted from: 69.211.111.62
February 25th, 2007 10:04
I think Weekes was more he could have explained why he found ___ more persuasive. I haven’t judged much but when I have, I have always given extensive oral kritiks showing where I voted and why I found the argument I voted more persuasive and a round winner and then commented on how the teams could have improved. Mr. Baldwin could have easily said I found X more persuasive because the argument they made was well logically thought up and not well responded too. However, as he did not do that he does not increase education for the debaters. Even some of the worst judges I have had at least the courtesy during the oral kritik/RFD to say why they voted where they did or tell us what they liked and did not like about our arguments within that debate round.
Also I think we get more education through going fast/extending dropped arguments/flow oriented because we have to research more meaning we learn more about a topic then if we just wrote to cases and went to tournaments. Also flowing in itself is a valuable skill in life, all flowing is just fancy notetaking but it can be taken simultaneously while a person is speaking meaning that we as debaters can take very good notes during presentations for business, lectures at college, and class in high school even. In my classes at school the teacher usually needs to repeat something 3-4 different times for people to write it down while I already have it down after the first time s/he said it. This is espiecially valuable because not everybody will always be able to repeat complex information in the business world so having the notes is always good.
Also you can learn to speak persuasively AND speak fast and flow and do national circuit debate. The two are not mutually exclusive, For example Ari Parker got to octas of the TOC junior year got 4 or 5 bids senior year and was still able despite all that speed and flowing to win the Illinois state tournament which is a tournament that values persuasive speaking. Not to mention all success that national circuit schools like GBN and NT have on the local circuit in Illinois despite all our debaters being mostly flow oriented. (I would say other regions of the country but I don’t know them well enough)
Finally what do you mean that we are turning inwards? That can sooooooooo many different things.
Posted from: 68.175.61.249
February 25th, 2007 10:14
I haven’t had a chance to follow this discussion in detail since my last post, but having skimmed over Rebar’s last post, I think he’s on target about the benefits of having diverse judging paradigms. Being able to win over many different kinds of judges makes one a better debater. Looking back on last season, I think Stephen Hess exemplified this: being able to win over the very different kinds of judges that could be found at tournaments like VBT and James Logan ultimately lead to a big victory at the TOC.
Posted from: 71.50.220.197
February 25th, 2007 10:29
I wouldn’t say that Jason Baldwin shouldn’t be in debate, if he didn’t do the EXACT SAME THING with reference to other people. Doesn’t anyone get the entire point of my squabble with Jason? I AM JUST REPLICATING WHAT JASON SAYS ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE TO JASON. MAYBE HE WILL GET THE POINT AND STOP BEING A FLAGRANT A**HOLE IN EVERY PUBLIC FORUM HE HAS ACCESS TO.
“Perhaps that’s what you were really wondering: Who shouldn’t judge debate rounds? Well, again, each tournament director has to make his or her own decisions about that. But I think it’s strange that most tournaments will allow pretty much anybody into their judge pools. If I were running a tournament, there would be some folks who would not be welcome, certainly not as hired judges, but not as school judges, either. There is a small but very real group of people (I think I could count them on the fingers of both hands), all ex-debaters, who have repeatedly and publicly shown themselves to be so arrogant, profane, and cruel that they should not be permitted to have anything to do with high school students. I don’t here mean people who disagree with me about debate theory (though most of them do); I mean people who are just nasty human beings, truly horrible role models. Many adult coaches know exactly who these people are, and it’s a mystery to me why they acquiesce in their presence at tournaments.”
Posted from: 71.50.220.197
February 25th, 2007 10:32
In reference to the TOC final round, based on Mr.Baldwin’s stated description of what was in the case run by Mr. Weeks, he did not actually reference any case that existed, nor was read in the room. I don’t understand why we owe someone the respect to listen to what they have to say if they refuse to afford that same respect to anyone else.
Posted from: 71.50.220.197
February 25th, 2007 10:40
anon2, that was a rather patronizing response. You don’t know what Mr. Weeks meant, so please do not speculate on his behalf. I can post the 1AC he ran in finals; it was 100% topical, stock, and normal. The asserted claim that we dislike Mr. Baldwin because we like to win off of blippy one-sentence extensions or weird, incomprehensible arguments is insulting.
I also don’t know how many more times I have to repeat that I am responding to Jason in the way that he treats other people and talks about them. If he wanted to maintain productive public discourse, he would stop insulting people and telling them to leave the activity. Some of his claims about VBI way back in the day in the Rostrum were close to libelous.
Posted from: 24.162.3.68
February 25th, 2007 11:15
I don’t understand the dichotomy people are making between “progressive” and “persuasive” debate. First, as many people have said, the two skills are not mutually exclusive –even fast, flow-based debaters don’t have to be in every round. Second, and more to the point, “progressive” debate is very, very persuasive in a bunch of different forums. When I, or any other debater, go fast and “weird”, I do so with the knowledge that whatever judge is in the back of the room buys into that paradigm of debate and is persuaded by someone winning on the flow. Persuasive tactics are only persuasive if you are being persuasive in the right way for any certain judge. Like, if you debate in front of Cooper, don’t take flex prep. If you debate in front of Christian, pay attention to the flow. That’s why stated judges paradigms and questions before the round, and, to a large extent, debate kid gossip are so crucial.
What I find difficult about certain judges (and this may apply to Mr. Baldwin, from what I hear; I’ve never been judged by him) is that they seem to take “persuasive” as enough. Mr. Baldwin’s RFD at the TOC is exactly my point. Which arguments did he find persuasive? Why? In what manner could the debaters attempt to be more persuasive in the future? I’m not arguing against what ever particular paradigm of debate he values – I agree with Rebar and Jon that it takes all types – I’m just saying it’d be more educational to provide some sort of context as to what sort of persuasion he would like.
Also, Anon made some claims about how this fast sort of debate isn’t educational. First, the ability to learn the rules of a game and play them well is crucial to any activity. Let’s run with your law example. In my mind, the difference between a broad, “reasonable person” attitude to the activity and a technical one is the difference between persuading the jury by telling them an anecdote and reading a supreme court opinion that has complicated legal reasons for doing what they did. The anecdote is reasonable, yes – but that specialized knowledge isn’t bad just because the lawyer would find it difficult to explain to their non-lawyer s.o. Moreover, I’m so not breaking into this debate here, but there is evidence to suggest that speaking fast has critical thinking benefits of its own, in terms of increasing short term memory and the like. But even if you are 100% percent right about the horrors of speed, I really, honestly believe that there is no fast debater that cannot slow down and be persuasive when the situation is right for it. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so.
Posted from: 71.77.43.196
February 25th, 2007 11:21
If I mis-characterized Week’s argument, I apologize. Nonetheless, I think we can name numerous people that espouse exactly the position I was attacking. If David is not one of them, then please view my comments as an attack on the perspective that persuasion has no place in a debate round.
I believe my characterizations were generally accurate, but nonetheless please look to the larger issue. I don’t want this to disintegrate into personal attacks, but I am genuinely appalled by the progressive paradigm and by many of the attacks that were made against Mr. Baldwin on this thread. I believe all the comments I noted were illustrative of viewpoints that are very destructive to the activity of Lincoln-Douglas debate; the point is not that Weeks believes them (on which account I accept that I may have been mistaken) but that all of us could easily list of dozens of individuals who do.
If you take nothing else from my post, please take this. I genuinely wonder how one can espouse the progressive paradigm in debate and not in real life; if arguments are better done fast and on the flow, why do you bother to appeal to reasonability on VBD? And when you have discussions with other ‘progressive’ coaches and debaters, why do you talk at a normal pace and focus on narrowing the scope of discussion to a single point of conflict?
Posted from: 71.70.246.134
February 25th, 2007 11:23
greg… seriously? you still aren’t even refuting what anon1 has said. I don’t know how your social interactions go, but in normal debates outside of the ridiculous world of high school debate, it goes like this:
person 1: you are wrong because x…
person 2: “you are insulting…”, but now let me refute your point.
why you still haven’t addressed the substance of what anon2 has shamed your debate practices and teachings with, I really don’t know. Just because you found him to be insulting, which is in fact absurd, doesn’t mean that you get to turn into a sad puppy and are exempt from being responsive. Furthermore, the amount of backlash and insults that we (people of the viewpoint of myself and anon2) receive goes far beyond the pathetic claims to an insulting tone that you claim against anon2. My advice: grow up, get out of high school debate and for god’s sake leave this discussion before anon2 makes you look even more ridiculous.
ps- that was a bit mean wasn’t it? I guess I’ve exempted you from responding yet again, since your feelings are surely hurt. ahh how you cleverly avoid substantive debate.
Posted from: 24.16.141.153
February 25th, 2007 11:35
“If you take nothing else from my post, please take this. I genuinely wonder how one can espouse the progressive paradigm in debate and not in real life; if arguments are better done fast and on the flow, why do you bother to appeal to reasonability on VBD? And when you have discussions with other ‘progressive’ coaches and debaters, why do you talk at a normal pace and focus on narrowing the scope of discussion to a single point of conflict?”
Uh, do doctors use medical terminology when talking to their mothers? Do lawyers use legalese in their everyday lives? Have you even seen a doctor talk to a colleague in an operating room? It’s barely English. I don’t understand how your comment is in anyway an intelligent observation or a “gotcha!” on some contradiction in progressive debate. Just because debate has developed its own lexicon and its own mode of delivery doesn’t mean that some massive hypocrisy has been created.
Posted from: 71.70.246.134
February 25th, 2007 11:43
mostafa,
it is a “gotcha!” because doctors and lawyers only use legalese in forums that are not open to the public. When lawyers have to appeal to a jury, they drop the jargon. By nature of being a communicative activity that is supposed to be open to all viewers, debate is obligated to avoid any sort of jargon. By making debate into an activity to requires specialization to a nearly unmatched degree, it has violated its fundamental goals of inclusion. There’s your hypocrisy.
Posted from: 24.16.141.153
February 25th, 2007 11:44
Also, sorry to double post, but I remember someone brought this up in an earlier discussion:
Many successful college policy debaters go on to become very successful people in positions that involve extensive interaction with people: lawyers, lobbyists, etc… The argument that speed somehow decreases someone’s capacity for intelligent and persuasive “normal” interaction with humans seems to me to be completely absurd and not based in reality.
Those who reject speed or jargon in debate assume that in order for debate to fulfill its pedagogical goal of teaching critical thought and persuasive ability must be achieved via replicating real-world conditions within a debate round, an assumption that is empirically denied by the successes of policy debaters who did engage in the hyperfast, hypertechnical sort of debate that the “traditionalists” (if we can even call them that) indict.
Posted from: 75.73.206.15
February 25th, 2007 11:49
Who says people join debate because they want to grow up to become lawyers and learn how to convince other people? I’m in debate because I get to read stuff I would otherwise not read, and argue about things in an intelligent fashion, however that intelligent fashion occurs. I’m not looking to apply anything I do IN a debate round to anything I do in real life, except maybe speaking skills (speaking slowly I already know how to do…speaking in a coherent, organized stream is something we are all in the process of learning).
Posted from: 24.16.141.153
February 25th, 2007 11:49
Cotter:
I’m not saying “don’t adapt.” Adaptation is fine. But I do think that it’s nonsensical to ask debaters to adapt to a persuasive style of someone who isn’t even in the room, or someone who doesn’t have a ballot. In the same way that different people in the “real world” that you people like to fetishize so much are persuaded by different things, so are judges…
Again, before you throw around terms like “inclusion” you need to tell me what they mean and why they matter. What the heck is “inclusion” anyway? Wasn’t the goal education? Or what exactly? Assuming I understand what you mean by inclusion, it’s not terribly difficult to use the internet and the TOC videos posted on VBD to be able to figure out LD, it’s not terribly complex either way.
Posted from: 24.16.141.153
February 25th, 2007 11:51
Jordan:
I agree. I’m just responding to the vantage point of the people who say debate is a tool for creating obedient and productive citizens by saying that fast debate does not preclude people from becoming successful in the “real world.”
Posted from: 71.50.220.197
February 25th, 2007 12:02
If you think I’m an asshole and I should leave debate because of what I’ve posted, then you should tell Jason Baldwin to leave, too, for exactly the same reasons. That was the whole point of my posts. Thanks to Mr. Cotter for finally getting the point.
Personally, I’d be satisfied if Mr. Baldwin refrained from making blanket generalizations about college students and their capacity to ajudicate debate rounds. It’d be pleasing to not have overt hypocrisy masquerading as an argument in the name of “education”–after all, his rationale is that we are “too immature” to be good educators. This coming from a person who takes the time to accuse others and insult them in a public forum. Until he stops doing that, why shouldn’t every college judge just give Mr. Baldwin a big collective f*** you?
Posted from: 71.50.220.197
February 25th, 2007 12:36
More generally, why is it OK for Mr. Baldwin to insult people and tell them to leave the activity, but not OK for people to insult him and tell him to leave the activity? If someone can give me a good answer to this question, I’ll refrain from drinking the haterade.
Posted from: 205.188.116.204
February 25th, 2007 12:55
Because he does it more eloquently.
Posted from: 70.111.153.161
February 25th, 2007 14:09
“More generally, why is it OK for Mr. Baldwin to insult people and tell them to leave the activity, but not OK for people to insult him and tell him to leave the activity? If someone can give me a good answer to this question, I’ll refrain from drinking the haterade.”
Mr. Baldwin won lots of shiny pieces of wood and plastic that ultimately meant nothing, that’s why.
Posted from: 150.209.139.126
February 25th, 2007 14:37
Miask: You’re definitely right that Baldwin has essentially flipped off many different people in the community. Your response makes total sense.
My only objection is that saying he should peace out from the activity ignores the value of his arguments. Much unlike many totally immersed in the activity, he provides a fresh and highly contentious outsider perspective that at least forces us to constantly reevaluate debate. As an activity promoting multiple avenues of learning, constant criticism of our activity aimed at multiple parties at least forces us to consider how to make it better.
Whether or not Mr. Baldwin’s arguments are in the minority is quite obvious from the array of ad hominem attacks on his credibility in conjunction with the frequent objections to his arguments.
On that note, I will draw the the parallel between the contentious role of Samuel Huntington’s role in International Relations academia to that of Baldwin’s in debate. As a highly contentious figure whose theories have sparked thorough debate, I would never seek to dismiss him from my own personal knowledgebase.
Even if his basic theories are proven less valuable or outright false in comparison to the status quo, at least we’re rethinking the way we currently do things. It is preferable to refute ideas then reject them outright. E.g. What if the current model of debate camps, cases, rounds or whatever else Baldwin criticises truly are not conducive to what we value the highest in debate?
As a final note, telling Baldwin to f*** off isn’t necessarily bad conduct considering he’s essentially been doing that to everyone else. However, telling him to leave excludes an entirely different, albeit occasionally offensive and potentially libelous, perspective from entering the purview of our discussions.
The message should be more fine-tuned to say: F*** off Baldwin & Bring it on.
Nathan F:
Actually, this point was ambiguous because, at least for me, I’m undecided on the issue. When we discuss abortion rights, it’s not as if Pro-Choicers are obligated to cite authors for all of their arguments even through their arguments have obvious philosophical underpinnings. Should ideas be discussed without attributing ownership to those ideas, the substantive debate of arguments in rounds would substantially increase.
I’m not saying this ought to be the case for arguments substantiated by empirical claims. Empirics obviously require a source in order to substantiate the supposed facts on numerous levels.
By comparison, for example, when discussing the potential impacts on marginalized peoples by X normative decision, I question the importance of sourcing the ideas unless there is an empirical debate to be had. To that end, i acknowledge that the foundation to many argument is in some way empirical; however, that view of sourcing is self-defeating because then everything we ever say would have to be sourced.
I am not sure how I feel about this issue at the moment, but in an activity where the education comes from both research and actual discussion, I question the merit of adopting approaches to case construction that allow debaters to hide behind an appeal to authority fallacy. This fallacy is not necessarily one that is promoted by the debater, but it is seemingly deeply imbedded in the way many debaters approach arguments. For many debaters, questioning the argument of SchoolAA proves easier than navigating the language of a philosopher.
From here, the obvious objection to what I am saying is that my argument is more applicable to criticsing the use of unclear quotations then it is to an appeal to authority. However, if one observes trends in the debate community, debaters reference philosophers like pop-culture icons that ought to be integrated into cases by virtue of their popularity. Similarly, debaters facing these icons often feel intimidated. This leads to poor debate on the level of both case construction and in-round discussion.
This issue obviously feeds into changing the pedagogical methods of many coaches, however, even that does not fix the problem. Insofar the use of language is inherently attached to both context and cognitive agenda of the actor using language, the most substantive debate is present when it is produced from an internalized and personalized knowledgebase of the debater. This ensures maximum degrees of clarity and argument applicability of ideas.
Overall then, Yes Nathan, I am questioning the merit of our current citation practices in debate. I think all of this goes back to Baldwin’s holistic thesis of increasing the communicative clarity of the activity while enhancing the critical thinking skills of debaters in a way applicable to the real world in most situations.
Contrary to Baldwin, I am not pressing a massive “f*** you” onto the debate community as is. Instead, I love having a diverse range of judges in the debate community as noted by Rebar, Jon Cruz, and others.
However, as a 1st year out that is annoyed with Baldwin’s steadfast assertion that first year-outs are bad for the debate community, I to join in the with the collective message: f*** you Baldwin. Please refrain from whining about the inclusion of those that love the activity. Thanks.
- Josh
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
February 25th, 2007 15:01
correction to Alex Zhao: HE WON THE MOST SHINY PIECES OF WOOD AND PLASTIC EVER!!!!!!
reference my above arg about all sorts of judges. i like critical stuff, some people don’t. boo hoo. the idea that there is some sort of standard of judging either way (baldwin’s way or any one else’s) is just absurd. yes, i dislike parent judges because they don’t know the debate conventions that i am used to, yes i wish i could debate every round in front of someone who reads as much deleuze and guattari as i do, but no, i’m not going to force the way i feel on anyone else. furthermore, the more i think about the things i like in debate rounds, such as critical argumentation, the more i can think of only two justifications for them or any other sort of controversial “non-persuasive” debate:
1. it’s fun! why else would we do any of these things?
2. lack of a better forum. yes, you can’t spew in the senate. exactly. where can you spew? high school and college debate. this feeds back into point number 1 as well, because we want to do things that are fun, and we can’t do those fun things elsewhere.
oh, and fast talking is fun, except when people are unintelligible (that sucks).
in conclusion, keep debate open to fun sorts of totally useless speech acts, but don’t make everyone accept it.
Peace out, A-town down.
Posted from: 70.234.128.86
February 25th, 2007 16:31
kevin,
miask really isn’t avoiding substantive debate, largely because whichever anon misunderstood what was being said entirely. david says:
“Agree with Miask. Seriously, “I found ___ more persuasive, so I voted for them” is the least educational excuse for an “RFD” I’ve heard in any important elim round.”
the problem, says david, is the lack of articulating a decision. some analysis as to how the arguments interplayed or why one point is more persuasive than another would have probably been desirable if one wishes the activity to be educations, says david.
so, the reason miask is “not being responsive” is because anon1 or 2, i can’t remember which, was not being responsive.
Posted from: 70.234.128.86
February 25th, 2007 16:59
educational, not educations.
Posted from: 74.70.149.223
February 25th, 2007 18:22
A/T: anon2
1) Stop indenting your paragraphs strangely it makes it hard to read
2) Turn – Persuasion is pretty anti-educational. Current politics reflects this attitude of focus on style rather than content. Politicians focus on image and perception to motivate (the few) voters to vote for them. I think that this fetishism with persuasion is antithetical to education. NOTE i make a distinction between clear and persuasive. Clear would be the ability for an argument to be understood like someone saying “US should violate national sov. of nations that harbor terrorist and give financial aid because the nations pose an active threat” that is clear but may not be persuasive based of f of your political leanings. Here persuasion isn’t a concern with argument quality, truth or implications but rather, how the argument fits within a preconceived notion of reality. Thats problematic for many reasons. Btw, the real life example you give (juries) is not a very good model for what education aims to do. Juries are heavily persuaded by emotional pleas and give preference to witnesses rather than material evidence (some study talked about this) which are very unreliable (memories is very very tenuous). I think that this focus on form rather than content is part of the problem.
3) Turn – Persuasion can’t be predicted in round. This doesn’t apply to postmodern arguments (you can usualy tell who wont ever by them because they will tell you). There’s no real way to predict which arguments will or will not be considered acceptable or persuasive because alot of various factors effect peoples views of certain positions. Personally, I find general welfare idiotic because it is heavily abused and like ryan o’hara once said I dont care about poor people (he might of said something close to that).
3) Persuasion is ultimately idiotic because it presupposes its basis. Persuasion matters because you believe that the dominant dialogue is legit and that there can’t be a more educational form.
A/T: Analytic/Continental
1) A.J. Ayer is a big whig when it comes to analytic philosophy. He is not that easy to read (I’m dumb :( ). I was trying to read Language, Truth, and Logic and I found it as tough as any postmoden i read because of its style and its use of abstraction. Given this, his philosophy was very influential to major schools of thought. Even if someone is hard to read it doesn’t destroy the value of the ideas. Clearer is better but a lot of things worth doing require effort.
A/T: Miask
Post the AC or email me it or im it.
Posted from: 207.28.200.29
February 25th, 2007 19:16
I think everything that has been said that needs to be said, but I would like to say I’m rather thankful to all the young coaches who made it possible for me to debate, particularly my senior year when our director left and we didn’t have a coach. I think that was probably better than no debate, contrary to what Jason suggests. Likewise, it’s upsetting to know that the majority of my weekends the last two years were harmful to the students I worked with, assisting programs that have had similar situations. I’m always one of the first to point out the need for older coaches in this activity, but I think the majority of them would tell you how ridiculous it is to claim that all young coaches should just walk away for a couple years and not consider helping out.
Posted from: 71.70.246.134
February 25th, 2007 19:31
first, props to Ben L
second to Mostafa:
you really just prove my point with what you are saying. I need to define “inclusion”? seriously? If you asked someone to define inclusion in an intelligent discussion, I promise that you would be throoughly laughed out of that room. Reasonable people make reasonable assumptions for the sake of debate. We assume that the word inclusion means including as many people as possible because 1) that is the accepted definition of it but 2) because making assumptions allows for focus of debate. by claiming to not understand what inclusion means, you stall debate. just like in debate rounds, I now have to explain what the word inclusion means because you pretend not to know what it means in order to stall telling me that the substance of what I said is in fact compeltely false.
now to re-explain why the word inclusion, as reasonable people interpret it, is important. Inclusion means including as many people as possible. By speaking in a manner that the general public and many highly intellectual individuals cannot understand (hyperfast and not eloquently), you exclude many people. Not only does this inhibit the education of those attempting to watch the debate, but it inhibits your’s by teaching you that this is an acceptable form of eloquent speech. People that are watching hyperfast talking for the first time are not able to take part in the debate because though they may be far smarter than the fast-speaker, they cannot comprehend the arguments at such breakneck speeds. Thus you EXCLUDE people from gaining the education in deabte that you claim is so valuable.
I really don’t know if it is valuable anymore considering the verbal masturbation and intellectual prostitution that passes for eloquent debate today.
Posted from: 208.54.95.1
February 25th, 2007 20:05
Question for Jason’s critics:
Is it even possible, in your view, for a particular approach to coaching to be countereducational? If, for example, Jason forwarded a thesis that wasn’t tied to the age of a coach, would anyone be willing to hear that thesis out? It seems like a lot of people are eager to talk about what fosters success but unwilling to talk about what fosters education (which isn’t to say success and education are unrelated).
Posted from: 70.111.153.161
February 25th, 2007 20:30
I’d be willing to hear it out, but Baldwin’s theses seem to be based entirely on age.
Posted from: 24.16.141.153
February 25th, 2007 20:58
Cotter:
So we should make basketball players slow down so that the sport can be accessible to people who don’t feel like practicing dribbling or running and thus lowering the barrier of entry? Your claim is simply nonsensical. If people are lazy they should do public forum or not participate in competitive debate–any competitive activity requires practice and training to be able to compete. Instead of spending two paragraphs mocking me for asking you what you mean by inclusion you should reflect on how absurd and nonsensical your argument is.
Posted from: 71.212.13.232
February 25th, 2007 21:15
Mostafa,
You are missing the point. No matter how fast basketball is played, it is still accessible to the audience who goes to watch it.
That is the real issue here. Look at what happened to policy debate as it moved further and further way from an activity that non specialists could watch and understand, let alone judge. The numbers have fallen off almost everywhere. I think it might dissapear in Washington within the next few years.
Arguments about the education of those taking part in super fast, theoritical debate miss the big picture. There is no education for anyone if no one competes in debate. Sure, we can move everyone to PFD, but then eventually it will almost inevitably move toward speed, etc, just like every other form of competitive debate seems to. Maybe it is inevitable and we should just give up, but I hope not.
Personally, I think it’s more valuable to learn now to persaude a wide variety of audiences instead of just specialists. But, I can see the other side too. What I don’t see is how anyone can serisously argue that making debate completely inaccesible to lay audiences doesn’t hurt participation. It makes it harder to attract coaches, harder to convince school districts to fund it and harder to convince new debaters they should do it.
Pariticipation and accesibility are the real issues here.
Posted from: 70.234.128.86
February 25th, 2007 21:20
maybe we should keep the judges and coaches that we have, then.
Posted from: 129.116.10.13
February 25th, 2007 21:22
Babb: Yeah, I think we would be willing to listen to a thesis that wasn’t entirely arbitrary. I don’t see why saying something like “coaches should not encourage debaters to miscut evidence” (a possible example of bad coaching) is equivalent to “young coaches are bad”. If you feel we are being excessively intolerant, that may be because Mr. Baldwin is doing the same thing.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
February 25th, 2007 23:10
sorry to be a whore, but has no one noticed that i already explained why tykes like myself do silly shit like go fast and why we should just leave things the way they are? yes, i learn in debate. whoop de do. but i continue to do debate because unlike school (which i theoretically also learn in) it is fun. education (educations, educationals, educational) is a side effect or a secondary reason, not the primary reason most kids stay in the activity. coove talks about all competition moving towards speed. why? FUN. besides, i don’t know why having judges that don’t like speed is a bad thing.
maybe we should just round up a bunch of parents every year and throw them into judging policy rounds to balance things out. god knows those kids need some humility, especially in washington.
this thread just seems like people keep repeating the same arguments and responses to those arguments and no one listens. that’s lame.
but just to feed the fire. in so far as the basketball analogy is concerned; i have little clue what goes on rules wise during a basketball game. yes they run and dribble and shoot. but to me the rules that govern when a jump ball happens and when its a foul are as arcane as the structure of topicality is to my grandmother. the point is, every activity is somewhat exclusive, and just because some have more well known conventions than others (basketball and debate for instance) doesn’t mean that the well known ones would be any less strange to an outsider. i don’t understand baseball rules or football rules at all either. if someone wants to ref the game, don’t they have to know the rules? last time i checked, my grandmother doesn’t referee football games or coach the indianapolis colts. i can expound with more on this silly sports metaphor thing but i think we’re all missing the biggest point:
DEBATE IS FOR FUN. IT IS A GAME FOR HIGHSCHOOLERS. CONGRATULATIONS, IT MAY HELP YOU LATER IN LIFE. JUST LIKE BASEBALL IN HIGHSCHOOL, OR BASKETBALL, OR HOME EK, OR SHOP, OR FOOTBALL, OR WRESTLING, OR DRAMA CLUB, OR HONOR SOCIETY…ETC ETC ETC.
-king of the burbz
Posted from: 75.35.92.74
February 25th, 2007 23:29
i dont know if anyone is being excessively intolerant (though some of the name-calling looks a bit ridiculous–and John, you certainly haven’t been name-calling)..
my curiosity is pretty genuine.. are people in the community comfortable indicting anything on educational grounds, and if so.. who, what, etc?
Posted from: 68.181.255.99
February 25th, 2007 23:39
Congrats to Rebar who is totally winning the substantive debate on this thread.
Posted from: 66.87.88.5
February 26th, 2007 00:20
rebar +1
Posted from: 24.16.141.153
February 26th, 2007 00:49
Mr. Coovert:
I think Rebar’s last post explains my position very well. I believe in adaptation, and I think a variety of paradigms in debate is healthy, but I’m not sure if the paradigm that favors traditional notions of persuasion is better. I think debate can get funding no matter what. When my administration or ASB or donors fund debate, they don’t ask to see a debate round. They ask us what we LEARN from it, what pedagogical benefit it serves. Insofar as fast, techy debate allows us to extract educational gain, funding will not be a problem.
Posted from: 74.64.86.170
February 26th, 2007 10:01
I would just like to input my two cents into the thread, not that it matters. I have been judged by Mr. Baldwin twice and have found that he is a very smart, polite person on the outside, which is fine. Yet when it comes to debate, he becomes somewhat of a jerk. He tends to give critiques with no possitive or constructive critism; moreover, he just discusses the round in a way that allows him to make his paradigm and bias towards VERY tradional debate pervasive. The half hour critique discussed nothing substantiative, it actually only talked about how to be persuasive and why he hated debaters like my opponent and I. Furthermore, he’s made comments that were actually kind of rude, and his rfd was based on speaking style, nothing substantiative. So, I 3rd Wade and completely agree with every post by Gmiask.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 26th, 2007 10:13
has anyone ever considered that policy debate might be shrinking because its extremely expensive, not because people hate going fast?
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 26th, 2007 10:16
oh ps the one time baldwin judged me he was the only person to drop me at that tournament – and the only person to vote for the person i was debating at that tournament (yep, thats right, the 1-5 took down the tournament champ). the oral critique, such that it was (i.e. not much of anything), didnt really talk about anything. this may be because during the round jason randomly turned to look out the window, etc. i won a lot of conservative judges’ ballots in my day (remember, i am from bama) but its pretty hard to persuade someone who refuses to pay attention.
Posted from: 209.122.160.124
February 26th, 2007 10:51
I don’t know why I’m reading this as I have no opinion on this subject, but since I saw it..
I remember who was in that round Michael and I’m pretty sure if they saw this post they’d be pretty upset. I don’t know anything about the round in particular; I wasn’t debating in it. I I just don’t think we should be citing particular incidents that defame the debaters within them.
If you think Mr. Baldwin is a bad judge, say so, but don’t attack debaters who haven’t done anything wrong.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 26th, 2007 11:01
uhhh i dont think i attacked that person. i remember who it was too and i have nothing but good things to say about them. i was vague for a reason.
Posted from: 128.62.114.205
February 26th, 2007 11:06
hey, maybe if some people have different conceptions of persuasion and what debate is, we should allow some system of mutual preferencing??
Oh wait, Mr. Baldwin doesn’t want MJP. Miask says he contributed to TOC not having MJP. I dont know if that’s true. I do know he and a lot of his LDEP friends dislike it intensely.
I also know is that if JB is so mature and intelligent, certainly he’d realize that very few debaters 1. want him in the back of the room and 2. adapt to him to the extent that he’d prefer and 3. enjoy that kind of debate compared to the style of debate that they typically do. I struck him at every tournament for a reason. We dont see eye-to-eye on debate, and that’s okay. Id much rather have had to blow a strike on him than shoot in the dark at whatever is “persuasive” or “reasonable” to him.
Dont more educational rounds happen when both debaters and the judge are on the same page paradigmatically? Say I’m bad at critical debate, but I feel pressured to adapt to someone I think is a K hack. I’ll probably make crappier args in front of that judge than I would in front of a good stock judge. The example is a two way street, Jason. If I’m hella good at running my Digger case and your paradigm wont allow that, I might have to run a worse argument.
MJP doesnt narrow the judging pool to competitors friends or favorite judges, but it does seriously mitigate the possibility of debaters getting judges they debate poorly in front of.
So to recap, my last post said JB should give real RFDs (ie. specific arguments that were persuasive, why they were, etc.) if he’s got the audacity to call my current peers detrimental to the activity and qualified enough to judge a national championship (instead of a laundry list of other much much more open-minded and qualified judges that were on the back-up panel). He should have specified arguments he found persuasive because giving thorough RFDs is more educational than no RFDs (maybe he disagrees with this assumption and would argue that there are worse fates than no RFD). So the last post said JB is not educational with an empirical warrant. This post says JB resists policies that 1. would make him happier (probably) and 2. make debate more educational. Same claim (JB is a hypocrite who doesnt care about others’ conceptions of education), different warrant. I am not indicting “persuasion paradigms” because I think persuasion is cool.
Posted from: 206.8.10.4
February 26th, 2007 11:24
I guess I’m coming from the opposite perspective of JB in that older coaches were actually quite harmful to my debate experience and the only reason I ever had any idea what I was doing was that I also had college kids helping me out. Obviously I’m not saying older coaches bad, because there are a lot of people with years of experience coaching that I have infinite respect for, but I think it’s silly to say the concept of coaches negatively impacting a debater’s experience is unique to young college kids. I also coached last year for SLP, where the head of the program was a college freshman and the entire staff under age 22, and I don’t think that’s turned out too badly for anyone.
Posted from: 70.89.127.3
February 26th, 2007 12:22
Mostafa,
I’m not saying funding is only dependent on accesiblity, but I know as a coach that I like to be able to show what we do to administrators. I could never show them a policy round and LD is moving toward the same territory. Funding varies a lot from district to district and school to school, and it is getting harder (at least in Washington) to find all the time.
I certainly don’t disagree with Rebar that the main reason people debate is because it’s fun. That is certainly why I debated. And, as I have said before, when I was a student I probably would have been much more on the other side of this argument. I just think it’s important for those of you who frequent this site to keep in mind that not everyone likes the same kind of debate that you do and that some practices that you might find fun might actuall discourage others from getting involved.
Let’s get back to the policy debate issue. Someone asked if it might be decling because it’s expensive? Certainly that is one of the reasons. I would put forth cost, difficulty, lack of coaches and stylistic conflicts as four key reasons why it is decling. The thing is, all of these things are related.
For instance, a fast style means that students must do more research, make more copies and carry more tubs around. This along with critical argumentation also makes debate camp almost a neccesity for those wanting to compete at the open level even locally, let alone nationally. So, style is one of the drivers of cost. Coach shortages can also increase costs because a lack of coaches means less programs; this means teams that are left MUST travel to get any competition at all. This is happening right now in Washington. Now, maybe cost independent of these issues has killed some policy programs, but I don’t think it’s really hard to isolate any of these factors.
What I don’t want to see is the same thing happen to LD that has happened to policy. The lack of a need for a partner and the shorter times times in LD will protect against some of these creeping costs. But, camp is becoming more and more of a prerequesite to success and I’m starting to see coaches give up out of frustration with the new trends.
To be honest, I’m not really interested in debating about what paradigm is best. I personally like debates that are heavy on substance, don’t lose sight of the big picture and keep a resolutional focus. Does that mean everyone else is wrong on face? I wouldn’t make that claim. But I do think those of you who are younger (and I feel weird saying that as an old man of 32) might lose sight of the big picture at times. I remember when Washington had enough policy/LD/IE programs to support multiple tournaments on the same weekend. I remember when PLU and Western hosted tournaments comparable in size to Whitman, Gonz and UPS. I know that is Washington specific, but I’m guessing others could tell paralell stories about their regions. The point is that debate participation is dropping off and if we truely care about the acitivty that needs to be considered in all these discussions.
I have never met Jason Baldwin; I can’t comment on his personality. Honestly, I think the discussion about him specifically is really getting in the way of what could be an important substantive discussion about some very important ideas.
I’m sorry if I wan’t able to respond to every point made in response to my above post. I’ll try to do so if needed later when I have more time.
Posted from: 128.12.93.90
February 26th, 2007 14:23
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Baldwin
Posted from: 128.12.93.90
February 26th, 2007 14:27
and where you at baldwin? are you going to let miask and these other demon children tarnish your name on VBD? you’re the winningest man! this is your house.
stephen
Posted from: 71.195.77.97
February 26th, 2007 14:29
http://www.wm3.org/live/thewm3/jason_details.php?id=36
Write to FREEDOM: A letter from Jason Baldwin.
Posted from: 208.54.95.1
February 26th, 2007 14:51
Hahahaha. That’s really funny. I guess that answers Greg’s question about why the PhD was taking so long.
Posted from: 71.232.110.88
February 26th, 2007 15:51
“uhhh i dont think i attacked that person. i remember who it was too and i have nothing but good things to say about them. i was vague for a reason.”
You’re completely right. That was definitely a wrong word for me to use, I’m sorry about that.
I still think that citing details like “Yep, thats right, the 1-5 took down the tournament champ” could hurt a person, but, you’re right, you didn’t attack that person directly, Thanks for that.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 26th, 2007 15:55
yeah i didnt really intend that to come off as being rude, im just saying that the decision in that debate was a significant anomaly in the results for the tournament.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 26th, 2007 15:56
and now i will eat my own head twaaa
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
February 26th, 2007 16:55
is that legal? you wanna end up in the slammer with JB? i hear he’s looking for a new cell mate…
Posted from: 128.135.199.84
February 26th, 2007 17:07
+1 ernie
also, based on recent personal experience, i can say that coaching kids who are often unresponsive to normal teachers and learning environments works better when someone closer to their age is involved.
Posted from: 208.54.95.1
February 26th, 2007 17:26
I think a lot of excellent arguments have been made on behalf of young coaches. And ultimately, I think that’s great, because young coaches inject some needed vitality into the activity.
A word of caution, though: priveleging younger coaches does run the risk of shutting out words of wisdom from more experienced coaches. Older coaches may not have the same technical expertise to offer (though many of them unquestionably DO), but this shouldn’t be a reason to ignore their input. I think the level of technical specialization shared by competitors and recent competitors is crucial. But advice from those less familiar with those specialized trends often gets shut out because it’s too “out of touch”. To the extent understanding of communication and argumentation often transcends the presently en vogue discourse, I worry some that important contributions by older coaches are being shut out. Only a naive self-satisfaction with the status quo of circuit debate would view this trend as welcome.
I do not disagree that Baldwin has reacted to some trends without the judiciousness he would expect from others. But, we should not lose sight of the kernel of truth to be found in his reaction, however knee-jerk it may be. Rather than replicate Baldwin’s ostensible intolerance, what are we to do looking forward? How can we promote a community in which the work of young coaches is valued without excluding the invaluable contributions of those who’ve seen the activity change over time? The vantage points that experience affords teachers are absolutely essential in my view. And yet, many experienced teachers appear to be uninterested in the conversations young coaches are having… I wonder if they aren’t somewhat deterred by the perception that debate has changed without them, evolved beyond any recognition.
How do younger coaches build a bridge to those in the LDEP? How do we encourage a dialogue that is truly inclusive?
Posted from: 75.73.206.15
February 26th, 2007 18:47
Michael is a Blainiac.
Posted from: 128.36.76.38
February 26th, 2007 21:44
I think the answer to babb’s question is that both sides need to listen to the idea of “mutual respect.” (that so many deliberative democrats argue is necessary.)
As I said earlier, too often there has been a history of older coaches (only some of them mind you, because there are many I have and still learn TONS from in and outside of debate) of being as arrogant and exclusive as some of the “younger crowd.” Jason’s posts and articles warrant this argument pretty well.
That said, what’s needed is that we give up this desire to monopolize the answer to the question, “Who has the right to dictate how debate should happen/ what ideas are worth listening to?”
In terms of the LDEP, I personally found some of the rhetoric of the charter to be highly inappropriate… it’s tossing of words like “educational” don’t sound like an honest desire to be inclusive of a diversity of points of view—instead, it seems to sound like a desire to reestablish a hierarchy of older/experienced coach > younger college coach, where policies like “no first year outs in elims!” are the result and where younger coaches automatically assume their points of view are subservient to “the winningnest.” If the old cliche of “you catch more flies with honey than you do with butter” is correct, then the rhetorical strategy of the ldep or similar groups needs massive revision.
Similar things like orienteing the judging panels at TOC like finals in a particular bias (or to adapt in a particular way) are similarly unstrategic for the goal of creating a bridge between the older and younger camps of coaches/judges. (for purposes of argument here, I am being agnostic about if this is a good practice or not in and of itself)
A lot of younger coaches correctly reads this kind of behavior as cause for suspicion, when justifications like ageism are given. Right or wrong, this is NOT the strategy that will promote increased respect.
I saw this myself when I coached in a local California league while at Stanford. The older coaches there said to some of the MSJ students that I was not “a real coach” because I hadn’t done the activity for 10 years; and to a non-debate teacher who helped me when I was trying to create a program at a school that never did debate before, that I was “the anti-christ” of the league. (I wish I was kidding). Such ridiculous behavior made my own students refuse to debate state or national quals, and in the case of one team I tried to start up–to stop the activity altogether.
I saw in that local league a lot of the hierarchy, backstabbing, and cutthroat power games from older coaches that we bemoan on the VBD from the “progressives.” Therefore, I am quite sympathetic to a lot of the claims being made here by the younger coaches (i.e. Ernie, Weeks, et al.) Ageism and power games by older coaches can be quite repressive and destructive to education and students’ willingness to continue in this activity, and I saw its effects first hand in my stint at a West coast debate coach.
To this extent, Greg is right on the money to point out the hypocrisy in the article above.
The solution then, is one that strikes at the core of our psychology in this activity—that we have to give up a desire to dominate the discourse in LD, but instead to listen to, vote for and respect (even if we don’t agree) points of view that we do not share.
I personally know the danger of this kind of approach–being called a “reverse rep out/underdog” judge or someone who will “just vote on anything” (yes these are direct quotes) by the older coaches, and “reactionary” or “unpredictable” by the younger coaches. It doesn’t bother me anymore–but I use these examples to point out how uncomfortable debaters (overall) are with giving up
a monopoly over debate discourse.
Debaters love binaries–but I’ve found not only in my own teaching, but also in coaching and judging that there are things to learn from all camps–where lessons can be learned to make super successful competitors both inside and outside of rounds. To that extent, I don’t understand the people who keep crying that speed is ALWAYS bad, or that with more “progressive” (whatever the heck that means) debate, students will not be able to write good papers or communicate in different environments. I can assure you, of the many papers I’ve graded this year in philosophy classes there has been a quantum leap of a difference between *fast* debaters and nondebaters in quality of argument, word economy, etc. (even when grading name-blind)
At the same time, I don’t understand those people who refuse to borrow from the better parts of the “old guard” in debate like crystallization, debate structure and the ability to be oratorical in round when necessary.
Moving forward means doing what we all fear most–giving up our preconceptions about how things should be done, and instead borrowing the best from those who view debate differently than we do. Mutual respect—it is probably the most scary, radical and shocking response… but yet most necessary answer to Babb’s inquiry.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
February 26th, 2007 22:21
I have a solution: strikes.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 26th, 2007 22:52
i applied to join the ldep bc i agree w/ the main documents you have to read before you join. unfortunately i think that we might have some different ideas of whats educational and persuasive, which is why its been several days now and i havent gotten my confirmation email :-(
Posted from: 169.229.77.223
February 26th, 2007 23:12
berryhill – I always thought it was vinegar, not butter…
More seriously, I agree with Mr. Berryhill on a lot of the substance of what he’s saying. Let me add here that shortly after my last post here, Mr. Baldwin emailed me to offer me the chance to perhaps get some more specific advice from him that I might find useful. I replied to him, but have yet to hear back – he’s a really busy guy, after all. I mention this publicly to say that irritating as his public language might be, approaching Mr. Baldwin might not be an impossibility – he really didn’t have to seek me out like that, and I appreciate that he did. I don’t know that he’ll like radically change the way I see debate or some such, but I’m willing to consider what he has to say with an unjaundiced eye…Hopefully, such gestures are signs that the “old guard” isn’t very set in its conviction that younger coaches have no place in this activity. If that interpretation is correct, I think it’s a step we’d all welcome.
~Ankur
Posted from: 71.195.77.97
February 27th, 2007 07:03
I remember Mr. Baldwin and others making a big hoot about how anyone can join the LDEP and how they were open to dialogue with anyone (many moons ago, on some thread). I think Schappaugh and others I spoke to tried to join, too. It’s sad that Jason feels it necessary to lie in public.
Posted from: 71.218.243.251
February 27th, 2007 10:49
A few additional comments…
(1) Shess’ post made me fall out of my chair. Thanks for the link.
(2) In life, we will always encounter people who will not change. They believe what they believe and that’s that.
Be angry all you want, but a curmudgeon will not alter his views simply because you ask him to do so.
(3) If you love something, embrace it. If you enjoy debate, then make it a point to learn about how to be a better competitor, mentor, coach, or judge.
Michelin Massey
Posted from: 169.232.243.189
February 27th, 2007 11:32
stephen hess and i also both applied to the LDEP and were not accepted.
Posted from: 74.70.149.223
February 27th, 2007 14:50
Berryhill’s post is probably one the most if not the most balanced and accurate view on this activity. There are things that can be learned from older coaches and not all the communicative parts of debate should be abandoned. Clarity is a good thing!
btw, Prashant did you ever beat the mario game you had going at NSD?
Posted from: 140.247.185.104
February 27th, 2007 15:32
Nice to know that nothing has changed…
Posted from: 130.58.225.224
February 27th, 2007 20:04
Without going into much detail, I think it’s problematic to dismiss a certain approach to debate as “anti-educational” while claiming that another is “correct”. There’s just as much to be gained from winning with a “traditional” judge in the back as there is from winning with a “progressive” judge. Having said that, if what David Weeks and others say is true (that Jason refuses to provide a detailed RFD or elucidate his paradigm clearly), then that’s a problem because it leaves debaters to, as David says, stab in the dark as to what is persuasive to the judge. After being out of the activity for a while, I must say that MJP doesn’t seem to be a very educational practice because it prevents debaters from developing the ability to win with certain kinds of judges in the back, but at the same time, it’s counterproductive to Jason’s cause if he indeed does refuse to provide debaters with a coherent paradigm for winning his ballot.
Having said that, I think it’s a problem when Jason declares that some people should “get out of the activity”, just as much as it is when those people tell Jason to get out of the activity… I think each side has something valuable to contribute, and the two approaches should be viewed as complementary to the educational value of debate, rather than opposed to it.
Hope that made at least a bit of sense…
Posted from: 169.232.243.110
March 1st, 2007 12:06
Sohail – i’m close, but i never find the time to really commit to it.
Posted from: 169.232.243.110
March 1st, 2007 12:09
Alex,
in all honesty, i’m pretty sure jason has nothing of value to contribute and that he really should get out of the activity because his actions only serve to undermine the educational and competitive experiences of many debaters.