Debate in Cyberspace
by William Southworth, University of Redlands

* Just this month, The Aspen Institute, a Communications & Society Program, published a fascinating new report titled Elections in Cyberspace: Toward a New Era in American Politics. It argues that new technology will revolutionize politics within the next decade altering not only voting patterns but the means by which we vote. "In the future, digital communications may not just facilitate the growth of current political organizations, it could also stimulate the creation of new parties and political institutions. The most basic feature of this technology is that it will allow individuals more easily to find others who share their interests or views and communicate them, which in turn will lead to the development of new forms of community,' new political groups, and, undoubtedly, new political organizations." The forensics community has already begun to experience this potential and its impact on debate is growing, whether such influence is desirable is itself debatable.

It is easy to find faults with debate; the criticisms are so obvious they are brushed aside by insiders as complaints which ill-informed outsiders make about an activity which has a value they cannot possibly understand. (Clearly such a response has merit, the fact that debaters speak faster than auctioneers, the fact that arguments are made which no reasonable, or for that matter, irrational policy maker would ever consider relevant, the fact that participants spend fifteen hours each weekend day completing four rounds of debate which should take five hours, or the fact that many students spend more time researching these absurd positions then they spend studying on all their semester classes combined; these facts should be hard for "outsiders" to understand, the only question is how do the insiders tolerate such facts?)

The answer here is more involved, since most coaches are former practitioners, the present may always seem inferior to their past but still worthy of continuation. Debate for most of us is like democracy was to Churchill, it may be the worst extracurricular activity in which to become involved save all others. Thus, one might ask what about the future? Consider first, technology and access; second, technology and communication; and third, the likely trends such technology will usher into debate in the 21st Century.

Access to information has already had a profound impact on debate. LEXIS, NEXIS and the Internet have enabled students to be more thorough in shorter periods of time in covering essential research areas. Someone may get caught off guard the first time a new case is run, but by the second round most teams have acquired some material on the position. Such technology has reduced library time and it has somewhat begun to level the playing field. While larger programs are still more successful because of their ability to partial out assignments, smaller squads now have a better chance of keeping up, and hopefully having more time for academics.

Just as the Aspen Institute predicts enhanced communication will alter political campaigns, techniques such as the Internet and e-mail have begun to change debate. While no one is ever completely happy with the intercollegiate debate topic, one cannot deny that the process for selecting that topic has changed dramatically in just the past two years. The merger of CEDA and NDT topic selection produced incredible e-mail exchanges this past year and will undoubtedly be expanded even more this coming year. Everyone has an opportunity because of the NDT-L and CEDA-L to discuss and exchange thoughts of wording and direction topic development is taking. During the year, these devices allow for more interaction between debaters and coaches on developments at different tournaments as well as exchanging research sources.

What do such developments predict for the future of debate and the National Debate Tournament? It seems likely that, in the not too distant future, technology will enable debaters to have at their disposal, even during the round itself, access to computer resources; which depending on the "new" affirmative or disadvantage could change even more the nature of new arguments and squirrel positions. While it seems hard to imagine a process in which the focus on evidence is greater than it is now, but it could be possible for judges to similarly have computers and the entire debate could involve an exchange of such information with no 350-words-per-minute-speeches necessary. The merits of such innovations can be argued, but the trend seems distinctly possible.

We can and should learn from our past. At the very earliest NDT's, multiple topics were employed for different sets of rounds. They were more limited offspring of the broader topic, but the ideas was to insure each team was sufficiently versed on the subsets of the general topic. Perhaps CEDA was correct to have duel topics, or perhaps the error was in not having more? Diversity of topics forces people to expand their exposure, this may sound like an argument for brad topics; quite the contrary, it is an argument for very specific topics which force focus and depth simultaneously. The value of evidence would not be eliminated, but hopefully the persuasive skills of the debaters presenting the material would become more significant since each speech would not be identical week after week.

The high school forensic community has found another trend desirable and one we might want to consider, that is the movement toward Lincoln-Douglas debating. To better insure the "communication" in debates, LD has blossomed as an outlet for individuals to function without depending on a colleague, as well as debating a different and very specific topic every three months. When one person is responsible for devising the strategy and also implementing it perhaps the debate focus would change and an emphasis on quality not quantity would take over, that certainly has been the high school experience.

The Aspen Report argues that the technological revolution will change politics forever and for the better. Had the Institute studied the NDT, they may have produced a report titled Debate Tournaments in Cyberspace: Toward a New Era in American Forensics. However, one cannot be sure they would be as optimistic about the improvements such technological innovations are having or will have on debate. It would seem axiomatic that increased access to information and expanded communication between participants is desirable. However, more information may come at the price of less understanding; the computer screen replaces the book! Immediate communication may come in lieu of individual thought and self-expression! With all change there are risks, I personally am fearful that current trends are further distorting the appropriate mix of dialectic and advocacy. Who knows, perhaps by 2000, I will both be able from my home to vote in elections by computer and possibly evaluate debates in similar comfort. How could anyone dispute the benefits of avoiding Chicago in February!