We're done with the USU Nationals in Denver and I have a few questions:
What sort of competition is this? What is it that we are competing to be good at doing? Or saying? Or being? Is this more like baseball or art? Dance or track? Competitive cooking shows or American Idol? What's the best metaphor?
How can you keep alive the distance between act and habit in debate competitions? Said another way, how can you reward the good by naming it "good" without the belief that the label stays no matter what you say next?
anti-intellectualism is a central part of the average reasonable voter's world in this moment. We can't help but replicate some of that. Is this ok? Should we work to exclude it?
What is the understanding of evidence and proof for the debate participant, and is it stable?
The public is missing. Do we care?