The thing that I really like about this concept is it makes debate as argument totally accessible, but still rewards those who take the time to do research and see the big picture on issues – their maps will be bigger and more developed then others. I am going to try this as an introductory exercise in my Argumentation and Debate classes this semester – having the students “map” a debate versus “flow” a debate, have the students “map” their argument preparations versus “briefing” them, then have them move on to the more traditional formats. We’ll see if it makes what is usually an extremely confusing and challenging notion (flowing and briefing always seem totally unnatural to them – they are used to note-taking – which is even more top-down then flowing – and writing essays, which lacks the necessary argumentative connections that a brief is designed to have). Perhaps giving them something that is more visual and consistent with their thought processes will allow them to feel more comfortable with these concepts.

Thanks Alex!

While I’m not sure I agree 100% with your suggestions, your approach is important because it shifts us away from the constraints of the past and instead thinks about what technologies will be available to us in the future.

It seems to me that a huge problem with the way that debate evidence is organized lies in the use of MS Word. We should instead be using a database system. Even if we use Word, we should be using the Outline function instead of word processing.

Now, I don’t know much about databases. But, if we thought about cards/cites/etc. within databases, it’d let us scale up into a Web 2.0 environment in a much easier fashion. My guess is that it’d also allow indexed searching to be much faster. Instead of cards existing in files, cards would exist in databases. Particular blocks would be written with links into the database.

For example, imagine I have some block as:

1. No challengers
X

2. Heg doesn’t solve war
Y

3. Econ key to heg
Z

X, Y, and Z are three different cards. But, the actual cards in the file are just links to the database, where X, Y, and Z are actually stored. When I pull up the block, it’d look like the cards were there — but they’re not actually stored there.

Again, I don’t know much about database management but I do know this is feasible.

What’s the point? You could do BOTH walled-in files AND keyword-based filing. They’d both just be links into particular database entries. Walled-in files do have purposes: arguments are, after all, organized knowledges. A database system could incorporate your suggestions without losing the best of how debate currently exists.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the second point SP has made in his comment. Here’s a screenshot of a MS Office add-on I wrote today based on his thought and the keyword tagging idea. The way it functions is that you associate a name and tags with any text in, for example, your impact backfile. After that, you no longer have to remember where that card is located or open then file again – you only need to search for the card by name or keyword (there’s also a preview on the right) and the card will be inserted into the document you’re working on. Emulating bookmarks in an internet browser, this is a process I refer to as “cardmarking.”

If you have any interesting ideas for other innovations like this, post them in the comments below.

Cook
Emporia State University
Emporia KS

Arborescent systems are hierarchical systems with centers of significance… In the corresponding models, an element only receives information from a higher unit… Pierre Rosentiehl and Jean Petiot, in a fine article denouncing “the imagery of command trees”… note that “accepting the primacy of hierarchical structures amounts to giving arborescent structures privileged status.” … To these centered systems, the authors contrast acentered systems, finite networks of automata in which communication runs from any neighbor to any other, the stems or channels do not preexist…” (16-7).

so basically the internet (see also page 299 of hardt & negri’s ‘empire’). and on par with ace garen’s wish, d&g write that the “ideal for a book would to lay everything out on a plane of exteriority of this kind, on a single page, the same sheet…” (9).

anyway, just seemed like a neat theoretical cross-application, related somewhat to the open debate initiative…
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2005-December/064869.html
http://www.stuartgeiger.com/ossdebate/index.php?title=Creative_Commons

The other benefit of using the “web” to create files rather than view things as a web is that you can print/format/manually edit them after they’ve been dynamically generated, so you have part static, part dynamic files ready to use.

This would probably be very doable using tools like the Google Docs API.

Every year, debate begins again for hundreds of novices. If there’s a new organizational system, they aren’t particularly bound to the old one.

Flowing and organizational changes are easier to adopt rapidly, because they aren’t a spoken part of the contest round. Therefore, it doesn’t really matter if judges accept the change. They won’t even see it.

I can imagine webby systems of flowing and file organization. In my head, they look sort of cool and sci-fi. I’m not sure I see it translating into much of a competitive edge, though. If it can, I recommend that you monetize it.

1. Your system, conceptually, sounds very similar to the way Ace Garen once said he wished he could flow. Basically his idea was to have many colored pens, and a huge sheet of paper. Each argument point would be flowed by giving it a “bubble” of sorts, and then connecting these bubbles visually. So the “econ” bubble could be connected to both the plan and a disad through a web sort of diagram. Debate would, theoretically, be less about making as many bubbles as possible and more about discussing the interconnections and the relative strength of them, which could then be mapped in the RFD by the judge changing the width of the line or the distance between the bubbles to reflect the quality of the internal link.
2. I wonder how much of “debate” as a skill has been composed up to this point of the ability to catalog, both mentally and physically, large amounts of information for recall. Obviously debaters who are better organized or who were due to talent better able to debate sans organization have had an advantage over the disorganized in terms of saving prep time, and maybe even in the number of debates they were able to present relevant arguments. How important has this edge been and has it favored a certain debater or kind of debaters greatly or only at the margins? It seems moving from organization as a technology to organizational technology would eliminate this edge substantially if not entirely- debaters would no longer be required to remember that 3 years ago they cut a piece of evidence in a random file that responds to the argument they are facing today. Instead their rhizomatically thinking computer would make that connection for them.

Very interesting and thought provoking post. I’ve also been thinking about this lately, I think that you have a number of very valuable points. First, I think you are right that the tags (sentences) as opposed to tags (object-oriented) system of organization is an important distinction that we should think about in terms of debate knowledge production. Secondly, I am really interested in the idea that this kind of system could allow debate to be a model for organization. I think that debate has an immense amount to offer to the outside world and this could be a jumping off point, not just for teaching organization, but also for demonstrating the logical process of debate and how to evaluate evidence in a world of information surplus.

I think we do need to, as a thought exercise, think about how we would organize debate if it began today. But its also important to recognize that the value of the debate process as we know it can be important to shaping the new ways debate goes forward. We need to think about what it is about the practice of a debate round that makes it ideal, already, for this kind of thing.

I was definitely impressed by your post and this thought provoking idea.

Thanks,
Sarah Spring
University of Iowa