Otherwise…well, I see what Steven B. is saying, and I believe I’m inclined to be on Dorothea’s and Jane’s side. (Geez, big surprise there…although I should note that I’ve known Steven B. a lot longer than either Dorothea or Jane, and like him. We disagree on this point.)

I also love a speaker who uses humor well in service of a serious point. It’s an art I’m too scared to try in my own speaking, honestly.

But I’d have walked out of this one, just as I walked out of the Google “debate” at ACRL. Exaggerating polarity and making silly pseudo-funnies over a question that needs real reflection and engagement fulfills no earthly function that I’ve ever understood.

I don’t necessarily believe I’m right here (you’re making a case for me being wrong, which I frequently am) but my own experience participating in and attending debates has generally been unfortunate, unless it’s viewed as more-or-less entertainment with maybe just a hint of information.

Steven, Steven, you know better than most: I can’t be on that panel. As a loyal ALA member and non-ML[I]S holder, I don’t call myself a librarian. And, as already noted, since I’m not naturally a funny guy, I don’t do debates.

Heck, I’m getting an interesting non-debate going. After a few commentless weeks, that’s refreshing.

I would say the Toronto debate on the library building was a fun event that got us thinking about the issues. Maybe it wasn’t your cup of tea but I spoke with many attendees who found it one of the highlights of the conference. I modeled a program on it for our state library association in 2004 – Googlelizers vs. Resistors – and we didn’t take ourselves too seriously – but we went at each with gusto – and the SRO audience thoroughly enjoyed it. Yes, I could have done a 45 minute presentation on it or we could have had a fairly traditional panel, but I think with a touchy subject where folks have strong opinions a debate can be a good way to let folks express themselves without worrying about offending colleagues.

As I said in my ACRLog post about the IL debate, it may have been that the idea was flawed to start with (which we said in our post about it in ACRLog months ago when it was first announced), that having faculty participate was a good idea on paper that didn’t work in real life, that the debaters were too restrained (or took it too seriously) or kept it too academic, or that the focus was on the interludes rather than what the debaters had to say to each other.

So maybe this one fell a bit flat, but I don’t think it means we should abandon the debate format. Given the right topic, right debaters and right forum, I think it can still give folks their money’s worth.

In fact here’s my suggestion for the next great debate: StevenB and Walt versus Jane and …(her choice) – the topic – BE IT RESOLVED THAT OLD GUYS MAKE BETTER LIBRARIANS THAN NEXTGENS!

Exactly. When I go to a “President’s Program,” I expect some substance for Pete’s sake. One of my suggestions was that the speakers should have used at least SOME hard evidence or facts. I heard neither. If ACRL (or any other ALA division for that matter) is going to put so much effort into a large program, it should at least be a) useful or b) thought provoking.

So I say a loud second! No more debate style programs!