For years now, through back-channel conversations and posts on the L, I have
been predicting that the personalization of debate and the move away from
the values of the ³switch-sides² approach would eventually lead to some
extremely negative developments in the activity and specifically within
rounds. In fact, over the last 5-10 years, there has been an ever-increasing
number of incidents of people getting angry with judges and opponents, not
because they disagreed with decisions (which always existed) but because
people are personally offended by arguments made by opponents. Back when
everyone in the community agreed with the pedagogy of the switch-sides
approach and didn¹t personalize that activity, offensive claims were beaten
at the argumentative level. But now that we have stepped away from that
pedagogy and taken the position that debate is more than a learning activity
­ that it is a bout personal agency and advocacy ­ we are starting to see
the effects. And I saw the penultimate effect take place right in front of
me (the ultimate is yet to happen ­ but I can almost guarantee that it
will). This weekend while judging a round in which the Affirmative argued
for the personal agency approach, the negative team read some cards that the
affirmative felt were offensive. The result was that a member of the
affirmative team threatened physical violence against one of his opponents
and spent an entire speech referring to his opponents as Nazis and cursing
at them. While I took what seemed like the only reasonable approach in the
situation which was to vote against the affirmative and give the individual
who engaged in the threats 0 speaker points, I do not feel that this is
enough to avoid similar incidents from occurring ­ and with an increasing
frequency.

Now I know that I am going to receive backchannels from people who will tell
me that this is an isolated incident and that it is more a result of the
personality of the individual who engaged in the act, than it is the current
pedagogy of personal agency. But, I disagree. I think this is the direct and
predictable result of the pedagogy. The pedagogy that allowed this to occur
is one that has been growing throughout the activity for a number of years
now. It is the same pedagogy that has led to the routine practice of
labeling opponents and judges as racist or sexist because they did not vote
for a particular argument or approach. It is the same pedagogy that has
effectively (and some time directly) told coaches/judges that they are not
political or social activists if all they do is teach their students
traditional debate skills and ways of thinking. While this approach has not
yet become predominant in the community, it has gained wide acceptance and
does dominate certain districts. And this incident proves that it is harmful

I am not using this post as an effort to call for sanctions on those who
have practiced this pedagogy. Nor am I attempting to engage in an ³I told
you so,² mentality (regardless of the label on this post). But I am making a
plea to those who have adopted it and promoted it to think it through more
fully than you have thus far. Denying the causality behind this incident or
labeling it as an isolated experience will only allow similar events to
happen in the future. After watching this debate Saturday, I spent a lot of
time thinking that it is time for me to leave this activity. I have never
been an advocate of abandoning debate the way so many have left for parli
and other pursuits. But living through something like this and knowing that
while it may appear so, it is not an isolated event, makes me question the
value of what debate has become. And I really think that those of you who
have argued that debate needs to change into this because we lose debaters
and coaches should seriously think about the real and direct impact that
your approach is having on the activity.

Frustrated and looking for an answer.



Ken Sherwood  | Director
____________________________
LACC Forensics Program
855 N. Vermont Ave.
CC184
Los Angeles, CA 90029
p. 323 .953 .4000 xt 2962
f. 323 .953 .4013
e. forensics@laci...
w.
http://www.lacitycollege.edu/academic/departments/speech/forensics/Forensics
/indexx.h