CONFLICT NAVIGATION AS RHETORIC AND PEDAGOGY FOR
ACADEMIC DEBATING IN THE UNITED STATES
by
AARON PAUL DONALDSON
A THESIS
Presented to the Interdisciplinary Studies Program:
Individualized Program
and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Science
September 2009
ii
"Conflict Navigation as Rhetoric and Pedagogy for Academic Debating in the United
States," a thesis prepared by Aaron Paul Donaldson in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Master of Science degree in the Interdisciplinary Studies Program:
ining Committee
mes Crosswhite, Committee Member
· _
Dr.~ges, Committee MemBer
Date
Committee in Charge:
Accepted by:
Dr. David Frank, Clark Honors College
Dr. James Crosswhite, English
Dr. Sara Hodges, Psychology
Dean of the Graduate School
iii
An Abstract of the Thesis of
Aaron Paul Donaldson for the degree of Master of Science
in the Interdisciplinary Studies Program: Individualized Program
to be taken September 2009
Title: CONFLICT NAVIGATION AS RHETORIC AND PEDAGOGY FOR
ACADEMIC DEBATING IN THE UNITED STATES
Approved: - .....----
Approved:
Approved:_--
/I' Dr. Sara Hodges --0--
The purpose ofthis paper is to advocate Conflict Navigation as a new pedagogy
aimed at uniting co-curricular debate educators in the United States. Contemporary
collegiate debate demonstrates a crisis in pedagogy as seen in a history of "fractionation
through structural fortification". This lack of a sustainable pedagogical community has
proven to critically strain the resources and curricula of academic debate.
iv
Conflict Navigation (CN) represents a behavior-based approach to conflict with an
emphasis on ethical rhetoric. The primary mission of argument within a CN framework is
inquiry, cooperation, and engagement.
vCURRICULUM VITAE
NAME OF AUTHOR: Aaron Paul Donaldson
PLACE OF BIRTH: Helena, Montana
DATE OF BIRTH: July 7,1980
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
Carroll College, Helena, MT
DEGREES AWARDED:
Master of Science, Interdisciplinary Studies: Individualized Program, 2009
University of Oregon
Bachelors ofArts, Business Management, Communication Studies, 2003
Carroll College
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST:
Academic debate and speech
Argument as non-violent communication and inquiry
Cognitive and social psychology
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Director of Intercollegiate Forensics, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
2005 - 2009.
vi
GRANTS, AWARDS, AND HONORS:
2009 National Parliamentary Debate Association Tournament Sweepstakes
Champions. Awarded to the University ofOregon Debate and Speech Program at the
National Parliamentary Debate Association National Championship Tournament at the
University of the Pacific, Stockton, California.
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
lowe a tremendous debt ofgratitude to my thesis chair Dr. David Frank for
providing me with the unique and cherished opportunity to steward the University of
Oregon debate and speech program. Thanks also to Dr. Sara Hodges for her patience and
enthusiasm, and to Dr. James Crosswhite for his flexibility, presence, and constant
encouragement.
I would especially like to thank Dr. Michael Bartanen for being a constant source of
thoughtful and timely feedback. There are too few debate educators with Dr. Bartanen's
passion and expertise and almost none who make themselves as available to the pestering
questions and incomplete work of students. Without Dr. Bartanen this thesis would not
have been possible.
I also must acknowledge the tireless dedication ofmy former debate coaches
including Kathleen Prody at Helena High School and Professor Brent Northup at Carroll
College. Various members ofthe debate community from the Northwest Forensics
Conference also deserve much thanks including Dr. Steven Hunt ofLewis and Clark
College, Dr. Derek Buescher from the University ofPuget Sound, Melissa Franke at Pacific
Lutheran University, and Christi Siver and Mary Lynn Veden at the University of
Washington.
viii
Thanks is owed to my good friends and teammates at the University ofOregon
especially to Amy Bullock, Alex O'Dell, Brad Krupicka, Jason Lear, Matthew Rose, Hailey
Sheldon, and John McCabe. Thanks too to my colleagues over the last few years at Oregon,
Luther Landry, Erin Farris, Paul Hood, and Justin Racette.
I must thank my lovely and loving fiance, Kate. She alone knows all she did to
make this document possible. Thanks, too, to my tremendous family for their inspiration,
praise, encouragement, and tireless assistance. Thanks is owed to my good friends Kyle
Jackson, Lindsay SeIser, Corwin Bolt, Alex Winterle, and Dr. Jessica Kieras as well as to
the entire Schuh family for recharging my batteries during times ofprofessional stress.
ix
For Kate
xTABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Fractionation - A History for Avoidance 15
II. THE REALM OF INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE INTERPRETATIONS 39
Competitive Debate History and the Evolution ofInterpretation.. 45
III. NOTIONS OF RHETORIC AND CONFLICT NAVIGATION 59
Rhetoric as Dermed by Conflict Navigation.......................................................... 64
IV. APPLYING CONFLICT NAVIGATION TO THE GAME OF DEBATE............. 69
Games and Simulations.............. 70
Conclusion... 86
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................ 90
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.1. The history of fractionation through structural fortification. 31
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1.1. Eras of competitive debate as defined by Bartenan 47
1CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
For four decades the slanted, stair-filled campus ofLewis and Clark College in
Portland Oregon has played host to one ofAmerica's more venerated academic debate
events, the Pioneer Invitational. The early morning through late evening hours ofFriday,
Saturday, and Sunday are essentially dedicated to rigorous academic speech and debate
competition. Speech participants may end up walking to two or three rooms an hour to
deliver various memorized and impromptu speeches on topics that can vary drastically.
Each speech will be given at least twice, if not three or four times depending on the size
and disbursement ofentries at the tournament.
Debate participants will likewise give a dozen or more unique speeches
throughout the weekend on topics which range from whether or not Obama can win
support from Blue Dog Democrats to whether or not the strategy being demonstrated by
the negative debate team represents an egregious affront to affirmative ground. While
most students emphasize either speech or debate, the opportunity does exist to spend the
weekend doing both. This means that over the course of the weekend any of the hundreds
of 19 to 21-year-old competitive participants could potentially speak in a scrutinized,
pressure filled environment close to forty times. Each instance represents a chance to
experience and learn from public speaking and to explore the pitfalls ofverbal argument.
2With few exceptions, participants at the Pioneer Invitational or any of the near
one-hundred annual collegiate events like it will speak on issues of their own choosing.
The debates will also cover pre-selected topics - typically current events with the
occasional methaphor thrown in for good measure - and some non-debate speeches will
be selected from publication. Regardless of the selected start topic, or the argument's
point of origin, the student ultimately guides the discussion. Speech participants will
quickly realize that the selection of their piece makes as much of their argument as the
lines selected by the author, and thus speech pieces run the gamut from thoughtful
reflection to down right bawdy. The leeway given to forensics competitors in this regard
has frequently colored the cheeks of 'old-fashioned' community members at the end of
the day but many if not all educators recognize the importance of intellectual mobility in
learning environments. Given the relationships that exist between verbal arguing skills
and personal agency, such mobility is especially valuable to a curriculum in
argumentation.
Forensics competitions, as speech and debate participation is often called, offers a
unique, co-curricular environment. This means students and professionals from any and
every academic background bring their expertise to bear. The majority find value in the
repeated discussion of their ideas while the community gets to listen and engage them.
Those who decide to dedicate their time to forensics will typically find thousands of
chances to practice speaking about their interests, predicated on animated conversation
with an interested colleague or educator.
3Intellectual mobility is not enough to ensure the best learning environment
however. Every academic endeavor must also exhibit some sense ofpedagogical
sustainability and in this regard forensics education has a somewhat perplexing record.
Every academic community is typically expected to outline specific goals and objectives,
yet verbal argumentation poses significant challenges in this regard. While competitive
forensics has a long history in America, various pedagogical sticking points have caused
considerable trouble. In fact, as we shall see, entire formats of forensics education owe
their existence to these various "crises" in forensics pedagogy.
It might seem obvious that vast pedagogical disagreements among forensics
educators would exist, after all these are debate educators. But those who teach
argumentation know that above all else, ifwe are to argue well we must first and
foremost value cooperation. No doubt arguments among certain individuals can begin or
end not as reasonable discussions but rather out and out fights, humankind has certainly
not failed to provide examples as to how devastating our arguments might become. But at
the very core ofeven our most damaging arguments we can fmd a remarkable amount of
agreement. So when pedagogical discrepancies drive forensics educators of all people
apart, there is a very real and very unfortunate irony.
Throughout the last half century, forensics education in general and academic
debate practice in particular has suffered this irony and there is plenty to suggest the
community will suffer it again. For instance, ongoing questions over what constitutes
acceptable evidence use and delivery have sparked considerably divisive community
4acceptable evidence use and delivery have sparked considerably divisive community
response and yet every year they seem to once again rear their head. Put another way,
how involved should the judge get in analyzing the justifications given by students for
their arguments (evidence) and the language they use or rate at which they explain them
(delivery). For many reasons various interpretations ofhow judges should operate within
academic debate have put redundant strain on the community over these concepts.
It was at the Pioneer Invitational early in my coaching career that I confronted a
concrete instance of pedagogical collision. At the end of a long tournament weekend, I
sat down to judge two teams who found themselves in the single win bracket (meaning
this last preliminary round of the weekend would ultimately mean very little) and was
surprised to see a very respected team from the University of California at Berkeley
preparing to debate two very nice but clearly inexperienced students from a small North
West college. The opening resolution resolution was something along the lines of"This
House Would Pass Bush's Immigration Reform." California was to argue the affirmative.
Given the ultimately arbitrary nature ofhow all debate will be settled, it is not
uncommon to find a respected debate team so far down the bracket late in the weekend.
What IS uncommon is the way the Golden Bears decided to interpret their burdens under
the resolution. The debaters from Berkeley decided to propose the complete legalization
ofmarijuana. Marijuana is a "bush" after all, "immigration" simply means to cross
boundaries, and "reform" suggests there must be a deviation from current federal or state
policy. What's the big deal?
5The big deal, obviously, was that it had never occurred to the negative team that
this topic could be read this way, they were expecting a debate about the immigration
policies forwarded by then President George W. Bush. The new students were obviously
frustrated, their frustration amplified by a long and trying weekend. There were
complaints, there were tears, there was not a single responsive argument which engaged
Berkeley's argument. The Golden Bears were quick to point out this failure to respond.
The affirmative case may be "unfair" they argued, but until the negative could explain
why their interpretation was better than that of the affirmative's, I as an objective judge
was compelled to vote in favor ofthe marijuana proposal. Essentially Cal argued, "We
may be wrong, but it's up to them to beat us. Until they do, vote Affrrmative."
The students from Berkeley and the local Northwest students represent two polar
extremes in the world of debate interpretation. We will unpack these extremes in later
chapters, for now we see that there are those who feel debate should be about the two
teams, what they say and sometimes more importantly what they don't. And there are
others who feel debate should be about age~old ideals of 'good people, speaking well'.
In the end, I voted for the Northwest team. Not because I disagreed with the
interpretation forwarded by the California team, but because I, too, was tired and fed up
with clearly intelligent and capable debate teams refusing to engage bewildered
opponents. The novice team didn't win, I said, the Berkeley team lost. While my response
is justifiable, the Berkeley team, interpreting the round very differently, were entitled to
their upset with the decision.
6I felt that the Califomia team failed to engage the new students, and explained to
them why judges ought not intervene in debates on behalf of plain interpretations of
competitive topics. Meanwhile the Berkeley boys never felt it was their obligation to do
so. Academic debate is a game, in games winners win by going for the win, not by
making everyone feel good about the fact that there must be winners and losers. And
surely they should not be expected to be involved in the coaching of a team that lives
hundreds of miles to their north... right? Like a big time law firm beating back the novice
public defender not because they are terrible people, but because that is how they
interpreted their role in a competitive and academic activity. What better way to leam
about the competitive inter-workings of life than within academic debate?
When it comes to argument, obviously no one is perfect. This instance is
exemplary of a neutral opportunity for everyone involved, myself included, to examine
our behaviors in conflict environments and attempt to find ways we can improve upon
them. This is possible if and only if we all continue to argue together, working to revise
our habits through re-exposure to old problems.
However this was not to be the case for the two teams involved in this story.
While I do my very best to not get overly involved in my decisions, I must admit that
there is some justice in my reputation as a more emotional judge. The University of
Califomia as a program emphasized this characteristic in the implementation ofjudge
"strikes" against me. Citing my "interventionist" policies, Berkeley took advantage of a
system designed to keep judges with conflicting interests from deciding the outcome of
7competitive rounds. I would attend perhaps two dozen tournaments with those same
students throughout the next year, but never again would I be the judge in the back of the
room for these participants. My dialogue with those two students thus functionally ended.
The forensics program that the novice students represented has since followed in
the footsteps of others before, leaning away from speech events to focus on alternate
formats of debate. They still participate in speech events, but the debate program ofthat
historic team has essentially exited the common sphere, the consensus being that this
move was due to questions ofpedagogy.
The novice students wanted to be involved in the debate, but expected the judge
to know defme 'ridiculous' as they did and why it was bad simply upon exposure. The
California team sought a predictable, non-intrusive ballot. Both groups, in different ways,
opted to stop talking to the other people in the room.
The miracle of argumentation is that instead of the typical conflict binary of
"avoid or confront", we can exchange mere symbols, and through these symbols we
reason. Humans have a means by which to compare and contrast not only perceptions,
but directions as well. We do not depend on argumentation to perceive the world but
rather to decide how we act within it. And thus more than anything, argumentation is
reliant on cooperation.
While forensics educators have an inspiring history of cooperation which makes
the debating landscape in the United States unique in its diversity, there are ongoing
pedagogical questions among debate educators specifically which seem to be cyclically
8interrupting efforts for sustainable cooperation. Rather than weaving endemic and
inevitable pedagogical concerns into the fabric of academic debate itself, all too often
participants structurally fortifY. Instead of viewing pedagogical disagreement in all the
forms it may take as a valuable lesson in the fragility and frustrating nature of argument,
there is a trend of structural avoidance..
Simply put debate education is fortified through changes to the activity or to the
rules which are designed to eliminate what is viewed by some as 'bad' debate. As we
shall see, structural fortification has had a uniquely formative impact on the history of
American debate education.
The most obvious way to demonstrate the perceived necessity of structural
fortification is to look at the extremities of academic debating. One of the most influential
rivalries in pedagogy is apparently the question over whether debate should emphasize
"performance" as opposed to "substance" (Herbeck 1). Should the debate be judged on
what happened or on the quality of the substance? One one side of this question we see
debate communities asking that the debates play out as "performed" by the debaters.
Questions of substance are certainly important, but only if they are brought up by the
competitors themselves. Otherwise the ballot is supposed to go to the team who
out-performed their opponents.
Perhaps one of the more performance-oriented debate communities is the National
Debate Tournament (NDT). At the NDT debaters come armed to the teeth with tubs of
files prepared throughout the season. The best of them can populate a notepad with a
9diverse array of technically interacting arguments at an astounding speed. It is equally
possible for a team to win an argument that is admittedly absurd as it is for the same team
to win an argument that is true. Evidence drives these contests though not always
evidence that is respected. This is because the contest is seen to be between the debate
teams themselves, the judge or judges are supposed to stay out of the argumentation
process. Instead they call the debate based on what was said and what was not. This is so
much the case that participants frequently do not even bother to dress up for the occasion.
After all, arguments should be won based on how well they best their challenges, not on
how pretty they looked.
In these debates it is felt that the argumentation experts will be able to identify
who wins and loses based on a skillfully crafted "flow" (or set of notes detailing not only
what was said but also what was said in response to what) and a knowledge of how
certain kinds of statements interact with others. Audiences who are not versed and
prepared for these kinds of debates may frequently find themselves in the dark. Evidence,
perhaps one ofthe most important components of ethical argumentation, becomes simply
whatever is published and left unanswered by the other team. Ifthe judge weighs in too
heavily with regards to what ought to constitute evidence claims they are struck, if they
do not than they are functionally rewarding poor scholarship and questionable rhetorical
decision making.
To find an example of substance-driven debate one might look to the growing
influence of British Parliamentary (BP) debate. These debates probably look a lot more
10
like what is expected by an unassuming public. Participants speak at carefully altered
rates, drawing us in, playing on ethos, pathos, and logos, alike. Their arguments would be
simple, their answers concise. There would be an incredible amount of maneuvering
going on around very particular words or areas of the discussion but these components of
the debate would not receive any direct analysis or scrutiny. The debate would be decided
after the round by a panel ofjudges who discuss which team best combined manner with
matter. It is entirely possible for a debate team to lose the issue yet win the debate, a
notion unheard of at the NDT. The growing popularity ofBP debate in the United States
is owed in large part to an ongoing quest for traditional conceptions of 'delivery' in
debate. This will be explained in later chapters, but once again we see a pedagogical issue
driving the community apart.
On the off chance that someone from the NDT were to attend a BP tournament or
vice versa critiques inevitably fly. NDTers would indict BP debate as excessively
subjective, perhaps calling those who win members of a good-old-boys club. BP
patiicipants might look at the NDT as noisy, disrespectful, and even crude. What good is
a curriculum of argumentation they might ask that so heavily favors specialization?
Depending on how we approach the world, either community can be incredibly
appealing. At one extreme we see an intense scrutiny of the functional relationships
between the diverse kinds of statements and an ongoing rhetoric of fair play. On the other
we see the Winston Churchills of tomorrow going through their paces, learning how to
move a crowd. NDT style debate teaches us that truths are constructed by assent and that
11
utterances have functional outcomes that ifproperly scrutinized can become incredibly
efficient in contrasting ideas. BP style debate makes for great entertainment as well as an
outstanding place for students to examine crucial issues of the day.
As is frequently the case with most binary worlds, either extreme can also be
incredibly worrisome. What happens ifwe teach that argumentation is merely a game?
How do literally thousands of speeches given over a career in such an environment effect
the way we approach those who disagree with us? On the other hand, what happens ifwe
end up encouraging the manner more than the matter? Does not 'empty rhetoric' pose the
same scale ofthreat to a student's education in verbal reasoning if not in a different form?
For over 40 years these questions and others like them appear to be cyclically
pulling debate communities apart. Despite a proud history beginning in colonial America
(Potter 9), seemingly divergent interpretations ofwhat academic debate ought to be have
not only been colliding in debate rounds as well as conferences across the United States
since the late 1940's, we shall see that they have in fact been cyclically tearing the
community apart.
Given the abstract nature of academic debate, identifying all of the diverging
forces let alone any single issue on which to place the blame is incredibly tricky. What
cannot be denied is at the heart of the trouble lies the question ofdelivery. Ifwe are going
to utilize a competitive debating format there will obviously be a great deal of conflict as
to what 'winning' debate should look and even sound like. Debate as contest is obviously
going to be endemically subjective, but too much subjectivity begins to chip away at the
12
confidence that participants have that all of their dedication and hard work is going to get
a fair hearing. Perhaps more important is the lesson that no matter how subjective any
human enterprise is there is much to learn and gain from understanding how we argue
ways to make our endeavors more fair.
Questions of delivery lie at the heart of any curriculum in better argumentation
and they should be expected to arise time and again in any and all academic debate
environment. What debate educators should not accept however is for such questions to
result in a sorting of delivery styles. Such is the case in contemporary competitive debate.
I examine this sorting, which I call fractionation and its suggested cause,
structural fortification. Conflict Navigation is then introduced as a unifYing pedagogy and
rhetoric for academic debate participants in the United States. It will seek to stand as an
alternative to the shifts in paradigm which have to date defined and sorted the academic
debating landscape in the United States. Conflict Navigation does not seek to resolve
these many ongoing disputes among debate educators in the United States, only to
facilitate their seemingly inevitable deliberation. It will suggest that above and beyond
questions of delivery we find a much more important lesson which ought to demand the
attention of academic debate participants. This larger lesson suggests that at the heart of
all efforts to argue lies the agreement that we wish not only to argue our differences now
but also in the future. Rather than seeking to structurally resolve conflicts we ought to be
training ourselves to navigate them in any and every way they may arise. This means that
each time we encounter debate interpretations that flow contrary to our own, we see them
13
less as a 'threat' to our community and more as a novel challenge and opportunity to
experience and learn from another form of argument.
Conflict Navigation will not be enforced but rather participated in. By referring to
it as a rhetoric I am invoking the lasting tradition of rhetorical study stretching from
ancient Greece to contemporary culture. This tradition suggests the methods we select to
enter into an argument are perhaps more important than the issues our arguments seek to
conceptualize. Our expectations and actions surrounding argumentation shape the ways
our issues will be examined as well as the extent-to-which and the methods-by-which
they may be re-examined in the future. Within the realm of academic debate we are
confronted not only by conflicting and flammable issues ofpublic interest, but also by
ongoing disputes within the activity of academic debate itself. Conflict Navigation seeks
to facilitate and encourage the continuation ofeach of these kinds of disagreements.
For example, Conflict Navigation will approach two older pedagogical conflicts
amongst academic debate educators, namely what ought to constitute 'evidence' for a
claim, as well as how much emphasis and which kinds of emphasis we should place on
ideas regarding 'delivery'. We will examine a history of fractionation within academic
debate which stems from ongoing, I would argue endemic, disagreement over these two
important issues. Rather than take a stance on these issues, Conflict Navigation hopes to
facilitate and encourage their ongoing discussion.
Instead of looking at evidence and delivery in the traditional sense, which invokes
an emphasis on public oratory and civic activism, Conflict Navigation will examine these
14
topics as they might apply to the more general and commonplace arenas within the field
of argumentation. Humans argue in nearly everything we do, we confront arguments both
perceived and real in nearly every aspect of our lives. Rather than prioritizing only the
best emphasis and seeking to eradicate the rest, Conflict Navigation asks academic debate
competitors to realize that many things can be submitted as 'evidence' for a claim and it
is up to them to engage them. Failure to do so, regardless ofthe apparent quality ofthe
evidence submitted, can frequently lead to community acceptance of what might
otherwise be seen as a flawed argument.
On notions of delivery, Conflict Navigation emphasizes the diversity of the
discourse communities that academic debate participants might fmd themselves in. There
are times when we are the experts within our own communities and instances in which
we are speaking only to other experts. Of course there will always be times when we will
be expected to explain our expertise to those who for whatever reason may not be able to
follow in our jargon. Rather than seeing these two environments as opposed to each other,
Conflict Navigation suggests that academic debate presents a prime opportunity to learn
the hazards, shOlifalls, and implications of both kinds of environments, and many more.
There are also times for instance when we are entering expert communities.
Perhaps we have taken an amateur interest in a topic and we hope to learn more, perhaps
we are new members of a flourishing community. Regardless, rather than simply
expecting the experts to translate their discussions to us Conflict Navigators know it is up
to them to learn the ropes and participate. Then there will be many more environments
15
where we do not know which of these two scenarios we may be in. We may not know if
we are the true experts or if we are in fact relative novices until the discussion has begun.
These situations too require their own kind of delivery and evidentiary practices. Conflict
Navigation suggests our stance in all such environments should be on of flexibility,
inclusion, and genuine curiosity rather than dogmatic exclusion or avoidance.
It takes some people a lifetime to learn the fragility of argument and the patience
and self-sacrifice needed to do it well in life. Those who experience academic debate the
longest will confront thousands of opportunities to engage ideas that conflict in many
ways both hidden and apparent. We'll confront contests where the conflict is perceived
but not real, we'll confront ideas and behavior that more than anything make us want to
lash out either with our own arguments or with structural fortification, and each and every
round we participate in we confront an opportunity to take all of the complicated
perceptions we have about the fluid and invisible world that is human argument and
articulate them. Before we can truly understand what Conflict Navigation is and how it
works however, we must first understand fractionation.
Fractionation - A History for Avoidance
In the spring of 1988, Robert Rowland and Scott Deatherage identified a "crisis"
in competitive debate. Their article alleged that students and educators were proving so
eager to play the game of competitive debate that they were ultimately willing to
sacrificing better research habits, coherent and reasonable content, and student and
community access (Rowland and Deatherage). At the heart of their critique and many like
16
it we see questions about the quality of delivery at the more influential academic debating
events.
All who teach debate know that both the best arguments and the most ethical must
put a premium on accessibility. There are significant moral as well as practical
implications in making available all of the steps and potential implications of our
reasoning, or at least as many of them as is possible. We not only benefit in our science
when we invite the scrutiny of our peers, we also benefit humanity by encouraging and
inviting invigorating perspectives on the problems we have identified. Regardless of their
importance however, neither of these two possible forms ofcriticism are easy to utilize.
Professional criticism can be professionally motivated, 'invigorating' new ideas can be
outright crazy. But regardless of the personal cost of exploring each of the various kinds
of scrutiny which our ideas may encounter we obviously cannot simply allow ourselves
to ignore or avoid those we most dislike.
Yet this avoidance seems to be a recurring tactic among debate participants on all
levels. AIl too often some ofthe most influential shifts in competitive debate organization
and format did not necessarily occur because a better model was found, instead they
occur because it was felt that a better model was urgently needed. Such a trend is less
concerning if it is solvent, but among competitive debate communities it is proving to be
cyclical.
Rowland and Deatherage's "crisis" represents an instance when the pendulum
has swung too far to the side of specialization. In their world judges needed to take more
17
accountability (Rowland and Deatherage 249) and orient debate with their ballots. In the
world of 'specialized' debate programs however this accountability is labeled as
'interventionist' . Judges who attempt to influence debates in the ways suggested by
Rowland and Deatherage as opposed to voting only on the performance in the round are
competitively risky and frequently they can be 'struck' by teams at future debating
events.
Judge strikes are one form that structural fortification can take. Programs which
emphasize specialized or performance-based debating not only impose judge strikes at
the tournaments which they host but typically will opt to attend tournaments which offer
such strikes as opposed to those which do not. A good case can be made for judge strikes
in that they let the community respond to judges who perhaps have relationships with
competitors which might somehow inhibit their ability to judge a debate round fairly. It
could also be said that the care and scrutiny that goes into striking or ranking the judging
field teaches community awareness and ensures fairness. However those who are familiar
with academic debate know that it is much more common for these strikes to represent a
way of sorting the judging pool along pedagogical lines.
At some national debating events, participants can strike 15% of the judging field
and many participants and educators end up feeling especially targeted and thus we see a
second manifestation of structural fortification, exodus. The National Parliamentary
Debate Association stands as arguably America's most popular academic debate
institution and it arguably owes a large part of its popularity to such exodus.
18
Like Rowland and Deatherage, many debate educators felt that "policy" debate,
as the most prevalent debating format in the 1980's was known, was either too
prohibitive to new students or was placing too little emphasis on some aspects of
delivery. Many of the early NPDA powerhouses were programs making a departure from
policy debate tournaments they may have attended for years and the more delivery-
friendly NPDA also made it a more appealing format for programs which were just
getting started. Those who felt that debate must remain oratorical or that the game had
driven the community amok almost certainly flocked to the NPDA.
There were ofcourse many who felt that the structural alterations made by the
NPDA to the way debates took place were an over reaction, that in an effort to right the
curriculum of delivery the NPDA was sacrificing too much (Bartanen and Frank 31-54),
but it is clear that a sufficient number of debate programs felt the risk was worth it. The
NPDA was in many ways a wholesale structural reformation to debate education which
was either designed or simply made popular because debate needed to be saved.
Had these changes worked there would be no need for concern. In fact many
would agree that differing formats of debate prompt new thinking about our attempts at
discourse. And we should obviously always reserve judgement of those who are
exercising their ability to 'vote with their feet'. Ifwe are unhappy with how certain
activities have evolved then we ought to be allowed to seek greener pastures. But when
we leave behind groups who are reliant on our existence or when our selectivity in fact
jeopardizes our best interests such a response will ultimately prove counterproductive.
19
It is becoming increasingly clear that in the instance of the NPDA the grass was
in fact not greener. After a decade ofpeace, familiar grumblings are sounding throughout
the NPDA. In a 2008 document referred to as "the Kirksville Consensus", the NPDA
made what were largely unremarkable changes to national tournament operating
procedure. Most of the changes were clearly initiated in order to facilitate a more
enjoyable national event but a few stand out examples illustrated that the very same
influences supposedly abandoned at policy debate tournaments were now impacting
parliamentary debate in a manner sufficient enough to elicit attempts at still more
structural response.
While it's not hard to find defensive rhetoric in the body ofthe document,
changes 10, 12, and arguably 16 present themselves as prime examples of not only a
perceived need but a continued reliance on structural fortification. These changes include
a new judge composition for the semi-final and final rounds of debate at the national
tournament, the creation of a 'consolation' event, and even mandated and exclusive use
of "National Tournament Paper" 1. Only the changes regarding the make up ofthe
championship final judging panel would ultimately go into effect but the Kirksville
Consensus and the conversations surrounding it prove that despite an historically drastic
revision to debate education efforts in the US "crises" continues. Similar to the late
1980's contemporary debate educators face a threat of competitive influences which
perpetuate the"...exclusion of several constituencies" including"...novice competitors"
1 See Key Documents - Revised Tournament Operating Procedures http://www.parlidebate.org/
20
and "...programs with traditional perspectives on debating tradition." (NPDA).
The similarities between Rowland and Deatherage's "crisis" and the concerns
addressed by the Kirksville Consensus have left many in the intercollegiate debate
community somewhat despondent. Despite being fortified against the problems which
were seen to have prompted the conflicts of delivery in policy debate a significant
number of parliamentary debate educators once again feel pedagogically embattled.
This cyclicality is especially disheattening when educators look at what was given
up in the pursuit of better debate. The season-long topic that had guided prior debating in
America was eliminated in favor of a more 'extemporaneous' fonnat featuring a new
topic announced only 15 minutes before each round of competition began. While earlier
debate students toiled over all of the delicate ins and outs of a single topic for an entire
season, current students enjoy just enough time to look up a few of the most important
tenns and frantically cobble together a few arguments. Vertical research methods are
perhaps one of the most ill-served academic techniques in much ofAmerica's education
systems and whereas once competitive debate stood as a motivator and trial ground for
the crucial skills at producing a deeply warranted argument, the NPDA reinforces a
reliance on the Cliffs Notes. Arguments can be made for a 'horizontal' approach to
debating and many were (Trapp, Parliamentary Debate 25). It could also be said that
there are certainly always benefits available when students are asked to fonnulate and
then articulate their ideas. No matter how beneficial current debate fonnats are however it
becomes very difficult to find any component of debate education that is more important
21
or more difficult to otherwise learn than vertical researching skill as provided by a season
long debate topic.
The season-long topic also allowed students to develop an ongoing conversation
about a single issue. Students were introduced to what professionals might call
community review. They were competitively driven to keep up on the current approaches
to the topic and answers to their approaches as the year went on. Exposure to this kind of
discourse community is incredibly rare in college let alone high school and it represents
yet another educational opportunity cost ofthe shift to horizontal research.
As frustrating as the loss of a season-long topic is however, it is at least
defendable. One might argue that students of the future need an education in on-the-spot
research to keep up with the changing demands our new wireless lifestyle will place on
them. Perhaps most notably one could argue that without a single season topic to
monopolize student's time, more energy can be dedicated to course work (Trapp,
Parliamentary Debate 25). Last, the new NPDA format has done remarkable things for
smaller programs. Whereas policy debate tournaments were most frequently won by large
programs with entire research farms, parliamentary debate has proven little to no bias for
larger programs when it comes to national championship wins. In fact in 2009 both the
NPDA and NPTE national championship events were won by the University ofNevada at
Reno, an upstart program among academic debate communities.
While the loss of a season-long conversation might frustrate debate educators,
other changes made in the shift to NPDA are practically devastating. Most notable is the
22
prohibition of evidence within the debating chamber. In an apparent effort to combat the
ongoing delivery problems, documents and evidence prepared before the IS-minute
preparation time were explicitly forbidden once the debate round started. The only
information students could present in-round was that which they themselves had
generated during the 15 minutes ofprep.
Now, not only are students incapable of exploring the incredible depths of any
issue for debate, the research that they fmd in the 15 minutes after the topic is read can
only be brought into the round ifthey can write it out by hand. Given the limited time
available and the time it takes to copy such evidence it is rare to see any kind of
scholarship in NPDA debating. Many programs pride themselves over their researching
regimen and rightly so but the ultimate likelihood of even a significant portion of that
research showing up in a round of traditional NPDA debate is evidently small.
Evidence comparison is no easy task, it too is now absent from a majority of
competitive debating events in the United States. Knowing why certain evidence might
be more illuminative when evidence sets disagree represents some of the more
fundamental work for any scientist, philosopher, or ethical arguer. Comparison is an
especially pertinent skill set for a growing society with practically the universe of
evidence in their pockets.
Obviously evidence-based debate rarely looks ideal even in the best policy
debates. But whereas policy debate frequently consists of franticly paced, dubious
appeals to printed authority, parliamentary debate citation if they happen at all frequently
23
consist oflittle more than terms like 'studies show' and 'scientists have found'. Such
methods of suggestive and innuendo-laden citation may be sufficient for contemporary
cable news punditry but they have little to no place in ethical and effective
argumentation.
By forcing students to utilize only what they prepared in IS-minutes educators
hoped both to counter-act the evidence-hoarding that gave large programs noticeable
advantages and to respond to rapidly increasing rates of delivery. They hoped to curb an
ongoing reliance on jargon and community-specific short hand and to throw open the
doors of debate education to the average college student or crowd (Trapp Parliamentary
Debate).
Ifone were to observe any ofthe later elimination rounds at most NPDA
sanctioned tournaments today, they would quickly see what the recent influx of familiar
complaint is about. They would see that despite admirable goals the ultimate differences
between the pedagogical concerns including but not limited to questions of delivery that
are faced by the NPDA are not that much different than those faced by prominent
debating enterprises which came before.
The damage inflicted on debating curriculum from the structural reformations
themselves (not to mention by the example of ongoing reliance on such tactics) is
mirrored by the physical damage done to what was at one point a growing and vibrant
community of debate educators. The exodus to the NPDA arguably facilitated to the
death of many policy debate regions not to mention entire programs. When teams are
24
forced to travel long distances to compete they can decide either to change their debate
format, to sacrifice student participation to travel further away, or to close their doors.
There must be a more sustainable and less expensive way to 'protect' debate.
Educators were ready to accept the challenges that came from regulating away
the use of evidence, but what do we do when these regulations and structural sacrifices
prove for the most part to be fruitless? The Kirksville Consensus suggests that many of
the pressures of the activity have followed the community from policy debate to the
NPDA but rather than realizing that such problems are not only endemic to competitive
debate education but also an important part of it many programs are simply packing their
bags. The 2004 - 2005 season was the last time the NPDA national tournament hosted
more than 300 programs. According to the NPDA website, participation presently hovers
around 245 schools. This number looks much smaller when one realizes that many of
those schools are relatively new to the NPDA while many of the more notable programs
from the past have gone.
It is hard to say exactly where they all are going and more importantly it should
be noted there are obviously many reasons as to why they might leave, but stand in the
hallway at any NPDA sanctioned tournament long enough and you're bound to overhear
a conversation about how "world's debate" (also known as British Parliamentary or "BP"
debate) recaptures a lot of the elusive traditional debate priorities. Still others in our
hallway may be discussing an inevitable split between the NPDA and the newest example
of structural fortification, the National Parliamentary Tournament of Excellence (NPTE).
25
Founded in 2003, the NPTE appears to stand apart from earlier efforts of
structural enforcement of debate tradition in that rather than being a tournament designed
to reclaim traditional goals for debate, the NPTE is built in a way that seems to prioritize
the game. While the NPTE predates the Kirksville Consensus, it is seen by many as a
response to the growing chorus of voices at the NPDA who suggest that things are getting
out of hand and in many ways the response is structurally fortified. The NPTE for
instance includes an incredibly complicated system ofjudge ranking designed to let
teams sort the judges in the competitive pool. Rather than learn about the fragility and
scope of the challenges within delivery students are encouraged to believe that we can
control who is listening to us and when.
Depending on how well the NPTE and the NPDA can get along, and the extent to
which debate educators are wooed by alternative formats like BP debate, the landscape of
intercollegiate debate in the United States could be on the verge ofyet another drastic
shift. Even if both communities find some sort of equilibrium where they can coexist,
competitive debating in the United States will have taken another blow to education in
that rather than learning to confront those with whom you ardently disagree, competitors
and coaches can simply choose to go play somewhere else. Both the NPDA and the
NPTE offer national debate championship events and as transportation costs climb
debating programs wishing to pursue both kinds of debate are more than ever having to
make difficult decisions. At best the two organizations will informally work to keep their
tournaments on differing weekends and maybe even in the same state but history is
26
beginning to show that even these cooperative efforts may be short lived.
BP debate continues to be on the rise and for good reason. BP debate is the format
most like that of the global community. No world-wide debating event can rival that of
the World's Universities Debating Championship whose debate set-up is identical to the
growing number ofBP tournaments in the United States. Given the growing number of
BP debate tournaments in the Pacific Northwest alone, a region which for many years has
been one of the more competitive parliamentary debate regions in the country another
exodus likewise seems almost assured. Either way, we are probably facing still more
debate acronyms not less, not to mention the difficult choices programs will face as to
where to allocate their precious resources.
There is indeed a crisis in intercollegiate forensics. While it may not seem ironic
that debaters and debate educators cannot get along, for those who know well the
potential of argument as an alternative to avoidance and violence the irony is too clear.
A community that could ideally examine, develop, and propagate all of the promises of
our species' most essential behavior, explorative argumentative reasoning, is seemingly
stuck with a broken rhetoric. This broken rhetoric and the resulting history of
fractionation should be viewed as a much larger problem than any crisis over delivery.
Every community will face conflicts surrounding differences of culture, ideology,or
otherwise intractable conflict. Pearce and Littlejohn suggest that the resolution of such
"moral conflicts" is of vital importance (3). These conflicts will seemingly place
members on mutually exclusive ideological terrain and thus threaten to end the project of
27
argumentation. Problems like delivery, accessibility, and the implications of 'gaming' on
debate clearly represent moral conflicts and yet time and again debate communities are
teaching primarily avoidance.
Rather than using the moments ofmost visible conflict to rehearse their own
abilities to confront what are obviously ethically valuable questions, all too often we see
participants 'playing trump' by signing a repudiating ballot, crafting new debate
communities or rules, or out-right "striking" (a term used for when a team 'strikes' an
unsavory judge before a tournament) members of the community.
When one confronts some of the more inauspicious practices that have
redundantly but diversely convinced so many that current debate methods need to be
changed it is not hard to at least partially sympathize. When teachers decide to teach they
obviously understand that this will mean exposure to student ideas and efforts. When
those ideas are coupled with a confrontational environment such exposure can quickly
prove exhausting. It is easy to get 'fed up' with debate when one sees students who
apparently do not even care enough to get dressed up or who argue positions that can be
absurd or even insulting. It certainly doesn't help that debate tournaments primarily take
place over weekends that otherwise might be filled with reading, gardening, guitar
playing or maybe even getting caught up on grading or other work put off as the
tournament run-up monopolized a busy teacher's time. 8 am on a Saturday is hardly the
time or place to expect a cool head when one is made to watch 2-4 students shout at each
other at incoherent speeds over arguments that are admittedly ridiculous or worse. As
28
debaters these students are not likely to take a loss laying down, so there will always be
instances of swaggering students sometimes mockingly dismissing the comments of a
dedicated educator. Obviously debate tournaments tend to lead to argumentative
bickering and occasional feelings ofhopelessness.
But this is exactly the environment argumentation must confront and thus this is
exactly the kind ofplace we need to find a way to continue to work together. We almost
never get to chose the time or the place or even the participants in all of our future
personal or professional arguments. Should we not value the environments these moral
conflicts create in order to best simulate the instances when argumentation truly must
replace violence?
Perhaps the largest sacrifice of the history of fractionation and structural
fortification is the notion that at its very core argument demands of us the patience and
determination to constantly return to the table as we seek new ways to fix common
problems. The ongoing sacrifices that we make from sitting in an early and sometimes
ugly debate round to refusing at all costs the seduction ofviolence are what make
argument the wonder that it is. These sacrifices demonstrate the awareness that in order to
truly master the problems that face humanity we must first master our abilities to reason
and we must do so on any terrain and regarding any issue.
What those who pursue structural fortification fail to take into account is that
when they opt for structural fortification they wall out a profound opportunity to learn
some ofthe most crucial lessons of argumentation. Argumentation is not homogeneous
29
nor should we ever wish it to be. Because our arguments will always look different to
each ofthe individual participants and because the difference between a fight and an
argument depend so heavily on the same individuals moral conflicts demand an attention
to the relationships which facilitate better arguing above all else (pearce and Littlejohn
38).
Rather than demonstrate the rededication which all argument demands and which
offers new opportunities to build these necessary relationships debate participants in the
United States have all too often embraced a 'take your ball and go home' response. This
response works if all can live peacefully apart but a quick glance at the history of
'fractionation' suggests they do not.
Fractionation started not in 1994 with the construction of the NPDA but back in
1971 with the founding of the South West Cross Examination Debate Association
(SWCEDA later simply CEDA) (Trapp, Future ofPolicy Debating par 1). Responding to
a growing rift between 'rhetorical' debate educators and 'scientific' debate educators,
CEDA itselfwas created as an off-shoot to the nation's first truly national debate entity
appropriately named the National Debate Tournament (NUT) (Bartanen, personal
communication; Trapp Future ofPolicy Debate 25).
Like the NPDA, CEDA relied on several structural reforms as the primary mode
of insulating itself from the 'evils' perceived in an overly competitive and technical
debating style in the then status quo. Where the NPDA represents a sweeping reform to
the way debates take place in the United States, CEDA represented a more measured
30
approach to change. These small changes proved inconsequential, CEDA and the NDT
merged after about 15 years prompting the invention of the NPDA (Ziegelmuller 29) See
Figure 1.1.
31
NDT· (1947) The National Debate
Tournament
"policy" debate
CEDA· (1971) Cross Examination
Debate Association
refined "policy" debate attempting to
recapture 'traditional' debate interpretation
NPDA· (1994) National Parliamentary
Debate Association
"parliamentary" debate formulated and
endorsed in part as an 'alternative' to
ongoing crises in policy debating
Figure 1.1. The history of fractionation through structural fortification
32
So what does it mean to "value the relationships in conflict" so we can argue
productively? Can we even define arguing productively? For many in America the mere
mention of argument implies a stagnation and thus speaking of arguments as
"productive" seems oxymoronic. We frequently hear about politicians resorting to mere
rhetoric, we prefer men of action. This stand-offish approach to debate is well
documented despite the fact that implicit in every decision we make, every equation we
build, and every action we take we see a truly miraculous and uniquely human ability
(Billig 39). We see our utterly pervasive faculties oflanguage use and argumentation as
defmed by the great minds ofAristotle, Quintilian, and Cicero (Billig 64).
Beyond the common perceptions of average Americans, dedicated participants in
academic debate may also need to reconsider what we mean when we say we wish to
teach productive argument. Academic debate in America is rooted in a university
environment and thus should prioritize citizen building and dedication to the purest of
scholarship but that does not mean we simply throw out all that directly contribute to
these goals. Tolerating some of the worser elements of discourse can seem counter
productive and dangerous but attempting to eliminate 'bad' interpretations of academic
debate has proven to be far worse. These efforts have proven to be non-sustainable and to
potentially be robbing students of the opportunity to explore all ofthe contents of
discourse in a structured conflict environment.
Pure scholarship is ideal but illusory. All humans have are facts based on reasons,
reasons which are essentially manufactured and assented to by other humans. Some of
33
our facts and reasoning can be rigorously tested, at least as far as we are concerned, but
ultimately all we have when it comes to knowledge is our ability to argue well.
When internal arguments reach their full potential we see perhaps one of the most
essential components of our sanity and general feelings of selfwOlth: predictable and
reinforcing outcomes. We also see individuals making decisions that factor in the most
far-reaching of implications, producing more sustainable and ultimately more beneficial
behavior. No matter how smart we get or how thoughtful we are however, we may never
fail to recognize zealotry or stubbornness sufficiently either on behalfofourselves or
those who motivate our actions. We must constantly expose ourselves to these kinds of
behaviors to know how to recognize them in our own deliberations.
When conflicting individuals or groups argue best their deliberations represent a
corning together of conflicting minds and a rejection ofviolence (Crosswhite 129). They
represent a dedicated, patient, and dogged determination to continually swap words as
opposed to the more destructive rhetorical symbols, avoidance or violence. If we are
arguing well, we are exploring our coneicts in an engaged, educated, transparent, and
organized manner. The best arguments will expose the dirty secret about some ofour
more significant rifts in ideology, namely that they tend to be little more than questions of
vocabulary. When we have identified our conflict to be real, the best arguments will allow
us to locate and examine only the most crucial points of friction, tossing aside the
flammable distractions that frequently bog down or even explode our discourse.
In taking our discussions only to the communities that sound most like us we not
34
only abandon essential education regarding our abilities to confront and cope with the
frustrations and insults of argument, we also limit the scope of the various kinds of
perceptions that we have available to scrutinize and explore. Productive argumentation
asks us to cast aside certainty just long enough to produce a round ofverbal
communication from which to begin our conflict management.
Ceaseless as these arguments may be, there is always the reward that comes from
reaching the smallest agreement on the location of our most significant friction points - in
spite of all that is fragile, random, and unpredictable in argument. That step alone ought
to provide significant potential for future collaborations.
It is this devotion to the kinds of relationships which create the most productive
arguments aimed at community and personal development that Conflict Navigation
attempts to target. I offer Conflict Navigation as an ethical pedagogy and rhetoric for the
next generation of intercollegiate forensics educators and participants. It will not attempt
to restructure debate, nor does it simply allow the doors to open to only the most
dedicated of competitors. Instead, it will seek to elevate (though not in a normative sense)
the scope of the mission ofcompetitive debate to a sturdy platform, somewhere above the
ongoing fracas over delivery that has to-date so defined and shaped the community.
Conflict Navigation is certainly not new. It is in many ways a collection of the
best moments of standing academic debating practices. It is drawn in many ways from
well understood and largely respected perspectives on rhetoric and argumentation. In this
specific context, Conflict Navigation is poised to suggest that perhaps the most
35
fundamental lesson of argumentation can be learned within any and every academic
debate round, regardless ofthat round's structure or content.
I suggest that above the ethical lessons placed on audience accessibility and thus
our delivery and well beyond the numerous benefits that tournament models can promise,
we find a much more important lesson. It is the lesson which suggests that every time we
present a word, a gesture, or a facial expression to stand in for our perceptions of
meaning we are in fact taking huge leaps of faith. If anything, communication is
attempting to execute a direct exchange ofmental phenomenology. Obviously there is
little hope for complete success but we can tirelessly dedicate ourselves to improvement.
But there will be a connection. While our arguments can indeed destroy us and
our efforts to cooperate they are substantially more likely to end up benefiting our lives if
we are capable of carrying them on even in the most difficult of circumstances. So
somewhere we need to find an environment that encourages students to confront those
frequent moments of breakdown. It needs to be understood that when we argue, we argue
not only about what we are experiencing but also about who it is we are experiencing
things with.
Many arguments can be ignored but on occasion we are forced into
confrontation. The rituals which ensue are frustratingly fragile, complicated, and emotive
things. The better prepared we are to approach these rituals ofargument, the better
chance we have of ensuring that our disagreements stay within the bounds ofverbal
confrontation, and away from much more devastating alternatives.
36
Conflict Navigation prioritizes components of argument that emphasize
cooperation, inquiry, patience, and the ability to suspend our own personal agendas and
ideally egos long enough to fully and even redundantly examine and then engage those of
others. It stresses that the means by which we enter into an argument and the manner by
which we argue can both prove to be just as important as the content our arguments
posses. Ifwe can carry ourselves well, focus on learning how to discover as best we can
who or what it is we are arguing with and then to develop a means by which we can join
them in argument then not only are we taking a huge step towards solving our topical
conflict at hand, but we are also laying essential ground-work for the inevitable relational
(or in the instance ofacademic debate participants we might say pedagogical) conflicts in
our future.
Conflict Navigation attempts to prepare us for the reality that we all live in
environments of constant conflict. The rapidly growing scope of our communicative
abilities suggests that young people of the future will argue in more ways and with more
people than ever before. The questions that precede those of form or content then include
how are we going to confront those conflicts? We cannot allow running away to be even
a primary option.
Many will say there is no need for a new rhetoric or pedagogy to forensics.
Classical traditions of rhetoric have served us well and I agree they will continue to do so
in the future. In fact in many ways Conflict Navigation is perched upon not only classical
rhetorical scholarship but also on more contemporary approaches to rhetoric which seek a
37
re-emphasis on our audiences and a prudent valuation of formal logic systems. But the
conflicts as to which components of rhetoric ought to take precedence have proven to be
too damaging. Rather than replacing any debate interpretation I hope to inquire into ways
that we can look at the broader literature on rhetoric for justifications as to how they all in
fact are already working together.
Others will argue that we should not be afraid of diversity. Indeed, as American
debate educators have abandoned established debate settlements they frequently have
encountered and created many wonderful new ways ofconceptualizing a curriculum of
argumentation. There is merit in nearly all such activities. I find no reason to prioritize
one format over the other, and I do not wish for anyone to read this document as an
attempt to do so. All Conflict Navigation hopes to accomplish is a means of emphasizing
the damage that is done when those formats are sought out and constructed not on the
basis of their merit but as a means of limiting the directions that others may wish to take
the activity at any given time.
I will argue that when a critical mass ofparticipants opt to seek out new debate
activities or emphasis structural fortification as a reaction to perceived 'evils' within their
current communities they do tremendously more harm than good. And neither of the
primary interpretations are free of blame. We will examine the composition of these
interpretations and their contributions to structural fortification in chapter two. In chapter
two we will also look more closely at the road connecting the NOT to the NPDA and
beyond for clues as to what kinds of damage is being done and what kinds of
38
opportunities are being lost.
Chapter three will examine the rhetorical scholarship which influences and
brackets conflict navigation. We will look briefly at the rhetorical theory which
influenced early academic debating efforts as well as a contemporary movement in
rhetoric which places the audience and the other at a place ofpriority within ethical
argumentation. By the end ofchapter three the pedagogy and rhetoric of Conflict
Navigation should be laid plain, we will only need to apply it to the world of academic
debate.
In chapter four these practical questions will be examined. Ofmost important is
the question, what does it mean to participate in competitive debate as a Conflict
Navigator? We will answer this questions for coaches, judges, competitors, and students.
We will see that the endemic nature ofcompeting interpretations in debate which has
contributed to ongoing damage being done to the curriculum and the community is also
the home for an incredibly unique discussion about the challenges ofargumentation.
Ultimately, Conflict Navigation strives to expand the walls of academic debate as
a simulation of argumentation in the 'real world'. In order to simulate the diversity of
topics and opinions and the inevitable frustration or anger that perceived affronts to those
opinions may cause, it is imperative that our environment welcome and engage everyone.
Competitive intercollegiate debate is the only place in higher education where hundreds
of competitors, administrators, and coaches -students all - can sufficiently engage
confrontation and postitively illuminate the errors of our argumentative ways.
39
CHAPTER II
THE REALM OF INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE INTERPRETATIONS
Before we can understand any of the crises in intercollegiate debate either that
perceived by Rowland and Deatherage or those seen through the lens of Conflict
Navigation it is important for us to confront the tenn debating interpretations. There will
certainly be many ideas as to what constitutes the best fonnat for debate education, but
there are only two which must remain in place ifwe are to span the gaps created by
fractionation.
First it must be accepted that while we need to know the person we are talking to,
we must recognize that valuable criticism can approach us in literally any fonn. Second
we must understand that there is no single "right way" to teach argumentation and if we
ever come to an agreement that there is and that we have found it, we may well be ending
the human project of reason. If a rich environment of interacting academic debate
communities are going to become sustainable it will be because they along with several
other approachable interpretations recognized their interdependence. There are not and
cannot be certainties in the best arguments, only mutual benefactors.
Even ifthe world's thinkers could somehow define the best debate education in
an easy to implement curriculum, that somehow perfect curriculum would have to
impossibly include the encouragement of scrutiny upon itself. Otherwise that defined
40
model which dictated each and every argument we had would quite literally end human
evolution. We would be stuck with the world as it was seen when our "perfect" model
was built.
Perhaps the most important kinds of arguments for professionals ofany field are
the ones that are constantly scrutinizing the mechanisms that define their professional
existence. Our modus operandi helps us run clean, but it may very well end up lulling us
into complacency or, worse ignoring what might otherwise become a crucial innovation.
In failing to enlighten the next generation that the systems we hand them are invented and
pliable abandons half of the project of human reason. So if anyone interpretation ofthe
best debating were to ever reign supreme, it would have to be one that invites
interrogation and which more importantly views such 'assaults' as opportunities for self
improvement. Growth may come as a result of some winning idea within the argument
but it always comes as a strengthening of the processes we use to analyze and in many
instances tolerate conflict. This fact that no single interpretation is above scrutiny is
perhaps the only single rule that debate educators can accept.
Unfortunately they must likewise accept that there is no list of arguments or
argument types that will transform a student into an Aristotle or Descartes. Because it is
essentially rhetorical, argumentation in any form is a created, choreographed exchange of
symbology. The best arguing is thus rendered utterly circumstantial (Billig 92). Quintilian
called this unfortunate truth about rhetoric the Principle ofUncertainty. As Billig points
out, Quintilian simply reminds us that ''we can never capture the infmite variety of
41
human affairs in a fmite system...." (92).
Every student and every coach, every school administrator and every parent will
come to academic debate with different backgrounds, expectations, and thus with very
different agendas. We could therefore rightly state that there are as many interpretations
ofwhat competitive debate ought to be as there are participants. At the end ofthe day,
this is the closest one can get to understanding the complicated fabric of competitive
debating interpretations. Debate systems above reproach are broken systems, the best
debate is circumstantial and it comes in possibly millions ofvarieties. These are not
promising constraints to be placing on a curriculum which will be expected to meet
academic muster.
Academic debate however time and again has suggested that such an environment
can exist. Hidden among the infinite interpretations is a dedicated group of educators who
recognize the benefit ofongoing conflict in any and every form. It is seen as a mental
obstacle course through which we must somehow run the notions of'better debate". This
means Conflict Navigators are as eager to engage the most foreign or even the most
'crazed' interpretations about argument as they are to see their respected colleagues. Only
this way are we going to develop the necessary abilities to teach to a thousand students
and to learn from a thousand teachers.
The first way in which competing interpretations contribute to fractionation then
is that they assume they are exclusive to even a limited number of alternatives. There are
other ways in which a few long-standing conflicts within the academic debating
42
community have triggered structural fortification. In order to explore the interactions
between various debating interpretations and fractionation we will thus need to
compartmentalize if only a little. There are ofcourse dangers to oversimplifying complex
social conflicts. Doing so hampers our ability to understand the problem and thus
potentially harpoons any efforts we have for resolution.
No experienced Middle East diplomat for instance conceptualizes the ongoing
strife in the current nation of Israel as a struggle which exists simply between the Israelis
and the Palestinians. Both terms include countless accountable and influential parties all
of whom must be understood to fully understand the scope and the tragedy of the
problem. In instances such as this, oversimplifying could have dire consequences for any
efforts at sustainable peace.
So hesitantly we split academic debate into two clouds of overlapping and
interacting points. The points on each cloud that is furthest away from the area of
intersection represent the polar extremes of our binary construction. We will arbitrarily
call the point furthest to the left 'traditional' debate and the point furthest to the right will
be called 'contemporary' debate.
At the left extreme we find communication participants and at the right flow
participants with the term 'flow' once again referring to the notes taken during the round
which represent the debate as-it-happened. Using our terms from chapter 1, debate
participants who want to see the "content" of debate take priority would fall in the
communication category, and those who value "performance" would be flow participants.
43
Calling a judge a 'flow judge' for instance means that regardless of presentation
style they will vote for the team who 'won on the flow'. If ever a pure flow judge existed
they would ignore literally every component of an argument from their opinions of it to
the way it was delivered and only vote on whether or not the other team responsively beat
it. If they missed some intricate portion that the asserting team effectively took advantage
of, the debate is over. The asserting team wins regardless ofwhether their advocacy is to
"devolve" the human species through nuclear war or to build a "Super House" over the
contiguous United States. The flow rewards not the team who was right, after all 'right'
and 'wrong' are simply agreements we all arrive to. The flow in theory rewards who
'wins' by best conceptualizing and articulating the functional interaction of what was said
and what was not. It should start becoming obvious that 'traditionalists' on the' left'
might value academic debating that is most accessible to a 'lay' public while 'right-wing'
'contemporaries' value academic debate that is as scientific and thus arguably 'clear' as
possible.
Communication participants feel that demonstrating an awareness of all audiences
is perhaps the most essential component of debate education. In the tradition of rhetoric
and thus important to those who began academic debating efforts in the United States
there is a clear obligation owed to those whom we confront with our reasons. 'Flow'
participants or contemporaries on the other hand may value accessible argument but the
access they care most about is that ofthe informed. Eloquence to contemporaries is a less
sensitive variable in deciding who wins and loses. They might argue that once we begin
44
placing too much emphasis on subjective notions such as delivery or persuasion we
potentially jeopardize the transparency of the game we utilize as our tool of learning.
While judges and audiences may wish for a more eloquent debate for instance the real
question is who said what and with regards to what were they saying it? Ideas must be
conveyed, but ornamentation is superfluous ifwe hope to present any kind of identifiable
standard for excellence. This strict adherence to transparency and predictability has
earned 'flow' participants another nick-name: gamers.
Conflicts over how influential a 'gaming' pedagogy or model should be in
academic debate will be explored in more detail below. Suffice to say while games
frequently bring out the best in human learning and performance, they can also introduce
all sorts of nasty human qualities and reduce their content to triviality. This tug-of-war
becomes all the more potent when it is applied to rhetoric and argumentation.
While these distinctions echo the polar extremes ofdebate interpretations,
Conflict Navigators must ultimately reject their use. The first reason is simply that all too
often these terms as used have conveyed excessive normative weight which only
complicates the picture. Depending on who you ask either pole is home to remarkably
potent education as well as significant pedagogical pitfalls. Conflict Navigation
recognizes that we have no more control over the debating interpretation of our
interlocutors than we have over the orientation oftheir opinions. What is more, the
distinctions real or perceived that are drawn between all of the various interpretations and
perceptions have value in that they challenge our stagnate notions of argument or simply
45
challenge us again to defend that which we know to be right.
Secondarily, J reject the idea that "garners" can't persuade or that "comm.
debaters" cannot be players. Much as is the case in athletic competition some of the most
compelling 'players' are also the most charismatic and accessible. These individuals
bring the 'worser' or 'sillier' elements of the community into the light and thus find new
ways to make plain the risk of such silliness but also its absolute necessity. While the
LeBron James of academic debate will never get the endorsements of their NBA
equivalent many would argue the same level of talent and keen awareness for the
implications of their activity are on display most seasons on the competitive circuit.
Despite the risks associated with using these terms there are some happy
coincidences. Generational divides reflect the tensions that go on between 'traditional'
and 'contemporary' debate participants. One side carries great wisdom from experience
but is perhaps a little too rote for contemporary tastes. The other side thrills to the more
extreme nature of the exploring process and brings both youthful curiosity but also
energy levels to the fore. Granted, some of the older members of competitive debate
circles are staunch 'contemporaries' and some ofthe youngest are 'traditionalists' but the
parallels are intriguing none-the-Iess. These extremes can be understood within the
gradient development of forensics education as it has taken place in the United States.
Competitive Debate History and the Evolution ofInterpretation
The title Director of Forensics (DOF) begins to crop up as early as the 1920's but
evidence proves debate education in America stretches back even to the early 1800's if
46
not earlier (Bartanen, History ofIntercollegiate Forensics 14). No single volume detailing
the development of co-curricular debate throughout history exists but one ofthe leading
efforts to do so is being carried out by Dr. Michael Bartanen at Pacific Lutheran
University. Bartanen breaks competitive debating evolution down into roughly 5 eras.
See Table 1.1.
47
1870's - 1917 • School versus school debates
Declamation before significant audiences.
• Tournament format emerged.
Suasoria-Controversia 1920 - 1955
• Push for "one topic".
Debate as competitive
• Fractures appeared - audience
training
versus training. Canned versus
spontaneous.
• The apex of forensics participation.
• Judge as "computer" rather than
"audience".
Science 1955 - 1990 • Popularization of IE originally as
Forensics as a laboratory
"counter weight" but eventually
sucked into debate norms.
• Fractures grew much wider -
rhetoric versus Comm theory;
rhetorical debate versus scientific
debate led to CEDA
• Forensics dividing and uniting.
Games 1990 - ? • Rise of student run programs and
Forensics as a game with declining number and influence of
many different players, each forensics educators.
with their own rules
• Significant rise in "game theories"
Table 1.1. Eras of competitive debate as defined by Bartenan
The more important components ofBartanen's interpretation of competitive
debating for our current purposes include the development ofthe tournament format
during his second era, that of "Sensoria-Controversia / Debate as competitive training"
48
and his second and third eras jdentifying the growing influence of 'scientific' debating
and the influence ofgaming paradigms (Bartanen, personal communication).
It was during this first era, sometime between 1920 and 1955 that Bartanen shows
the theory and rules beginning to formulate in ways culminating in a national tournament
agenda. The first NDT was held in 1947 at the West Point Military Academy and
represents perhaps the cornerstone of this agenda (Bartanen, personal communication).
Developments in transportation technology as well as what Bartanen calls a "resurgent
interest in public issues" took full advantage of this developing agenda as World War II
drew to a close (Bartanen, personal communication). Debate educators in this era
certainly drew on the ideas from those who came before, indeed clear back to the
ancients.
The concepts of oral argumentation, interpretation, dialogue, oration, and
empirical dispute have always been key components of education in early colonial charter
schools but the honorary societies developed during this second era of competitive
debating as well as interest and infrastructure which offered cheaper events once
resources pooled took the organization and scope of these contests to a new level (Potter).
It was during this time that Egbert Nichols who defined what it meant to be a Director of
Forensics began the first widely produced debate magazine and began keeping careful
track of the questions at issue and the results of these events. Nichols' efforts are the first
'scorecards' avaHable and in many ways current organizations follow his lead. Nichols
was attempting to insert some method to the unorganized madness that was academic
49
debating at the time but no one could have guessed as to how far such efforts would go
(Nichols 11).
Regardless of the date at which debate education may have started, the general
time frame suggests it would be intimately tied to the understanding and usage of
classical and contemporary rhetorical study. Rhetoric maintained significant prominence
as a means ofentertainment, learning, governance, community building, and the
dissemination of information and thus it follows that oratorical delivery went hand-
in-hand with sound reasoning practices as core principals for the earliest debate
educators. While questions oftechnique and procedure were certainly no strangers to
traditional forensics events, they certainly didn't have the priority that they would later
develop once the national tournament agenda began wielding its full influence.
Another component ofdebate format that would change as tournaments grew was
the role of the judge or educator. Early on it was clear that these rolls were one and the
same. Early debate coaches were not only esteemed members ofthe English, Philosophy,
or Rhetoric faculty, they were also the most preferred judges for the competitive events.
This was true because unlike any other individual who may be of service to competitive
debating, "impartial" coaches had a unique "...sympathy with the work" (Nichols v.).
This represents important evidence that while traditional debate was supposed to operate
as an eventual service to the public through the creation ofCicero's "good men" it was
still recognized that these contests had a distinctive nature and that fairness was indeed
important. Traditional debate also recognized the benefit oftechnical questions of
50
procedure, as evident by a list that includes lawyers as the second most preferable critic
to a DOF given their familiarity with such issues (Nichols v.).
Judges in the traditional mold are active educators and their feedback is a crucial
component of the overall debate. As a result they felt a greater amount of leeway in
making their decisions with regards to the amount ofpersonal investment they were
expected to place into the decision. These judges were than score boards, but active
(although silent) members ofthe discussion. These critics and educators would weigh in
on their ballot with their thoughts not only of the quality of the content ofthe debate, but
also on the more oratorical aspects of it.
As the competitive sphere continued to rapidly expand however, it started getting
harder and harder to keep track of all the critics and all of their respective decision
making frameworks,. The allure of a national championship was as seductive as ever but
the subjective nature ofargumentation was leaving many to feel a national title took
perhaps more luck than skill.
Thus, the model ofjudging began to shift as the 1950's. Competitors and coaches
alike started manufacturing ways to make the game more transparent and fair. In this
third era which Bartanen calls "Science / Forensics as a Laboratory" (History of
Intercollegiate Forensics 18, personal communication) we see judges being encouraged
to vote as exclusively on "the flow" as possible. Notions of a mythical Tabula Rasa
judging paradigm grew in significance. The Latin term, meaning 'blank slate' suggests
that individuals sweep their minds clean before confronting the debate. As a result
51
Bartanen suggests that judges were over time thought of more as computers than as an
audience (personal communication, Eras ofDebate). Given what we know of the ethical
concerns regarding the individual nature of rhetoric, such an approach was less than
appealing. Thus we see the kick-starting of our history of 'fractionation'.
Examples of stmctural fortification during this time included traditional attempts
to separate from this new computational approach to rhetoric and contemporary efforts to
provide predictable access to the ballot. Traditional minded coaches created new
activities including CEDA debate and began heavily emphasizing participation in
individual speaking events (including platfonn speaking and dramatic interpretation) as a
counter-weight to the contemporary influences in debate (Bartanen and Frank 36;
Bartanen, personal communication). Meanwhile, contemporary participants insisted on
more and more judge strikes and judge ranking methods designed to give students only
the friendliest (read most predictable) of environments to compete in. Instead of the
judge-as-educator model that pervaded early debating efforts judges now watched only
the rounds they weren't stricken from or only when both teams ranked them equally.
Over time and for justifiable and unjustifiable reasons alike the judge became less of an
educator and more of a scoreboard.
On one end, the judge is a pre-eminent educator and instmctor. Students are asked
to take on faith that the professional nature of their critic's development will ensure a
professional attempt at a fair outcome and to accept that for many reasons this may
include adjudication of the chosen methods ofperfonnance or questions unexamined by
52
the opposing team. At the other end, we see the judge relegated to the status of score
board. Students carry on the debate and the judge does little more than count and weigh
all the "beans" to assign a winner. Towards one end ofthe spectrum the judge will be an
active member of the game, towards the other the judge provides little insight, only
infrastructure.
Critics on one end justify their interpretation by pointing to their expertise as
educator, and to the inevitable uncertainty that is argument. Argument is not
demonstration after all and pretending that it is creates potentially devastating mindsets.
We will explore the implications of these mindsets in chapter three. Alternately, judges
who sit back and let anything and everything win if unchecked argue that they make the
game fair ensuring participation and equal opportunities for all to win, while at the same
time they reward argumentation that is both difficult to understand as well as potentially
intellectually bankrupt (Rowland and Deatherage 247).
As the early 1990's progressed, according to Bartanen, one more era of interest
began (personal communication, Eras ofDebate). What once was an honored tradition
among honors societies and intellectual communities was gradually being seem as a
"Game". Perhaps one of the defming notions ofa 'contemporary' approach to
competitive debate is the implication that aside from a few strict rules regarding speaking
time and order, the activity belongs to the students and anything goes. Assuming judges
are no longer voting on the general content of the discussion but rather strictly the content
ofthe debate, strategy and 'gamesmanship' begin to creep to the fore ofacademic
53
debating.
Notions ofprocedure and the technical implications of arguments began to push
"controversy content" out of vogue and debates became much more questions ofquantity
as opposed to quality (Bartanen, History ofIntercollegiate Forensics 19). The intended
"wedding of wisdom and eloquence" (Bartanen and Frank 31) became a super fast paced
swagger festival as to whether a topical counter plan excessively restricted affirmative
ground with rates of delivery that began approaching the auction block (Pinkus 6;
HoUihan, Baaske and Riley 185). Perhaps most notable of this fourth era of competitive
debating was that apparently it was the students, as opposed to professional forensics
educators who were calling the shots. This had far reaching implications including what
many felt was an almost fetishistic allegiance to the activity which pushed common
students out and began a seemingly irreparable split between competitive debating,
professional communication studies and rhetorical academic circles (Bartanen and Frank
32).
As the CEDA experiment began folding back into the NDT, the NPDA began
flooding with 'contemporary' refugees. Between 1994 and 1996 participation at the
NPDA doubled from 50 or so teams to over 100 (Bartanen and Frank 32). Still many felt
that parliamentary debate associations had effectively 'thrown the baby out with the bath
water', creating a false dichotomy between extensive research, procedural debate, and
effective public speaking (Bartanen and Frank 34) Cerlin attributes this phenomena to an
over-emphasis on delivery while Knapp and Porrovechio contend that efforts to foster
54
arguments ofmore personal significance frequently devolved to misguided attempts at
humor featuring debates about Looney Toons or the quality ofcertain microbrews (Cerlin
339-50; Knapp and Porrovechio 281). Hardly the stuff ofpublic consequence.
Rather than sorting out the "madness" Nichols and others sought to reform
through standardization, the competitive framework was only exacerbating the rifts in
pedagogy. Now educators saw not only a growing gap between academic institutions like
the National Communication Association and debate, but also a split between 'policy'
formats and 'parliamentary' formats (Bartanen and Frank 32). The former meant that
debate was gradually being relegated to academic "backwaters" and was growing overly
"insular" (Zarefsky 311). Accordingly, those hoping for professional achievement as
forensics educators, and the latter of which seems to demonstrate that the members of this
niche market for advocacy were wholly incapable of getting along and that in their efforts
to answer each other were willing to sacrifice key components of argumentation like
research.
While the literature discussing the seemingly cyclical nature of this fractionation
is less clear, I would argue a key component of the ongoing split and reunion that
Bartanen identifies in contemporary debating eras is based on the nature of the
individuals who tend to make up our two 'tents' of debating interpretation (personal
communication, "Eras ofDebate"). As the gaming paradigm began to take hold and judge
strikes and preferences began to more drastically shape tournament participation, the
number of recently graduated student judges increased. These students were perhaps
55
much closer to the whims of their comrades and perhaps not far enough away to see the
implications that their actions endorsed.
More often than not, those who became disillusioned were not these younger
judges and the competitors but the 'traditional' minded professional debate educator of
old. While student run programs began to crop up nation-wide in the nineties, by and
large most of the resources belonged to more professionalized programs (Bartanen,
personal communication Eras ofDebate). Once these programs began to lose faith and go
elsewhere their separation left the remaining community critically wounded. When a
traditional exodus occurs, the community loses not only what are typically the largest
entries at the tournament (filling the brackets for diverse competition and providing
precious entry fees) they are also losing the tournaments that those programs might host.
This can create critical instability among remaining debate groups.
This critical instability is reflected in the numbers generated by Ronald J Matlon
and Lucy M Keele's 1988 Survey of Participants in the National Debate Tournament.
Madon and Keele argue that by 1970 it was becoming evident that participation in the
NDT was declining rapidly (203). In fact, while the 1973 - 74 school year boasted 324
events in 44 states and the District of Columbia, the 1988 - 89 school year would see only
71 tournaments in 27 states (Henderson 32-33). Factoring out the states that only hosted
one event over the course of that season, the number of states with diverse (meaning
more than one) options for policy debate fell to 15 (Henderson 32-33)2.
2 Henderson's chart on pages 32-33 estimates the numbers of events between 73-74 and 88-89
56
This meant that if a program wanted to maintain a competitive schedule and to
participate in the discourse communities that policy debate was building they would over
time have to drive further and spend more. As regions began to fail their participants
would clamber into whatever had been offered as an alternative and over time develop
ways to fit it to their designs. Thus it would seem the debating traditions are potentially
stuck forever in a game of cat and mouse.
Rather than pursue new ways to approach their concerns, 'tradition' minded
coaches have simply left. Likewise, a critical mass of those dedicated to learning through
mastery of the game frequently allow themselves to become excessively wary or
competitive with regards to inexperienced audiences. Critics who can't or wont follow
along are typically seen as liabilities first, and necessary participants second. No one
blames the students for getting carried away with the motivation to win. Students in
competitive environments are like that, and they all work very hard and sacrifice a great
deal to be there. But when individual students tum in to groups, and when coaches don't
aggressively invest themselves in counteracting the more damaging components of the
rhetoric of swagger that competitive environments can percolate, animosity tends to leak
fast.
Perhaps worse, "garners" have shown a strong tendency to view those
inexperienced or bewildered opponents that they face as nothing more than an easy win
and worse still as opportunities to show off. While a strong majority of even the most
57
competitive within the debate community demonstrate incredible hospitality when they
confront those who are perhaps new, a lot needs to be done to help egos from being
excessively maimed in contests of argument. When the worst of us are on display, it's no
wonder new people want to leave.
Given the hyper-sensitive nature of numerically small national communities, it
only takes a few programs shifting course to encourage a 'bleeding over' into the new
model. While still a statistical minority, the numbers appear to be sufficient to alter the
apparent texture of the format they move into. What's more, the theses behind
contemporary traditions, namely calls for a more 'fair' game, are appealing to all students
and thus in short order contemporary interpretations will again be on the rise.
This ongoing division is not only damaging to the sustainability and academic
integrity of debate communities, it is ultimately ironic given the implied mission of
argumentation. Structural reformation and the ongoing tactics of avoidance send the
message that educators are incapable of resolving their conflicts with the techniques they
claim to teach. One is reminded of the trouble Corax had arguing that he had taught his
pupil Tisias well when Tisias couldn't even defeat his teacher in an argument. How long
is it until students ofAmerican debate look at this history and decide that rather than
engage those we disagree with in argument, we're probably just better off simply
abandoning discourse all together and only talking to those with whom agree?
Throughout the turbulent history ofdebate both ends of our gradiated spectrum
have proven to be resilient. Despite the ongoing pressure that this history has introduced
58
into debate, a multitude of interpretations exist across the United States and even the
globe. There can be no doubt there is a demand and a need of a sustainable competitive
debate organization, or at least a means of staunching the flow of 'traditional
participants' away from 'contemporary' problems. By looking back to some of the
broader lessons of contemporary and even classical rhetoric, Conflict Navigation hopes to
offer a method of sustainable unification.
59
CHAPTER III
NOTIONS OF RHETORIC AND CONFLICT NAVIGATION
Now that we have a general understanding ofthe interpretational landscape
among some ofthe more influential intercollegiate debate programs we can begin
discussing ways that Conflict Navigation can attempt to bridge the gaps. As stated earlier,
the notions which have guided 'traditional' debate thought include ancient and
contemporary approaches which seek to build informed citizens and advocates. Since
antiquity, a divide has existed between those who pursue rhetoric as a means ofpublic
participation and enlightenment and those who pursue it purely for personal gain. Those
who would pursue rhetoric or who would offer to teach it purely for personal gain have
been typically referred to as 'sophists' and in many ways the implications of sophists
among true rhetoricians parallel those between the 'contemporary' and 'traditional'
debate communities. In fact in much the same way that Aristotle confronts those who
would learn to make the "worse... the better cause" (Billig 67) many in the debate
community have critiqued notions of debate in which "no holds [are] barred" (Frank,
Solipsism 38) and students are left to pursue competitive success by "any means
necessary".
Of course the study ofrhetoric goes beyond notions of sophistry and true wisdom.
Over the years rhetoric has continuously needed to reassert itself as an ongoing and
60
critical participant in the processes of human logic. It is no secret that formal reasoning
has begun to monopolize our professional and even educational discourses. There are two
main concerns shared by Conflict Navigators and contemporary rhetoricians alike. First,
an exclusive reliance on formal reasoning abandons the dialectical components ofthe
human reasoning process in institutional education and practice. We have already
lamented the fact that students in America seldom if ever are asked to demonstrate an
ongoing articulation of their lesson materials extending beyond simple memorization and
repOli. Students learn to seek academic reward through memorization and report leaving
out the more active processes of learning not to mention all of the shades ofgray that
even the most perfected formal systems can only imply.
Second, when we begin to place an excessive amount of confidence on our formal
systems, or simply fail to scrutinize their use, they allow us to commit atrocity with the
same levels of perfection as any of our more honorable achievements. It is no
coincidence that the horrors of the second World War gave birth to new
conceptualizations of rhetoric which sought to re-emphasize the importance of rhetorical
relationships. Ofperhaps most significance when it comes to the contemporary
movements in rhetoric will be approaches offered by Chaim Perelman, and Martin Buber.
Among these writers we see the consistent defense of all forms of rhetoric ranging from
verbal demonstration to discourse but we also begin to hear constant reminders that the
relationships which we create with regards to our conflicts can dictate their course more
than any formalized systems which we may choose to employ.
61
It is within this contemporary shift in rhetoric that we not only see interesting
similarities to the delivery conflict going on among academic debate participants but also
the more important notions of argument that can serve as our 'glue' to keep this conflict
from continually pulling the community apart. Among members of the 'contemporary' or
'gaming' tradition we see the dogged pursuit of a pure game. One that is fair and which
thus encourages a great number of students to participate. By bringing regions of debate
students together we begin to represent the diversity of argumentative approaches which
students will be expected to engage. Campuses provide the perfect spaces for large
multiple debates to take place at once. After a small break even point debate programs
can begin to see these events run with remarkable fmancial efficiency allowing them to
spread the benefit to all. Yet contemporary shifts in rhetorical thought have given us no
shortage of reminders as to the damage we can do when we approach rhetoric as a purely
formalized activity.
While formal systems are absolutely crucial to reasoning, attempts to reclaim
Disneyland rhetoric from notions which equate it only with Gandhi eloquence have long
been underway. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca are forceful advocates of reclamation.
Despite the heavy (some might say exclusive) emphasis placed on the elusive "universal
audience" which symbolizes attempts by arguers to make their justifications accessible to
all, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca continue to see "particular audiences" (or discourse
communities) as critical and inevitable components of human reasoning (31-47).
Particular audiences such as the one which exists in contemporary debate tradition let
62
arguments evolve and carry earned knowledge forward in their fabricated formal systems
and techniques. Our abilities to evolve and transmit knowledge across the generational
gap are perhaps most responsible for our current technological achievements. Shifts in
our environment which may herald extinction for other animals who must lmdergo
generations of evolution can be met by humans with simple solutions which
exponentially improve over time. At the heart of the contemporary shifts in rhetoric lay
the idea that while communication to and among particular audiences is certainly useful
and probably inevitable, such specialized communicative efforts cannot be the end or
even the apex of our understanding of argument. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca warn:
Argumentation aimed exclusively at a particular audience has the drawback that
the speaker, by the very fact ofadapting to the views of his listeners, might rely
on arguments that are foreign or even directly opposed to what is acceptable to
persons other than those [s]he is presently addressing. (31)
According to Perelman and Olbrects-Tyteca, arguments are only as good as the
minds that they are capable of persuading (24). While strong arguments are no doubt
developed within particular groups, stronger arguments are still needed to justifY,
scrutinize, and apply the notions of the particular audience to the public at large.
Martin Buber is perhaps best known for drawing attention to what Perelman and
Olbrechts-Tyteca refer to as our "obligations" (25) to our audiences. In Buber's
perspective there are two kinds of relationships: I and Thou, and I and It relationships (6).
When we encounter an It, according to Buber, we see that object as something to be
manipulated for a desired outcome (6). We enact our will upon objects which surround us
63
on a daily basis never giving much thought to their states of being of feelings on the
matter. As soon as we classify objects, or define them based on relational events, we
relegate them to a caged existence in our past as opposed to an evolving existence in our
present (Buber 6). Buber is aware that I1It relationships are essential to efficient
progression but our awareness of the implication of such relationships is the cornerstone
of life which utilizes the more present Thou.
We must obviously be on guard then when we confront people so as not to extend
this lilt relationship into the worlds of subjective audiences. When we encounter other
individuals, the most ethical means ofengagement in Buber's world is to engage them in
the present and to see their existence not as something we have previously defmed but as
something which unfolds before us. When we fail to consider the full extent ofthe
significance of individualism we run the risks of not only objectifying those we encounter
in life but also ofunnecessarily expanding the bounds ofour conflicts. Again it is the
relationship between the interlocutors which most heavily defines the kinds ofarguments
we have. Arguments devolve to fights or simple avoidance when it is felt verbal
reasoning no longer can succeed or cannot be trusted. Therefore the most important
notion to effective rhetoric in the contemporary mold is the idea that we must maintain
that relationship at all times and confront any and every instance of rhetorical exchange
with an eye on Thou as opposed to It.
This is obviously not a foreign notion to scientists. Even the staunchest of
scientists will be quick to agree, it is not the equations that create the remarkable
64
successes in science but rather the mindset of the scientist to diligently and ideally
presently look for new ways to scrub out noise or bias. Like religion, science has
experienced accusations of heresy and perceived insanity. Yet wise scientists know that in
many instances it was exactly these kinds of' crazy' ideas which produced some of the
most significant departures from otherwise tapped out scientific dogma. The openness to
new ideas and new perceptions is a defining component of the scientific method, so too
with rhetoric.
Conflict Navigation demands a definition of rhetoric that is prepared to reach out
to a wide array of ideas even if in many of the individual instances of deliberation we
utilize language that is more specialized. We need to be true to the traditions ofrhetoric
as seen through the eyes of traditional debate educators but we cannot overlook the
importance of not only specialized communication but also the arguments that facilitate
specialized communication. Chapter four will attempt to establish this balancing act but
before we can implement a rhetoric of Conflict Navigation we need to more closely
defme what we mean when we say 'rhetoric'.
Rhetoric as Defined by Conflict Navigation
There are several very good definitions of rhetoric to draw from, some ofwhich
date back thousands of years. The more notable distinguish rhetoric from other forms of
verbal interaction. Aristotle, for example, saw rhetoric and discourse as different notions
entirely (Tindale 70). Our present purpose calls us to collapse these notions, Conflict
Navigation approaches the term rhetoric in its largest form.
65
In short, Conflict Navigation seeks to draw from defmitions of rhetoric which
incorporate all ofthe ways in which human kind seeks to share and compare their
experiences. Conflict Navigation sees rhetoric as what happens when we confront
instances of conflict real or perceived. The defmition of rhetoric that Conflict Navigators
settle on must keep a close eye on heritage and at the same time realize that both the
identification of the conflict as well as its articulation of the conflict are rhetorical
actions. Put simply, rhetoric is what we do when we argue either with ourselves, others or
with our environment.
In The New Rhetoric, we're told that "The goal of all argumentation... is to create
or increase the adherence ofminds to the thesis presented for their assent" (perelman and
Olbrechts-Tyteca 45). Again we see that argument is not something that is done to "win"
but a means by which we work together to scrutinize a thesis. An argument 'won' is not
necessarily an instance where one idea triumphs over another, but rather a moment where
minds which were once conflicted have now come together. Thus rhetoric is more than
the verbal tools we use to articulate truth it is in fact the only way by which we discover
truth. The entire process is spotlighted when Conflict Navigators use the term 'rhetoric'.
One of the more comprehensive of definitions of rhetoric which captures not only
the nuts and bolts ofAristotle's Topoi but also the creation ofthe crucial components of
contemporary shifts in rhetoric comes to us from Wayne C. Booth who tells us that
rhetoric is " ...the whole art of creating and discovering warranted claims" (Booth 11).
Booth's definition is preferred because it includes both the acts of creation and discovery
66
- both notions are fundamental to the more comprehensive understandings of
'argumentation' and to our larger interpretation of rhetoric (Billig 64).
Languages, grammar, and argumentative schemas are wholly artificial. Our
ability to engage with our environment is heavily limited in that we depend exclusively
on the kinds of input we can gather through our senses and developed instrumentation.
That already selectively filtered input is then further sifted through our emotive
and cognitive processes. We assign words to experiences even before we know what
those experiences represent (Goleman 19). As a result of this permanent state of
disconnect with our environment, humans cooperatively create systems of meaning from
which to start sorting out conflicting data. These moments of genesis happen every time
we are present among others whether we like it or not (Pearce and Littlejohn 89). We
create warranted claims as to why we can sleep in in the morning, we create warranted
claims as to what to be when we grow up, and we create warranted claims as to whether
or not we believe the presence of homosexuality depletes unit cohesion among our
fighting forces. We create these claims individually as well as with others through
implicit and explicit arrangement. Failure to understand these acts of genesis for what
they are, fallible human creations, immediately impedes our abilities to argue well.
Once we have created our warranted claims we can begin to test and refine them
against the data we have available, either the arguments brought by others or the
consistency of the outcomes our claims produce. The act of discovery includes the
marvelous hidden nature of things that we can begin to demonstrate as our warranted
67
claims are improved upon. These discoveries alone should be reason enough to encourage
more people to study the implications of rhetoric-as-discovery but contemporary
rhetoricians would argue that these 'facts' are only the tip of an amazingly productive
iceberg.
When conflicting social worlds collide, as explained by former NDT champion
W. Barnett Pearce and his colleague Stephen W. Littlejohn, an entirely new
process of discovery must begin. When our disputes constantly evade our attempts at
solvency, as is the case with those over delivery within competitive debate, Pearce and
Littlejohn tell us that we may need to "...go some new place to reach one another. We are
convinced that these other places can be found, or more accurately, created" (7). So not
only do we discover 'facts' about our universe, but we discover new "places" we can go
to communicate. Pearce and Littlejohn refer to this as the extent to which "...participants
in moral struggles choose to develop and exercise a wide range of ways ofrelating to one
another" (7).
Booth presents rhetorical efforts as a "whole art", once again speaking to the
circumstantial nature of effective rhetoric and again to the ideas that no list ofperfected
rhetorical techniques can exist. Our minds trained in modernism perhaps recoil at a heavy
reliance on something as trivial as a "whole art" but rhetoricians would argue it is simply
the way of things. As Kenneth Burke once famously put it, humans are a "symbol-using
(symbol-making, symbol-misusing) animal/inventor ofthe negative (or moralized by the
negative) separated from [their] natural condition by instruments of [their] own
68
making" (Burke 16).
Individuals who are capable ofnot only conceiving ofwarranted claims but also
discovering all they have to offer and all which they perhaps omit demonstrate an
amazing artistry. All of us not only create ideas, we must also drive them. We need to
know the kinds of challenges that put our ideas in a ditch and the kinds of terrain our
ideas can respond to.
Rhetoric as seen by conflict navigation is ongoing, one might even call it more of
a behavior. It is the discussions we have in our mind as to which issues we feel need to be
identified, examined, and rectified and it is the language we use when we present our
findings to our peers and the public at large. Conflict Navigators see this entire process as
fraught with imperfection, bias, and hazard but they also see the entire process as
essential. Argumentation is and always has been an invitation extended across conflicting
worlds to use the differences we have accumulated to better understand ourselves and
hopefully at some point the world around us (Crosswhite 54). The acceptance or refusal
of these definitions is heavily predicated on the ways they are extended and the implicit
expectations that they carry. We must find ways to challenge our knee-jerk reactions to
refuse invitations or simply never offer them in the first place. We must scrutinize our
motives when we offer them at every tum and invite further scrutiny still from outside
sources. Conflict Navigation approaches argument as a cooperative affair and yet in the
game of debate there can be only one winner. The following and fmal chapter will
attempt to rectifY this seeming contradiction.
69
CHAPTER IV
APPLYING CONFLICT NAVIGATION TO THE GAME OF DEBATE
Like it or not, competition seems to be the primary motivator among students in
the United States. Learning is fine and good but students continually want to know who
won and why. It is important that educators engage the enthusiasm about the game
because therein lies some of the more important if not pervasive kinds ofprofessional and
social rhetoric. More important still is that we never lose sight of the implication ofthe
skill that we teach as an alternative to punishment, violence, or avoidance.
Argumentation carries a special significance in that it is frequently seen as just if
not heroic, while at the same time it is viewed as a mechanism ofpower and dominance.
Those who exact their will through argument, from Mahatma Gandhi to Dr. Martin
Luther King, achieve a special place in our history of famed leaders. At the same time,
the "argument culture" as dermed by Dr. Deborah Tannen sees argument as a
demonstration ofour intellectual superiority. It allows us to compete and the resulting
clash pronounces a winner. Such oppositional perceptions of argumentation pervade the
American culture and even psyche (Tannen 22).
As discussed in chapter three, however, we need to do everything in our power to
ensure that we do not engender argument as objectification or coercion, but rather
argument as cooperation and comparative discourse. Using the term 'game' to refer to
70
debate makes a large portion of the community justifiably uneasy. Games encourage
solipsism, motivism, trickery, and adversarial relationships (Frank, Pedagogy and
Politics 38). Yet just as we should not allow ourselves to see academic debate as only a
game, we must not be too hasty when we view games as excessively trivial or mean
spirited. While most games are indeed played aggressively, ifwe can change the
conversation about the game we can take advantage of some very useful components of a
competitive model. We examine the 'game' and 'simulation' metaphors for competitive
debate first, and then we'll move on to explain how the various participants ought to
insert the rhetoric and pedagogy of Conflict Navigation into the activity.
Games and Simulations
When the first NDT was held many felt the community had opened Pandora's
box. Despite the fact that America isn't the only nation to pair debate education with a
tournament structure, it seems to be the only country who's debate educators seem so
divided over what that combination should look like. Regardless of the concerns, there
can be no denying that the infrastructure of academic debate is in fact based in a
tournament, or gaming, paradigm. We assign wins and losses advance teams up a bracket
and declare a champion. Those who have been around awhile know however that debate
can never be a perfectly fair game. At any moment and always seemingly at random even
the brightest of competitive debate careers come to an inexplicable end. No matter how
good debate students or coaches get, only a few will ever conquer the game. The rest will
have to come to terms with the the fact that argumentation frequently ends unexpectedly
71
and with disappointing outcomes.
This dismal outlook can be made to go away ifwe recast our perceptions of
success in competitive debate. Obviously competitive victories will be the primary
motivator for students, but given the invaluable lessons that the most 'unfair' oflosses
carry with regards to the determination required to commit to ongoing argumentation
there are perhaps more teaching and learning moments available to academic debate
participants when we 'lose'.
So while the infrastructure of debate may be a game and while it is certainly
played like a game the metaphor of a 'simulation' carries the most weight. Unlike most
games, debate is forever limited by the obscurity and failures of language. We can tinker
with the structure and formatting all we want at the end of the day debate judges cannot
point to a ball crossing some predetermined threshold for a predetermined point-value.
Games give us not only an inner structure around which to orient our simulations,
but they arguably give us a glimpse into the ways that humans think. Despite all the
legitimate concerns regarding framing life as a game, there have been ongoing
discussions among social psychologists as well as rhetoricians which do just that (Billig
39). One of the most accessible summaries of the game approach as it relates both to
psychology and rhetoric comes to us from Michael Billig's influential text Arguing and
Thinking A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology.
Billig tells us that while our initial inclination upon hearing the word 'game' is to
think of fun, garners don't see it that way. He tells us that organized games are typically
72
played in full seriousness and throughout the course of history have frequently
represented matters of life and death (47). The gaming metaphor for Billig focuses more
on the interactions we have with the rules of the game. Rather than engaging in set scripts
as theater metaphors might suggest, Billig argues that game players are constantly
working within more general formal guidelines that can and do change. While
these rules are critical to the playing of the game, he further emphasizes that"...mere
knowledge ofthe rules will not enable one to predict the outcome...." (Billig 49). So
while games to some might impose excessively strict limits on the ways in which we
'play', Billig might argue that those limits themselves are up for discussion. Rather than
being set pieces of the stage or words on a script, rules in games are created and changed
as the game changes frequently in ways designed to make the game 'better'.
So the fIrst distinction to be made among Conflict Navigators who refer to debate
as a 'game' is that while rules exist to be followed, the discovery and creation of these
rules is very much a part of the game. In as many ways as possible we should seek to
open that level ofplay up to the community to give everyone as much access as possible
to the conversations that go on there. While certain rules are essential (the rules
governing speaking times in debate for example) others can be argued ad infInitum. In the
case of competitive debate they in fact should be.
Creation of rules is a complicated task with unforeseeable outcomes. I'm
reminded ofthe reintroduction ofwolves into Yellowstone National Park. Rather than
being pristine wilderness areas, America's national parks are gradually becoming more
73
like a natural Disneyland. As the implications of caged habitats begin to present
themselves, well-meaning park officials have tried to 'preserve' the environment as it
was. Even small changes, like the introduction of a few hundred wolves into the park, can
lead to significant and unpredictable outcomes. Academic debate participants have
tinkered with and molded their activity in ways both nuanced and blunt, the outcomes of
such tinkering reflects this same kind of organically unpredictable development. Instead
of constantly tinkering with format necessitating more and more acronyms and judge
strikes, Conflict Navigation asks that this discussion go on. It should go on in debate
rounds and out between students, educators, competitors and judges. As the conversation
goes on we may not get the satisfaction ofpassing structural reforms to implement what
we feel to be the necessary actions and we may very well get fed up with all the
rehashing of the same old problems, but we will be over and over again rehearsing the
vocabulary and dedication that argumentation requires.
Perhaps one of the most significant threats of a gaming model being thrust upon
competitive debate is the notion of motive. In games, we want to win. Arguing to win
according to Buber and others is not only unethical, it can be downright dangerous. So
how can we salvage the relational aspects of rhetoric in a competitive gaming
environment? We approach this question from two stances. We have already looked at
ways we can recapture education even when we 'lose' debates, we must now go on to
redefine what it means to 'win'. Next we'll examine how viewing fellow interlocutors as
'opponents' creates unique challenges to ethical debate.
74
Redefining winning can be tricky especially if we do not want to rely too heavily
on sappy inspirational posters. When we look at winning in a competitive debate
environment one thing ought to become remarkably clear for all involved, no matter what
we do the outcome it is almost certainly going to end up being unfair and not everyone is
going to have an equal opportunity to win every debate. There will be varying degrees of
experience both with debate and with any topic which ends up taking precedence and of
course there will always be the ultimately uncheckable inclinations of the judge. Despite
these obvious barriers to a level playing field for all 'exclusion through experience'
continues to be a primary justification for efforts to move debate back towards a
traditional camp.
At the 2008 NPDA business meeting held during the National Communication
Association annual meeting in San Diego California this conversation seemed to
dominate demands for the structural fortifications suggested by the Kirksville Consensus.
Clearly no one wants to see their students getting beaten out of the activity but at the
same time we cannot structurally fortifY debate enough so that all start on the same
footing.
In this regard we must depend on the coaching of our educators as well as on the
rhetoric of our participants to make certain that all feel welcome and encouraged
regardless of how lopsided the contest may become. We have already spoken of the
patient and dogged detennination necessary to make argument go what better way to
learn than to time and again be confronted with frustrating losses? Is it not also the case
75
that in the legal world major corporate firms will 'snow over' their competition to win in
court? And yet we don't call for a change to the legal structure limiting the number of
arguments we can make in the court room. Instead we idolize the dogged little firm that
could and debate should be no different.
One could approach which ever complicates debating events are the constantly
changing mechanisms ofjudge-preferencing or striking. One of the hallmark differences
between the NPTE (the 'contemporary' parliamentary debate organization) and the
NPDA is a complicated process ofjudge ranking by the competitors. Mutual Preference
Judging attempts to sort all of the competitors and judges into rounds that
hopefully preserve predictability. The only way a team will see a judge that they rank
'low' on their form is if the other team ranks them similarly. The ways this schema are
played can boggle the mind. All of it is yet another attempt to preserve equality and
fairness in an activity that is played entirely inside of the mind of someone who cannot
participate. At what point to these sorting, seeding, and ranking exercises become
unnecessarily cumbersome? At what point do they begin silencing voices and making
judges who are routinely ranked 'low' on the scale feel unwelcome? We must seriously
ask ourselves do they provide a sufficient benefit to risk unpredictable outcomes?
What the debate community needs to realize throughout is that the education from
competitive debate comes in all forms and from engaging all forms. The one place it
seems to come from least is that which is apparently the most coveted, a won ballot.
While there is a great deal individuals can learn about how debate works and what kinds
76
of arguments do best in particular situations, even national champions themselves will
attest that winning it all is as dependent on luck as it is on skill. We can train and research
until Doomsday to produce a predictable result in-round yet ultimately we will probably
be frustrated by the debate itself and almost certainly by the outcome. This is argument.
Ifwe can not only salvage but also invite as many interpretations of debate as
possible into our communities we can train ourselves as coaches, judges, students, and
competitors to patiently and thoroughly analyze then respond to them all. Rather than
attempting to weed out the gamers, instead of striking the interventionist judges we must
find a way to engage them. The times we fail to do so in a way that produces a won ballot
must be chalked up to another lesson in the unpredictability of argument. If we can do
that we'll have developed not just a fun game to play on the weekends but a
comprehensive simulation of argument as it exists in the real world. We'll have
developed an activity that time and again exposes its participants to all of the challenges
that argument imposes and hopefully, even when winning eludes us, reminds us the value
of these arguments.
So how can we build this community 'in-round'? It is important to remember that
Conflict Navigation refuses to offer a paradigm for competitive debating practice.
Structural changes, orienting ballots, or the endless striking and rating ofjudges are all
attempts to create new paradigms for how debate should be played and by now it should
be clear that Conflict Navigation sees these efforts as at best bothersome and at worse
damaging. Remembering that Conflict Navigation seeks to provide a rhetoric and
77
pedagogy but not a paradigm will take the reader a long way in figuring out how it ought
to be implemented. Pedagogies ask us to guide thinking generally towards larger goals
and broader value systems, paradigms are structural or physical attempts to implement
the achievement of these goals. Conflict Navigation calls on all of us to change our
expectations for debate. Instead of seeing the structure of debate as the mechanisms for
entrenching education, CN asks us to discuss our goals around simple competitive
structure. We change the way we engage those who apparently disagree with us, we do
not change the way the activity runs.
Maybe winning would not be such a big deal if in losing we did not have to get
beat. Ego becomes so wrapped up in argumentation that any method we can fmd to push
it from our mind as we confront others is probably beneficial. Losing arguments we do
not feel like we lost is one method, arguing in a way that encourages and inspires our
opponents is another.
When participants let themselves get too carried away with winning trophies and
awards or when they use the 'uneven' outcomes from tournaments with regards to one
tradition or another to indict the activity as a whole, they perpetuate the cycle of
fractionation that has frustrated the activity for decades. Pomp and circumstance has its
benefits. We get to cheer, we come together for the most exciting rounds, the students
who are fortunate enough to see those opportunities set before them will undoubtedly
rank that as one of the more memorable moments in their lives while the rest of them get
something to keep shooting for. We all like to take something home to show our
78
administrations but we cannot get caught up in thinking that we debate to win these
tournaments.
Nevertheless students will always play to win seemingly regardless of how we
coach them. So how do we tend to the issues of motive that lurk behind competitive
argumentation? The first answer to that question is at the end of the day we probably
cannot. At the point that we are asking students to assume sides to a fabricated issue there
is going to be infinite ground to claim that their arguments stem from a personal
competitive agenda as opposed to an ideal search for personal and communal
enlightenment. However ifplayed properly games can offer us at least the beginnings of
our quest for relational management.
Engaging in assaults on motive with regards to the arguments of others is perhaps
the easiest mechanism of avoiding their issues not to mention one of the most
immediately damaging assaults on the relationship necessary for the argument to
continue. While we know that motives in competitive debate can be far from pure we can
always remind ourselves that going there with our critics is rarely fruitful. Instead we
need to find ways to confront the statements made by our opponents in much the same
way two friends confront a move in chess. It is clear that it was done to achieve an
objective but it is obviously not designed to carry threat or condemnation.
While players of a game seek to vanquish a foe, in order to play the game the
opponent is essential (Pearce and Littlejohn 38). The opponent not only "speaks the same
language" as we do, but is in fact a "mirror image of [the] self."(Rapoport qtd. in Pearce
79
and Littlejohn 38). In too many competitive environments this important distinction is
lost.
As we attempt to examine how Conflict Navigation plays out in the minds of
participants, it is important that we briefly examine the role of 'external' audiences.
Obviously those who happen upon academic debate are incredibly important to the
activity's future success and mission. But because provosts, parents, or curious audience
members do not out right participate in competitive debating enterprises we are excluding
them from the list of 'participants'. Funding obviously has a significant influence on how
and if debating takes place but that sort ofparticipation is not the kind addressed by
Conflict Navigation.
Instead, when we speak of Conflict Navigators we speak of students, coaches,
judges, and competitors. While there are four 'roles' that are embraced in order to
participate in academic debating it is not meant to be argued that we only wear one role at
a time. For instance, all ofthe participants in academic debate as seen by Conflict
Navigation are students ofargument. We identifY students to remind ourselves that no
one has mastered the trade we seek to teach and that we are in fact all constantly hoping
to better develop our abilities as an arguer. This is an important idea for everyone to keep
in mind when we approach interpretations of debate that ignite our anger. We must treat
our own arguments whether they come in the form of an argument on the topic or an
explanation of a decision as the products of a growing student and realize that in many
ways there are going to be things we can do to improve upon them.
80
Another important distinction made in Conflict Navigation is between coaches
and judges. We have already discussed the implications that various interpretations of
competitive debate have on judging. Traditionalists in the past have seen judges as active
members ofthe discussion while contemporary debate practitioners relegate them to the
role of score board in the name of fairness. It is in the spirit ofkeeping both traditions a
live that we separate the two roles.
Coaches are educators who work with their students to help guide them towards
better, more ethical advocacy and who attempt to contextualize the experiences of
academic debate. It could be said that it is the coaches not the activity that provide the
education in academic debate. Judges on the other hand are there to call the game as it is
played. All too often judges have been too heavy handed with 'punitive' ballots meant to
orient competitive debate towards their world view and they are thus as responsible for
the rash of strikes and preference forms as the students who fill them out. Likewise, too
many judges encourage frustrated young debaters who lose to cagey arguments or super
fast debates to do more speed drills or to develop a cagier response as opposed to
improve their listening and articulation techniques. It is rare that experienced teams or
contemporary judges go out of their way to explain to those who get beaten by such
tactics how such victories come about.
If 'punishment' through the ballot is one way in which coaches over step their
role, then 'orientation' through the ballot is another. The ballot is excessively 'blunt' and
it comes from the only silent participant in the round. Judges who attempt to 'reward'
81
certain behavior in the face ofa clearly won round or who otherwise attempt to direct
future debating through their cast ballot do little to promote better debating while at the
same time they insight structural responses from frustrated competitors.
Current debate interpretations whether they are traditional or contemporary which
ask the competitors to place their focus exclusively on the judge literally ask them grope
in the dark. Time and again we have been shown that rather than get to know judges who
decide rounds in ways that do not line up with their view of debate, competitors will
simply strike that judge ifgiven the option. Publication ofjudge philosophies (booklets
handed out at many of the large tournaments including comments from each judge in the
pool as to what they like to see) do not go nearly far enough to counteract all of the
uncertainties with regards to threshold that can go on within a debate round. Students
who read that a judge' likes persuasive debate' for instance are just as likely to over adapt
and speak as though they were teaching a 4th grade class room about debate as they are
to find what it means for that judge when they ask for 'persuasion'. Adaptation is an
essential component of competitive debate and indeed many ofthe times we are forced to
adapt our discourse we do so 'blindly'. But when we look at the premium that not only
students but an apparently critical mass ofparticipants place on an 'objective' ballot it is
apparent that asking for blind adaptation in a round which decides a national champion is
too risky.
With few exceptions judges and competitors do not meet nearly enough to
develop the kind ofrapport that is necessary for competitors to accurately adapt to the
82
silent judge, so instead Conflict Navigation asks that the competitors do all they can to
adapt to each other and that the judge engage only the responsive components of the
arguments they see. In this way Conflict Navigation continues what many felt to be the
mistaken agenda ofTabula Rasa judging. Of course judges ought to engage teams who
they feel are unethical or 'bad for debate' in conversation after the round, and they can
offer losing teams advice as to how they can engage abusive ideas in the future. But when
judges attempt to make the ballot a coaching tool they only invite future structural
fortification on behalf of opposing programs looking to maintain a more predictable
game.
The notion of strict objectivity as presented by the Tabula Rasa judge is of course
impossible. We are permanently biased creatures who bring our whole personal history,
abilities and faults to the act ofjudging. Further confounding real objectivity is the fact
that we are not observing reactions in a laboratory but claims made by developing
students. Pretending that objectivity exists in the minds of an audience as it does in the
petrie dish does little good. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca distinguish impartiality from
objectivity for this very reason (60). Conflict Navigation asks us to chase the elusive
notion of impartiality. When judges let their guard down for any reason and begin to
question the motives of competitors or feel the need to jump in and point debate one way
or another they sacrifice an opportunity to practice engaged listening techniques.
Asking judges to vote purely on responsiveness opens the doors to arguments and
strategies that many will find questionable. The debate community recognizes the
83
notorious instance of 'contemporary' debaters winning contests with arguments that are
admittedly absurd. These arguments can range from advocating a violent 'devolution' of
the human species in order to save the planet, to building a 'super house' over the entire
continental United States (except the Dakotas, Kansas, and Idaho). In a world where
judges only vote on responsiveness, opposing teams who confront these arguments with
confusion or anger can quickly lose the round. Bringing oneselfto vote for such
arguments causes legitimate pause. But judges must remember that these victories do not
represent an intellectual concurrence with the thesis of the argument. If judges always
voted their conscience the debate would be over after the topic was announced. That said,
judges recognize that at times they will vote in ways that do not correspond with their
world view and in so doing remind us that all arguments demand interaction with a
functioning response before they are to be dismissed. While this is frustrating to some
and brow raising to others, it is important to remember that judges are not here to debate
students, only to gauge how well they debated each other.
Given all of the unsettling argument that Tabula Rasa may invite, we might do
well to point out that such arguments win the day in the 'real world' as well. Some ofus
are reminded ofthis when we see school boards continue to refuse evolution to students
or insist on equating it with the 'theory' of intelligent design. Health care advocates see it
every time much needed reform efforts fall to fears of 'socialism'. The only way we can
change these unfortunate realities of the 'absurd' defeating the 'rational' is to confront
those arguments as they come to us, as potentially real and formative ideas. Judges who
84
insert their opinions on the qualities of 'absurd' arguments or who insist on punishing
teams who in reality did not functionally respond deny the opposing team a truly valuable
lesson. An open and honest hearing for all ideas is a mandatOly means to learn the
necessary skills to articulate responsive answers to perceptions of 'bad'.
We have discussed what we mean when we say 'student', 'coach', and 'judge' and
so we now turn our attention to the term 'competitors'. It is important to stress that there
are obvious problems with assuming that once we don our 'competitor' role we can check
all of our scholastic agendas at the door. I identifY competitors as separate from students
because they carry the unique burden of sustaining the activity through encouraging
participation. Conflict Navigation asks competitors to temper their thirst for victory with
an eye on sustainability.
The most potentially damaging situation in competitive debate is when we have
an instance of an 'odd team out'. When like minded participants share a round together it
does not matter what their individual interpretation of debate may be, chances are good
that we'll have a pleasant and educational debate. But when we have only a two-legged
stool - when a team from tradition A meets a team fi"om tradition B and the judge is an
exclusive A judge - all sorts ofproblems emerge.
Competitors from interpretation A tend to simply 'go for the judge' with little to
no regard for the opposing team. Team B loses the round and is typically engaged hardly
at all as to why. At this point it is sadly common to see rhetoric's arch nemeses,
'swagger' and 'ridicule', and neither are these attitudes strictly endemic to the winning
85
team. This approach is not sustainable, nor does it demonstrate the obligations that
contemporary rhetoric insists we owe our audiences.
If in an ideal world judges made decisions strictly on responsiveness, then
students could turn their attention to their opponents. Rather than see opponents as
individuals who must be beaten, debates can quickly turn into an exploration for the areas
of conflict given a certain topic and two ideally clashing interpretations. Obviously we
cannot have a competition where everyone wins, but if students make part of winning an
explanation to opposing teams (not just the judge) as to the reasons behind their
perceptions of success, then the discussions that ensue should benefit all. Teams can
explain their view of debate as they see it and part ofthat explanation must stem from the
apparent orientation of their opponents. Judges can comment on how well it was all
explained and hopefully the 'odd team out' can at least learn a bit about an opposing view
of debate rather than leave the room feeling ignored or cheated.
Put another way, competitors must understand that the participation oftheir
opponents is in fact essential. Winning may be important but ifthe teams that lose do not
feel welcome or important as they are beaten then there may not be enough of them left
the next time around. Unlike the judge, opponents talk back and thus give competitors a
visible set of arguments to confront and respond to. This is where adaptation ought to
take place. Competitors must be able to trust the judge to remain impartial and they must
attempt to debate the issue from the interpretation of their opponents. Assuming they take
what we have learned about the rhetoric and pedagogy of Conflict Navigation to heart,
86
participants can simultaneously win from within their personal interpretations ofwhat
debate ought to be and explain their position to a new audience in a way that bolsters
their opponents commitment to the activity.
Conclusion
It will probably be said that Conflict Navigation boils down simply to "can't we
all just get along?". In many ways, that is exactly what Conflict Navigation asks.
Academic debate stands alone as a rare instance where participants spend as much time
speaking about the curriculum as they do listening to it. In this regard, debate is perhaps
one of the most promising educational forums in institutionalized learning.
The level and consistency of the conflict speaks volumes to the passion that
academic debate participants have shared throughout the years and ofcourse there will
always be different formats which are more appealing to different people. Parliamentary
debate as it presently stands in the United States provides students with unique insight
into the best and worst of argumentation; moreover, it provides significant opportunity to
respond to each. Instead of attempting to do the impossible - eradicate 'bad argument' -
debate participants should be encouraged to view such instances as important learning
opportunities.
As careers expand and educators grow such a pedagogy will certainly test our
fortitude. Students flit through academic debate communities too fast to establish any
kind of institutional memory as to what the best debates look like. Educators it seems will
have to resign themselves to redundantly confronting and articulating the same lessons of
87
'bad debate' while at the same time struggling with the notion of 'rewarding' it by giving
it their ballot. No one should blame debate educators for wanting an efficient response, be
it a ballot that teaches a lesson or a new format of debate which maybe extinguishes a
few ofthe worst-case scenarios. But such instances of 'trump' are contrary to the larger
goal ofan education in invested argumentation.
We must keep the game simple so that we can all share in the varied discourses
around it, but at the same time there will be those who take the activity very seriously.
There will be times when all feel as though the other side is contradicting everything we
are here to teach but when we give in to the need to force change upon our community
we are perhaps flirting with hypocrisy. The game, as important as it is, is merely the
skeleton around which the true curriculum of academic debate is built. The curriculum
ought to seek to challenge our initial responses to argumentation and thus it has its work
cut out for it. Chances are change will be slow but if a sustainable debate community can
somehow exist which rallies around the notion that argumentation is cooperative,
inquisitive, incessantly curious and interested in difference, and most importantly
ongoing we can rest assured that the curriculum of rhetoric and the joy of the game can
both be well served.
To serve the larger curriculum ofargumentation well, academic debate needs to
emphasize not simply tolerance, but temperance and inclusion on all sides. Ifwe are
going to define thresholds, they must be based on the purposeful exclusion of alternate
forms ofparticipation. As so much of debate is a mental activity, let us be clear that
88
determining the threshold of such an action is going to be very difficult but if there is one
practice which devastates argumentation efforts more than avoidance, it is motivism.
Part of effective argumentation is a willingness to give others the benefit of the
doubt and to interpret what may appear to be the most willful acts of negligence as novice
mistakes or impersonal differences in opinion. Assuming that we are left to interpret
whether or not someone is being malicious or excessively callus means their actions
could, somehow, be otherwise justified. Once we select negative motives and react
accordingly we end that conversation. Those we indict feel potentially unjustly wronged
and are likely to assign negative intent to our actions, casting us in the same light we cast
upon them.
Undoubtedly there will be many times when judges wish to impose interpretations
on debate using their ballot (or to defend novices from callused or aggressive older
teams) but in so doing, efforts to create a continuous discussion are hindered. Game
oriented participants who have emphasized expertise and oratory style over feeling or
empathy have closed themselves off, threatening the sustainability of the larger
community and likewise jeopardizing what should be the prime motives of
argumentation. Argumentation and reason are humankind's most potent assets, yet we are
continuously reminded how amazingly fallible and fragile they are. Sustainable
arguments are only cultivated through repeated exposure and subsequent navigation
through a gauntlet of rhetorical challenges old and new.
While this is a substantive task in the real world, let alone amongst the novice
89
laden world of academic debate, we must preserve the opportunity to practice its
implementation. No matter how valuable the game may be, no matter how essential it is
that we combine some ofthe traditional components of argument, it is the learning of the
lesson which is most important. If we unnecessarily dilute our learning environments in
search of a 'purer' community, we threaten the sustainable foundation ofargumentation.
90
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bartanen, Michael D. "The History ofIntercollegiate Forensics in the United States:
Some Organizing Questions." Proceedings ofthe Ninety-third Annual
Communication Association Convention, November 15-18, 2007. Chicago:
National Communication Association, 2007. Print.
Bartanen, Michael D., Frank, David A. "Reclaiming a Heritage: A Proposal for
Rhetorically Grounded Academic Debate." Parliamentary Debate: The Journal of
the National Parliamentary Debate Association 6 (1990): 31-54. Print.
Billig, Michael. Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology.
New ed. New York: Cambridge, 1996. Print.
Booth, Wayne C. Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric ofAssent. Notre Dame: University of
Notre Dame Press, 1974. Print.
Buber, Martin. I and Thou. 2nd ed. New York: Scribner, 1958. Print.
CirIin, Allan. "A Public Debate Manifesto." The Southern Journal ofForensics 2.4
(1998): 339 - 50. Print.
Crosswhite, James. The Rhetoric ofReason: Writing and the Attractions ofArgument.
Rhetoric ofthe Human Sciences. Madison: University ofWisconsin Press, 1996.
Frank, David. "The Pedagogy and Politics of Solipsism." Contemporary Argumentation
and Debate 24 (2003): 31-41. EBSCOhost. Web. 28 June 2009.
Gage, John T., and Carolyn Bergquist. The Shape ofReason: Argumentative Writing in
College. 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001. Print.
Goleman, Daniel. Social Intelligence: The New Science ofHuman Relationships. New
York: Bantam Books, 2006. Print.
Henderson, Bill. "A Proposal for Co-Mingling Value and Policy Debate."Argumentation
andAdvocacy (1990): 32-33.
91
Herbeck, Dale A. "Policy Debate and the Academe" The 51 st National Debate
Tournament Booklet. http://groups.wfu.edu/NDT/Articles/future.html. 1985. Web.
20 July 2009.
Hollihan, Thomas A., Baaske, Kevin T. and Riley, Patricia. "Debaters as Storytellers: The
Narrative Perspective in Academic Debate." Journal ofthe American Forensic
Association 23 (1987): 184-93. Print.
Knapp, T. & Porrovecchio, M. "A Comedy ofErrors: The Uses of Wit and Humor in
Parliamentary Debate." The Southern Journal ofForensics. (1998): 281-302.
Print.
Littlefield, Robert S. "From State Associations to National Leagues: The Emergence and
Evolution of High School Debate During the Early 20th Century." Proceedings of
the National Communication Association Ninety-fourth Annual Convention,
November 21 - 24,2008. San Diego: National Communication Association, 2008.
Print.
Matlon, Ronald J. and Keele, Lucy M. "A Survey of Participants in the National Debate
Tournament 1947 - 1980." Journal ofthe American Forensic Association (1988):
194-205. Print.
McGough, Michael. "The Decline ofDebate: Pull It across Your Flow." The New
Republic 10. October (1988): 17-19. Print.
National Parliamentary Debate Association. Changes to National Tournament Operating
Procedures and Rules ofDebating and Judging. Kirksville: National
Parliamentary Debate Association, 2008. Print.
Nichols, Egbert Ray. "Intercollegiate Debates: A Year Book of College Debating." Vol. 3.
New York: Hinds, Noble & Eldredge, 1912. Print.
Pearce, W. Barnett, and Stephen W. Littlejohn. Moral Coriflict : When Social Worlds
Collide. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1997. Print.
Perelman, Charm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on
Argumentation. Notre Dame: University ofNotre Dame Press, 1969. Print.
92
Pinkus, Craig. "On Collegiate Debating." Spectra 19 (1983): 6. Print.
Potter, David. Debating in the Colonial Chartered Colleges; an Historical Survey, 1642
to 1900. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1944. Print.
Rowland, Robert, Deatherage, Scott. "Crisis in Policy Debate." Journal ofthe American
Forensic Association 24. Spring (1988): 246 - 50. Print.
Snider, Alfred C. "Gamemaster: It Is You." Contemporary Argumentation and Debate
(2003): 17-30. Print.
Tindale, Christopher W. Acts ofArguing: A Rhetorical Model ofArgument. Suny Series
in Logic and Language. Albany: State University ofNew York Press, 1999. Print.
Trapp, Robert. "The Future ofPolicy Debating in American Colleges and Universities."
Advocacy and Argumentation. Spring (1990): 25. Print.
---. National Parliamentary Debate Association. "Parliamentary Debate." http://
www.parlidebate.org/coaching-helps/parliamentary debate-robert-trapp/, 1997.
1997. Web. 28 June 2009.
Wilmot, William W., and Joyce L. Hocker. Interpersonal Conjllict. 7th ed. Boston:
McGraw-Hill, 2007. Print.
Zarefsky, David. "The Postmodem Public: Revitalizing Commitment to the Public
Forum." Vital Speeches. 60 (1994): 308-15. Print.
Ziegelmueller, George. "Policy Debate: A Retrospective and ProspectiveView."
Argumentation and Advocacy. Summer (1990): 26-31. Print. 29