Tuna Snider and Michael Roston's ideas about the move to wireless networking for teams at debate tournaments

 

Well, computers have been a big part of debate for a while but there are new possibilities at fairly low costs. Debaters have begun flowing on laptop, speaking from laptop, carrying evidence on laptop, printing cards people want to see, etc. Judges are using laptops to flow as well as the ever popular "write blocks" and "cut cards."

Wireless communication allows these devices to be far more useful. While not fully into this domain yet, here at UVM we have an Airport network running so that both Jackie and I are able to use the net, printer and share documents wirelessly in our office. We also have wireless Airport for the road. However, we have not yet begun to use it during the tournament itself, but now that Fishbone's iBook has Airport we may do so.

Here are some very positive uses I see for wireless networks linking members of the same squad:

*Flow the debate, then wirelessly send it to another team or judge.

*Push a button and the 2AC is backflowed

*Immediately share new answers and new blocks with all team members.

*Upload flows to case and argument lists.

*Coach your team from your last judged round as they send you a copy of the plan so you don't have to run across campus.

*Trade evidence with other trusted teams through a cyber deal.

Advanced uses might include:

*Create a network at a tournament, giving everyone solid internet access and printer access.

*Distribute and hand in judge preference forms.

*Create a complete case and argument list quickly.

*Supply restaurant advice.

*Release breaks and awards.

*Grab the judge philo you need.

Here are some of the uses of such technology which concern me:

*Coach or other sits 200 feet away in another room and gives advice and writes out arguments.

*Staff sits 200 feet away and finds the best evidence and sends it on over to debaters.

*Disruption of other team's systems through jamming which does not effect the jamming team.

*People stand around and "sell" evidence before the round, easily sending it to the laptop of the buyer.

I just wanted to mention some of these issues. We need to both take advantage of this technology as well as think about its implications. I invite those already using these technologies as well as those who are not to enter into a discussion if any of this interests you.

Tuna

-------------

 

Thanks to Tuna for being on the cutting edge as usual and bringing this discussion forward.

During Iowa's run toward victory at the 2001 NDT, I know that we had some wireless operations, primarily for communication between our coaches. However, when it came down to the wire, I think that technology was less important for Andy and Andy's (and mine and Jake's relative) success than the fact that we had done ridiculous amounts of work, had good coaching assembled, that one of our coaches did an amazing job of managing all that talent so that people's roles were appropriately delegated and defined, and the fact that we all had a common goal that was truly shared. I guess what I'm saying is that I think in terms of competitive success, software tends to be more important than hardware. Admittedly, having a lot of software has definite multiplier effects, but that it was well managed was more important than anything else.

Your points about some of the dangers of the technology are well-taken, but it strikes me that there are enough opportunities presently for coaches to get away with similar shenanigans - I can imagine a number of scenarios where coaches could coach their team during rebuttals when the judge and the other team go out for smoke/bathroom breaks, and so on. I think the penalties of having wins/awards stripped and a general shunning by peers are enough to deter people presently, and would probably be sufficient in wireless situations.

The greater problem ultimately has more to do with economic and technological having and not having. Maybe it's like Eisenhower and the color TV? Eisenhower demanded that television broadcasters make the same content available on both black and white and color televisions ? this was to ensure that the media was truly mass media as opposed to accessible only to the privileged few who could afford color TVs in that era. Within our shared context, there can't ever come a point in the debate community where people are told they can't play because they'd rather use flow paper and pens than wires and batteries. We should definitely be suspicious of any judge or team that would seek to penalize others for not sharing their technological savvy.

Here's an idea - how about the formation, through Tuna's Debate Central, of a debate technology co-op. Some people upgrade to a new laptop every year and think nothing of it, whereas some folks don't own a computer. How about instead of letting your older, but still capable unit collect dust, you offer it up for sale to someone for a reasonable re-sale price?

---

Michael Roston