“Flex Time”: Reshaping the LD Round
On the Sunday and Monday following Blake’s Edie Holiday Tournament (one of the more enjoyable tournaments I have attended), I had the opportunity to stay with one of my debaters for the Skyway LD Challenge, an invitational hosted by VBI’s own Mike Bietz and the Blake School. Needless to say, Bietz knows how to run a great tournament: both Jacob and I had an amazingly amazing time catching up with old friends and making new ones.
One of the more intriguing parts of the tournament was the opportunity to experiment with the traditional format of a Lincoln-Douglas round. Some students proposed changing the affirmative constructive to five minutes and transfer the remaining minute to the 1AR. More commonly, though, students combined their prep time with their cross-examination time, allowing each of them a block of “flex time” that they could use throughout the round, like prep, but in which they could ask questions, like cross-ex.
I feel the experiment was a major success.
The tournament provided five minutes of prep time, much like the TOC, and, incidentally, my local circuit when I debated in high school; thus, each student had eight minutes of flex time for the round if they chose to implement it in the round. All but one of the nine rounds I judged utilized this experimental idea.
The reformulation of the LD round to introduce flex time had two major effects in the rounds I judged.
First, the rigid formality of cross-examination was eliminated. Instead, necessary questions were asked when the students had need for clarification or wanted to press a point. The debaters remained seated, exchanged cards and cases when asked, and answered questions in a constructive and conversational manner. Sometimes this helped make more confusing positions clearer. Other times, it helped clarify responses to arguments, preventing tiresome claims of non-responsiveness.
Second, there was a noticeably deeper discussion and refutation of arguments. I can say this beyond a shadow of a doubt. The more flexible time in which students were able to engage each other in a dialogue allowed for a more nuanced and informed understanding of the arguments in-round. Each student also had a greater amount of time in which to prepare to attack said arguments.
There are many in the community who greatly enjoy the cross-ex portion of the round, and even more, I suspect, who feel it is a vital part of the round in terms of clarifying issues. As positions become more varied (and often more nuanced), there needs to be a way in which the students can clarify the arguments on the flow for themselves (and, perhaps, for the judges).
I suggest that LD would be best served by adopting - or at least experimenting with adopting - the format engaged in by the competitors at the Skyway.
Thoughts?
Popularity: 1%
test
43 Responses to ““Flex Time”: Reshaping the LD Round”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Tara Tedrow Wins Ohio Valley
- Work, Wit, and Wins: Wolfish
- Shyaam Subramanian Wins CPS
- Sam Kleiner is Auburn Champion
- Kunal Raygor is Alta Champion
- Day One of the Tour Draws to a Close
- "Flex Time": Reshaping the LD Round
- Tisha Vaidya Wins Isidore Newman
- Blake Registrants Thus Far
- Scarsdale Closes Out Hendrick Hudson
Posted from: 66.218.240.111
December 21st, 2004 23:17
Ironically, when Bellus and/or JW run tournaments there are 5 minutes prep time (Ohio Valley and Hawkeye). I find it makes for a much more interesting debate.
Posted from: 216.148.246.92
December 21st, 2004 23:24
I think flex time is a great idea.
Some of the most pressing questions in the round become clear after one has already begun to formulate responses to her opponent’s case.
Posted from: 67.169.118.167
December 22nd, 2004 00:34
Flex-prep is an awesome idea; the first time I saw it used was at the Palo Alto RR last year, and it was definitely a success (apparently MBA is experimenting with it this year). The major advantage seems to be the ability to clarify responses/weighing in later rebuttals. It also makes debaters more accountable to their arguments because they can’t simply refuse to let opponents read their cases after the 3 minutes of “official” CX.
Posted from: 149.169.80.63
December 22nd, 2004 06:26
This is similar to the Wake Forest College policy tournament. There, they allow debaters to waive all or some of their CX time in favor of additional prep time and vice versa. It worked out very well and most judges enjoyed it because debates were overall better.
Posted from: 68.84.241.88
December 22nd, 2004 06:41
Yeah, the idea of “Flex Time” is a good one. Generally if I ever needed something after CX happened I would ask and usually get a response without a problem, however an official structure allowing that would be nice. Overall any additions to preptime work to create better debates - whether it be in the form of increased time or increased capability (e.g. you miss how something was grouped in the 1AR, asking is better than assuming an argument was dropped or you get an extra 30 seconds to think of a good response).
I also think there should be a 2 minute “Brawl time” before the 2XRs to be used if necessary ;-)
Posted from: 205.222.240.2
December 22nd, 2004 09:21
Doesn’t St. Mark’s have an 8-minute flex time rule?
Posted from: 128.59.24.59
December 22nd, 2004 09:41
i think the idea of flex time is a great idea, but is it really that much of a shift from the normal round (i’m talking about the prep/cx flex, not the AC/AR)?? has anyone had a debater refuse to answer a question about a case or response during prep time (i know i haven’t seen it)??…and does any judge besides lebowitz not allow a debater to write out responses while asking an occasional question during her/his cx time??
Posted from: 128.59.24.59
December 22nd, 2004 09:43
i think that flex time is a really great idea, but is it really that much of a shift (i’m talking here about the prep/cx flex, not the AC/AR)?? has anyone had a debater refuse to answer a question about their case or responses during prep time (i know i’ve never seen it)? does any judge besides lebowitz not allow the debaters to write out responses while asking an occasional question during the time designated as cx??
Posted from: 66.15.175.130
December 22nd, 2004 10:14
I don’t think it’s that much of an issue on a the circuit but I know a lot of other judges really adhere to the structure of the round and get angry/dock speaker points if something is done outside of the format…
heck I had a judge count prep time when I needed to move a podium…
well I guess i was preping the room
Posted from: 68.93.63.65
December 22nd, 2004 10:30
yeah, thats a pretty good idea. It allows individuals to cater to the portion of the debate that gives them the best chance to win, or in some cases stengthen their weak points.
Posted from: 67.23.152.50
December 22nd, 2004 10:34
The idea of flex time is good one, in theory. However, in practice, the question of prep and CX being outside the format is not a good one. Judges have too much going on to be able to coordinate the prep time as it is. Many times, prep is miscommunicated to the students or screwed-up by the judge. Dr. Minh Luong at Yale has developed a pretty nice prep-time countdown rubric for the ballots that does cut down the number of screw-ups. Remember, judges are old and tired (like me!) and when they judge a tournament, they are usually judging between 10-12 rounds in prelims alone. That, with the burdens on coaching is really way too much. This may sound like petty carping, but I always like to keep things simple for judges.
More, for competitors, I could see CX suffering or CX really getting out of hand. A 6 minute novice CX would just about kill the last few brain cells I have motivating in my rotund body. Or, worse yet, a student only does a minute of CX and then has 5 minutes of prep for other ways to creative kill me through the oppressive silence.
CX, the way it stands, is probably the best way to run the LD round across national levels. Remember, we need continuity across the entire nation in order for LD to be a viable event.
But, something else needs greater scrutiny — shaving a minute off the AC and giving it to the 1AR. The 1AR is really where debate ends. All it has become is staying on the flow and giving sound bytes, almost blips, in order to keep the spread and answer the questions posed by the Neg. The amount of real debat for the Aff under the current model is markedly less than for the Neg. Afterall, the Neg gets a good 4 minutes of attack him in the NC and then another 4 minutes, at least, in the NR. This gives the Neg 8 minutes of clash. The Aff, on the other hand, can only use the 1AR in order to keep themselves in the round and then synthetically crystallize in the 2AR.
I believe, in order to get better debate, more clash, and better balance the controvertial burden, we really should examine the increased 1AR time.
Jon Cruz Rocks My World.
Posted from: 68.164.157.82
December 22nd, 2004 10:38
At the Greenhill RR we were also allowed to use flex time and I gotta admit that I loved it. I think that the speech times themselves, both the constructives and rebuttals should remain unchanged, but that cross-ex and prep time should be combined.
I think that speech times should remain constant because it keeps the burdens equal, the 1AR becomes ridiculously easier with extra time, and I think that it should remain a very tough speach, in order to force affirmatives into debating positional cases which I believe on the whole makes for a better debate anyway.
As for the prep/cx time, I loved it. As Jon said it was much more conversational, and I got a lot more down. At the RR we had 6 minutes of combined cx/prep and I feel that having more would be even better.
One of the things that I noticed while using it was that it was much more logical, as I moved down the flow prepping responses, a question would arise, and I could ask for clarification or attack it. This made the cx move more logically down the flow and helped to expose weak parts in cases that normal cx would have missed.
Overall I’m for flex cx/prep time, and would definitly like to see more of it (maybe 8 minutes instead of 6).
Posted from: 66.126.173.56
December 22nd, 2004 10:54
I agree with what Justin posted above; flex-prep really does allow for a much more logical use of prep and CX which in turn allows for better responses and a better understanding of arguments. Most CXs I see today, even in rounds against top-level debaters, devolve into pretty unorganized collections of unrelated questions. Flex-prep helps eliminate that by making the block of time more a period of clarification and preparation than a time that you feel you need to fill with questions. I know it helped me a lot at both Greenhill and Blake; I was able to understand individual arguments better and have better, more responsive answers. Flex-prep seems to be the norm at big RRs today (Greenhill, Blake, and apparently MBA all use it), I just wish there was some big invitational that had the guts to break from tradition and use it. I really feel it would do a lot for the quality of debate and is the direction the activity should be headed in.
Posted from: 67.9.103.228
December 22nd, 2004 10:59
Justin mentioned that the greenhill round robin did it, so i dont see why it hasnt taken off as much as it should. tournamnets like blake, ohio valley, and U of I are great tournaments so i guess that only reason why it hasnt taken off like abercrombie and fitch is because its a new concept… thoughts?
a shocking trend i noticed at ut is that cx is merely used for clarification and not discussion. clarification is great if it is used to facilitate discussion later (i.e. the speeches) but i felt that an increase in clarification doesnt always have the effect of “oh now i get it!”…
Im all game for flex time or whatnot just imagine the amount of abuse coming into rounds with people merely wasting time and not investing that time with a better speech.
Posted from: 68.205.200.14
December 22nd, 2004 11:01
FLEX PREP IS DESTROYING/RUINING LD!!!
RAWR!
Posted from: 70.241.121.83
December 22nd, 2004 11:24
I feel awkward raining on the majority of people’s parade but I am skeptical of the flex time idea.
I think it is good in theory (as the czar said) and probably works well and gives more freedom for debaters to strategize but my opinion is that the freedom given, comes at the sacrifice at a dying art - CX.
Sure, even without flex time, people could opt not to use CX, and with flex time people can use 8 minutes of CX, but generally speaking the likelihood of someone not using CX is greater when they can be “rewarded” with more prep time as a result. So I think we can all agree, that with flex time, comes less CX time, or generally, a further shift away from CX’s importance and/or usage.
The problem with that is that we lose an important skill and attribute of debate in exchange for prep. From what I am told, from former debaters, Victor Jih, and spectators of debate, CX is one of, if not the most, important skills to be gained from debating. I think the real-world use of CX is greater than the real-world use of prep time. Correct me if I am wrong, but I personally don’t remember the last time, after I questioned someone I disagreed with, I got a chance to sit down for a few minutes to write out my responses to their advocacy. Thus, I see a greater real-world application of CX than prep time; if I can’t win that, then at least it can be granted that there is valid significance to CX in the real-world. Since flex time will make CX a less used or less focused upon part of debate, then an important real-world part of debate is hurt.
My solution to my petty concern is simple; experimenting with debate is great and I think, as Jon said, very necessary, but, I would argue that we should not implement things that take away from the original aspect of the activity. The 5 minute AC doesn’t discourage ACs from being read altogether, but I bet allowing ALL OF the CX to turn into prep has the potential to demolish CX altogether, where I am not hurt by not doing CX. So I think we can experiment, but while experimenting, make sure that we don’t allow people to give no AC and be rewarded and likewise no CX and be rewarded. I think there should be perhaps a 1:30 to 2:00 minimum of time devoted to CX. I think that would actually force someone to use CX if they know that they aren’t being hurt by asking questions. The idea of having the loose CX is pretty cool actually, where I can ask questions after the 1AR and stuff.
So I guess my position is simple, flex time can help you strategize and win, but it comes at the potential sacrifice to CX and we should not encourage and definitely not reward that.
This can turn into a good discussion.
-Jeremy “Incoherent” Dudley
Posted from: 64.123.102.76
December 22nd, 2004 11:26
Just to add to the enthusiastic response to flex prep, I’d liek to say that I did CX debate at a local tourney for the 1st time a few weekends ago. The other team ran a very confusing critical affirmative case, and my partner and I ran a very confusing kritik. Essentially, if soemone wasn’t speaking questions could be asked. All prep time was used as CX time. It made it muche easier to comprehend the positions and have a good round. I cant imagine why the same wouldnt be true in an LD round.
Posted from: 170.215.97.100
December 22nd, 2004 11:44
I have now had two experiences with “flex prep,” at the Greenhill Round Robin and at the Skyway Challenge.
I am very much in favor of flex prep.
First, Dudley’s concern has not materialized.
People actually spent MORE time asking questions, not less (the average time spent cross-exing was four minutes.)
People asked cross-ex questions before both speeches.
The cross-ex questions made more sense because they were tied more directly to issues on the flow, because the debaters were able to ask the questions DURING the preparation. In a sense, prep and CX collapsed into one continuous event. It was much more interesting to listen to and much more useful to debaters.
AND I think it led to more well-developed rebuttals on both parts.
I am dead set AGAINST shortening the AC and lengthening the AR. The affirmative already has a huge advantage in speaking last. The 1AR is intended to handicap the aff. If it weren’t for the negative time advantage, the neg would never win.
Right now there does seem to be a negative advantage. Maybe 5:30 / 4:30 would be okay. I dunno.
Posted from: 68.198.155.134
December 22nd, 2004 11:49
Bizarrely, someone above posted this question:
“does any judge besides lebowitz not allow the debaters to write out responses while asking an occasional question during the time designated as cx??”
I can only imagine that this question is in reference to a round I judged at Princeton, where a debater asked me if he could forego cross examination and use the time to prepare his NC instead. I guess I’ll explain how I responded briefly:
I think the idea of combining CX and prep time into a larger block of “flex time” or whatever you want to call it is a great idea. This system was used at MBA when I debated in the Round Robin there and it was a far, far superior format to the one used at most tournaments. There is no question in my mind that this system should be implemented universally; it produces higher quality rounds, eliminates what Jon rightly calls the “rigid formality of CX,” and also, I think, precludes the ridiculous obnoxiousness and petulence that I’ve seen in some (many) rounds during CX.
That said, I’m not sure I’m the only judge who would see allowing debaters to use CX time for prep as inappropriate. At a tournament that designates the two chunks of time as separate entities with different purposes, I’m not sure it would be my place to allow debaters to tweak the format of the round to their advantage. Furthermore, given that the tournament where this (supposedly) happened was Princeton–not exactly a bastion of progressive judges–I doubt that most of the parents and parli debaters would’ve allowed this change. So for me to do so would’ve unfairly advantaged the debaters who drew me as a judge.
In short, I don’t oppose this idea in theory (I support it heartily), and I didn’t have some kind of reactionary moralistic response to people asking me to allow it, and I don’t care if debaters write during CX. I just don’t think it’s within my power to allow a debater to use his or her CX as prep time at his or her discretion.
Posted from: 70.241.121.83
December 22nd, 2004 11:57
That’s fine McGinnis. I have never seen or taken part in flex time, so my ignorance to how it is used is apparent. I think I was speaking from the idea of all tournaments adopting this and not just tournaments featuring the better debaters in the nation. If my circuit adopted flex time, the new strategy to be taught from coaches, would be less CX-more prep, and there definitely would not be quesitoning during prep time considering some judges down you if you ask for a card during prep. So I guess from the perspective of “off the nat circuit” my concerns may actualize, but I think it is granted, that most RR and national circuit competitors will ask questions regardless of the alotted time.
Posted from: 68.198.152.167
December 22nd, 2004 12:03
There is very little downside to flex time, at least at the varsity level, since people can simply adhere to the conventional format if they choose. But I don’t think it works at introductory levels of debate. People need experience to understand how to effectively use both prep time and cross-ex time before they should be making their own decisions about how to allocate this time.
Flex time is a very minor subject within the umbrella topic of “reforming LD,” however. Part of the reason why flex time is such a logical idea is that cross-ex and prep time have such closely linked purposes; as a result, flex time seems to have limited possibilities for large-scale change.
I am wholly in favor of a 5 minute AC and a 5 minute 1AR. I respectfully disagree with Dave McGinnis that the negative would never win without the time advantage. I think the aff’s ability to speak last is only a negligible advantage unless judges aren’t flowing. More important, when the neg effectively exploits the time imbalance, the aff must win the round with his performance in the 1AR, not in the 2AR - speaking last only helps when you have something on which to build. The negative, moreover, has a great advantage in its ability to run critical positions, run topicality, and generally explode the scope of the topic to argue things the aff really can’t.
My real question: How can all this stuff happen? I don’t think the people who write NFL rules are, by and large, attending the tournaments where these experiments are taking place. Is experimentation on a tournament-by-tournament basis the way to go? Does the TOC committee need to take the leadership on this? Or do debaters and coaches somehow attempt to influence NFL decision-makers? If so, by what process?
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
December 22nd, 2004 12:34
i think that the concept is really sweet, given that i generally don’t use all of CX and would like to be able to actually read the 1AC while prepping answers to it (something that is hard to do w/ only 3 minutes prep, but would be much easier to do with, say, 6 left over). i’m really excited about getting to do this at mba (where i’m pretty sure theyve done this for at least 2-3 years).
Posted from: 66.189.95.29
December 22nd, 2004 13:32
Though I’ve never personally been exposed to it, flex-prep sounds like a fantastic idea. I really don’t think that, if tournaments switched to this format, CX would be eliminated. There’s a couple reasons. First, I think that, for many debaters, CX is the best time of the whole round. I know when I see a case that is just screaming to be torn apart, CX is the best time for me to show the judge–hey, this is what I’m going for, but still strategize to keep my opponent in the dark. I know not everyone feels this way, but I’ve had and seen many a round that was won in CX.
Also, I think that in a lot of cases, just reading someone’s case doesn’t transfer its real message. Sometimes, you have to ask, “What does this mean?” and have your opponent really explain it to you—in their own words. Granted, some people can’t do this, but they should be able to.
So since I don’t think that CX would cease to exist, I think that flex-prep is an awesome idea because I think it would help the “blip” problem that’s been running rampant around the national circuit. If people really, truly understood their opponent’s arguments, then I don’t think they’d be forced to make the blippy responses we’ve seen of late, because they’d have the understanding, and the time, to make up genuinely responsive arguments.
Flex-Prep sounds great to me…I hope I get to try it sometime soon.
Posted from: 68.192.190.55
December 22nd, 2004 14:12
I personally (not that anyone cares) agree with Jon. Granted, it may not be as useful for novii, who still need to get used to thinking of arguments on the spot and , but I think when you hit the varsity level and start hitting more and more complex cases, 6-8 minutes of flex can be VERY beneficial. And because I’ll be the 24th post up here, whatever I wanted to say has already been said. But the basic summation? First, I think more time to think means clearer and better-linked argumentation, and more time to just look over the flow and say HERE’S the big spot and THAT extension isn’t going to matter. I think in terms of strategic debate, it’s really good because you have more time to conceptualize the 2NR/2AR. Which means that voters are a lot cleaner, and some real thought is put behind them. Overall, I think it just cleans up the round a lot. Non-response isn’t being thrown out, because there’s more time to clarify arguments in flex-time.
I know personally, I’m finding that rounds get muddled a lot more often, and the general quality of said rounds are going down. I really think flex has the potential to reverse this problem, and so I really hope to see it used more on the national circuit, and hopefully the local circuit as well.
Posted from: 24.162.117.201
December 22nd, 2004 14:38
To the extent we can increase in-round preparation and actual discussion between the debaters, I think we’re moving in the right direction. I’m glad Jon brought this up, and I’m glad so many have afforded their endorsements. I don’t personally find any of the proposed disadvantages that compelling.
A note though: I think there should be some discussion about the extent to which judges are responsible for listening to and considering that which takes place/is said during the flex period. Traditionally, judges listen to CX and (while it may not be as sacred as args on the flow) consider what was said to have impacted the debate. We typically do whatever the hell we want during prep time, though. So is the flex period a performance or genuinely an informal discussion between the debaters? To what extent ought judges be held culpable for paying attention to the flex period? To what extent should the debaters be held accountable for what they say? Or is the speech part “real cx” and part “informal conversation while prepping”… in which case we might wonder how these two moments differ according to the aforementioned questions. In short, as a critic, I’d like to know what the implications of flex prep ought to be for the ballot itself. It certainly makes rounds better–no argument there. But I’m wondering how we integrate this into our paradigms.
b
Posted from: 24.162.117.201
December 22nd, 2004 14:38
To the extent we can increase in-round preparation and actual discussion between the debaters, I think we’re moving in the right direction. I’m glad Jon brought this up, and I’m glad so many have afforded their endorsements. I don’t personally find any of the proposed disadvantages that compelling.
A note though: I think there should be some discussion about the extent to which judges are responsible for listening to and considering that which takes place/is said during the flex period. Traditionally, judges listen to CX and (while it may not be as sacred as args on the flow) consider what was said to have impacted the debate. We typically do whatever the hell we want during prep time, though. So is the flex period a performance or genuinely an informal discussion between the debaters? To what extent ought judges be held culpable for paying attention to the flex period? To what extent should the debaters be held accountable for what they say? Or is the speech part “real cx” and part “informal conversation while prepping”… in which case we might wonder how these two moments differ according to the aforementioned questions. In short, as a critic, I’d like to know what the implications of flex prep ought to be for the ballot itself. It certainly makes rounds better–no argument there. But I’m wondering how we integrate this into our paradigms.
b
Posted from: 70.92.30.156
December 22nd, 2004 15:13
This whole weekend I thought “flex time” was the female bodybuilding expo that was bring held on the first floor of the Hyatt. I was so confused when people kept asking questions during prep . But it doesn’t matter because GENDER IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. Except for with bulls.
Posted from: 70.92.30.156
December 22nd, 2004 15:17
Please ignore my typo (bring for being) and remember this xxxmas ask yourself: WWJBD??
Answer: Watch It’s Pat and eat spicy crab balls from Chino Latino.
Posted from: 205.188.116.203
December 22nd, 2004 15:45
Another benefit to flex prep that no one really talked about is that you avoid lay judges who are inclined to vote off of who “looks” better in cross-ex or an accidental concession to an ambiguous question. A debater like me, with a 6′1″ frame has the ability (wishful thinking?) to intimidate a smaller opponent or comparable skill, turning the RFD into the judge speculating who would win in a boxing match rather than who won the academic competition.
Posted from: 205.188.116.203
December 22nd, 2004 16:01
*of comparable skill
typing clearly isn’t one of mine
Posted from: 66.188.186.57
December 22nd, 2004 16:35
I would agree with Jon that judging the Skway with flex prep time led to a better discussion of the issues. Rather than have the AC be confusing, the NC argue the mistagged argument, then have a mistagged warrant that no one understood pre1AR be extended by the Aff both sides could have a clear understanding not only of what the arguments on the flow were but what their offensive/defensive nature would be in the round as well. The concerns about people only using ten seconds of prep time and using 7:50 of prep are unfounded at the point that I don’t recall judging a single round in which that happened. Indeed most debaters used MORE than the 3 minutes of CX but used it in a constructive way to increase the intellectual flow and clash of the debate. I think the 8 minute flex time led to much clearer and better debate.
Posted from: 66.188.186.57
December 22nd, 2004 16:35
I would agree with Jon that judging the Skway with flex prep time led to a better discussion of the issues. Rather than have the AC be confusing, the NC argue the mistagged argument, then have a mistagged warrant that no one understood pre1AR be extended by the Aff both sides could have a clear understanding not only of what the arguments on the flow were but what their offensive/defensive nature would be in the round as well. The concerns about people only using ten seconds of prep time and using 7:50 of prep are unfounded at the point that I don’t recall judging a single round in which that happened. Indeed most debaters used MORE than the 3 minutes of CX but used it in a constructive way to increase the intellectual flow and clash of the debate. I think the 8 minute flex time led to much clearer and better debate.
Posted from: 207.218.202.243
December 22nd, 2004 18:29
From a purely speculative standpoint (having never personally debated a round with flex prep), I think it’s a great way to ensure clear rounds.
I have one question though:
What would the use of flex-prep in rounds do to NFL points and the like? I mean, we’ve all violated the ‘official’ NFL rules for LD at some point (most notably the implicit ban on kritiks), but how would actually modifying the speech times do to the NFL’s rules of LD themselves, etc? This may be only an inconsequential consideration, but I’m still wondering.
Additionally, echoing Mr. Babb’s concern, I was wondering if judges would be held accountable to what is said during the ‘informal’ questioning period? Could someone who was at Blake clarify how information gained during “cx” and referred to in rebuttals was factored in decisions (if it came up as an issue)?
Posted from: 24.74.16.103
December 22nd, 2004 20:01
Im all for the flex time. Nothing is worse than a round were opponents are talking about completely opposite things. Anything that can be done to clarify positions so the discussion of issues can be easier is something that should be considered. Only problem I see is that it would be really hard to keep time. The judges already have enough to do and I have seen many of them struggle with keeping the simple 3 min prep. Adding a “flex time” might put too much of a burden on judges. So in theory I think its great but actually putting it into rounds could be a problem.
Posted from: 69.200.84.235
December 22nd, 2004 20:10
I totally value debate as it stands now. There are always ways to make a good thing better (i.e. debate), so i would see the flex time as a good idea to look into. Sometimes i feel that rounds can be really shallow and dont get into depth about the topic. Flex time might really increase the discourse between opponents. And for all the people scared of boring judges, i think sometimes the judges are bored by the lack of substance in a CX. Flex time might bring something new to debate rounds, there’s nothing wrong with modifying debate so that it increases the value of the activity. I personally find CX to be one of the more interesting parts of debate, so i’m totally for giving it a shot.
Posted from: 69.200.84.235
December 22nd, 2004 20:10
I totally value debate as it stands now. There are always ways to make a good thing better (i.e. debate), so i would see the flex time as a good idea to look into. Sometimes i feel that rounds can be really shallow and dont get into depth about the topic. Flex time might really increase the discourse between opponents. And for all the people scared of boring judges, i think sometimes the judges are bored by the lack of substance in a CX. Flex time might bring something new to debate rounds, there’s nothing wrong with modifying debate so that it increases the value of the activity. I personally find CX to be one of the more interesting parts of debate, so i’m totally for giving it a shot.
Posted from: 68.196.129.16
December 22nd, 2004 20:36
This is just a matter of curiosity, but why do so many tournaments in the nation have only 3 minutes of prep (especially outside the NE)? I think it is pretty clear from the experience of all debaters that more prep (whether it be 4 or 5 minutes) leads to clearer, more substantive rounds. The comments on this post all echo this sentiment. What is the rationale that major tournaments such as (but not restricted to) Greenhill and Emory have 3 minutes prep as opposed to the larger amount that I am seeing nothing but praise for (let alone the change the flex-prep)?
Posted from: 151.205.122.110
December 22nd, 2004 20:43
For all the same reasons that everyone has said above, I agree that flex time is the best thing to hit LD since fast talking :-)
However, I wanted to throw out a few details that I’ve been wondering about it:
1. Within the current debate framework, is it fair/viable for a judge to permit flex time in rounds? Having argued about it post-Skyway, I know Jon and I disagree on this: I think that judges could plausibly just make it a part of their paradigm, and just say, “you can use 6/7/8 minutes flex time, I don’t mind speed, jargon etc.” He thinks that this wouldn’t fly at a tournament because 1. it’d give some debaters an unfair advantage and 2. it’s pragmatically impossible because people would complain. Do the rules need to change before flex time can be implemented or can we do it now with judge’s approval?
2. Because many lay judges give a LOT of weight to cross ex (sometimes it is even their deciding factor), and admittingly, flex time devalues cross ex by making it less formal and more disjointed, does flex time need to be implemented only at a judge’s approval even post-fiat? Or should we only try to change the rules on the national circuit and let it be on the local circuit?
What are the implications or each?
3. The skyway used 5 minutes prep. For an extra four minutes per round, the quality of argumentation was drastically better. Ought we universalize the switch form 3 to 5 minutes prep? (I think so)
Posted from: 68.237.222.166
December 22nd, 2004 21:22
“Do the rules need to change before flex time can be implemented or can we do it now with judge’s approval?”
Because I think flex time is a good idea and i think the idea can be used at tournaments without a rule change, I have to again pose the question i asked at the top: does this really constitute a rule change at all??
Debaters ask questions about each other’s cases all the time in the rounds i judge, and i’ve never had a debater refuse to answer on the grounds that it wasn’t the designated cx time (if s/he did, i’d wonder what s/he was hiding).
Also, i don’t think it’s incompatible with the rules as they stand now. I’d disagree with David L. (who i wasn’t trying to call out before, i just thought the whole thing was funny) that judges can’t let debaters prep during cx. I could just be totally ignorant, but i don’t think that there is a rule that says that in cx, the debaters must stand up and be speaking constantly; if the judge can allow debaters to write during prep, why is it suddenly not appropriate for a debater to write out responses while making occasional questions?? is the brightline the short time between the end of the answer and the next question?? that seems kind of silly to me.
So i guess i think the opposite of what david is saying is true, that it wouldn’t be legitimate for a judge to import common practice as a rule and restrict debaters from using their cx time as in certain ways. Maybe we should all just follow a brilliant piece of advice that Andrew Torrez would give: if you want to prep during cx time, just ask your opponent to reread the first 3 minutes of his case very softly…
Posted from: 69.23.246.38
December 22nd, 2004 21:25
my 2 cents:
1. flex time definitely increase in-round discussion, makes cases less confusing, etc. (I used flex time at the ghill rr and this weekend)
2. (I don’t think anyone has touched on this) crystallization happens BEFORE THE SPEECHES. SO NICE. Before the 2AR, I could actually ask questions of my opponent about what they were asking the judge to vote on, what their specific arguments were coming down to, etc. That set up pretty clearly for the judge what I would have to do in the 2AR to win.
Dave was right (in reference to Dudley’s post) that MORE cx was spent questioning than prepping (generally). This really allowed for discussion and clarification. Also, because there was so much more time for prep, arguments were more coherent and less blippy (because people were more prepared to actually give the argument rather than just read the 2 words they had scribbled on their flow). I didn’t read everything here, so I can’t respond to anything, but yeah. I like flex time.
I don’t think every tournament ever needs to adopt this approach, but I whole-heartedly support major tournaments or just RRs in general or something adopting this plan. Maybe TOC? That’s where the best debaters are (supposedly) and that’s where (I think) the best discussions should happen and subsequently the best rounds.
Posted from: 208.191.72.78
December 22nd, 2004 22:43
I do believe that Prashant Rai v. Tim Walsh in doubles at Greenhill facilitated semi-flex… except Prashant just asked questions about Tim’s case during prep without actually doing it in such a way that the judges could hear.
Overall, magnificent idea.
+1 to Casey’s comment - TOC definitely should adopt flex.
Posted from: 66.41.127.92
December 23rd, 2004 09:42
I’d just mention that the flex isn’t that new. Jason did it MBA two years ago and I know the kids that year (Tim Hogan and Tyler Bexley in particular) were really good at using it to their advantage. The CX prior to the 2NR and 2AR was really strategically valuable to the outcome on the round so I’d definitely disagree with those that think the “art of CX” would be lost. If anything the 3 minute format is really disappointing to the art. When a debater can specifically challenge the 1AR’s failures or the 2NR comparisions, the next speech can be much more on point. I think this is the most valuable way to approach flex–not just to ask questions whenever. However, as I was mentioning to Leah and Julie this weekend, there could be a theory problem with it that we discussed at MBA two years ago. What if a negative debater retained flex time after the 2AR to question the speech afterwards. It might violate the “rules of the game” per se. We were also wondering if kids would interrupt speeches with CX or prep e.g between the nc/nr or in the 1ar. That didn’t happen the year we tried it.
In general, I don’t think we should seek to universalize these types of rules variations. It’s fun to go to tournaments with different rules and they should be applicable to the context. Big Bronx always had 4 minutes prep because they wrote their own LD topic. TOC should definitely have five minutes. Some RR’s and circuit tourneys will experiment with rules and that’s cool.
Oh and about judges: while most (like me) are really lazy, kids take care of their own prep so often that it doesn’t really pose a problem. It’s also pretty easy to set a timer to countdown from 8 minutes and let it run. I’m lazy but not that lazy
P.S. the Skyway was great. the kids were all really talented and watching the challenge format was really fun. i gave out my first 30 in quite some time. good times, great oldies.
Posted from: 63.226.221.249
December 23rd, 2004 16:31
It gets my endorsement. However…
In regards to the flex-time being abused as indicated by Cherian’s comment, I think if enough constraints were established (i.e. the aff only gets prep/cx when she would normally have prep/cx and vice versa for the neg, etc) then one wouldn’t have to worry about parli style cross-examination where the non-speaker can ask questions midway through her opponents speech.
I do however worry about the strategic disadvantage flex-time may have for the affirmative. If neg could ask the aff prior to the 2AR what she was voting on, then the neg’s ability to pre-empt with this knowledge would (seemingly) put the affirmative at a disadvantage.
Moreover, in regard to the judge’s responsibility to follow/listen during the cx/flex, I don’t think they should have any. Tournament schedules don’t allow for a lot of extra time for judges after rounds to fill out the ballots and if a judge was constantly having to flow/watch a round then she wouldn’t be able to write on the ballot at any point during the exchange. However, at time same time I see the merit in being able to gain strategic concessions throughout the round. However, i’m unsure whether the benefits of the judge following can adhere to the normal structure of a tournament.
Finally, I think it may be a valuable educational and debate experience for the VB RR to implement this idea.