New Horizons
The recent discussions about LD theory that have occurred at tournaments, on LDDebate.org, and here on VBD seem to suggest that our activity is still one that is in flux. Yet, as debaters continue to push the limits and morph LD, we must ask ourselves if there is a limit to how much change will be allowed, and if there is one, how it can be enforced. As usual, this is meant as a springboard for discussion, rather than as a source of answers.
Previous authors here on VBD have raised questions and/or explored different aspects of theory in LD. Whether it be the acceptability of speed and “highbrow” rhetoric, the role of the judge, the necessity of a traditional value/criterion structure, or any number of other issues, it seems that the community at large has yet to find a consensus. This is expected of pretty much any competitive activity, but the extent to which LD has failed to find its footing seems to far surpass any other established debate format. Even in those areas where we have found consensus, it seems that the norm is different from the one LD started out with.
Perhaps the root of the problem is that LD has never had a concretely defined purpose. The story that most of us have heard about LD’s origins is that “it was created as an alternative to policy.” Yet an alternative of what form? An alternative to discussing specific policies? An alternative to speed? A debate format that allows one-on-one competition? All of the above? I do not think that it is plausible to say that LD is supposed to be the complete opposite of policy debate in every way, shape, and form. Aside from the fact that it is impossible to define what that means, it begs the question that everything about policy debate is wrong. Since I think it is safe to assume that there are a lot of good things about policy debate, then we can also assume that LD is going to share some of those traits.
Thus, we are stuck in a dilemma where different people claim the activity should be different things, yet there is no concrete text that defines limits to those claims. Although most of us have encountered the debater that cites the “Official LD Handbook,” I have never seen such a thing and have never met anyone that can confirm its existence. Other than a topic released and time limits, there do not seem to be many codified rules for LD. We have even seen tournaments tweak the time limits (e.g. different amounts of prep time as well as “flex-prep”), implying that some of the rules are completely the tournament’s jurisdiction.
In light of this, it is quite easy to see how the activity has managed to change so much. As the views of the community change, so does LD itself. LD has become faster, more evidence-focused, more open to critical argumentation, less persuasion-based, more empirical, and a host of other things. How much farther can LD go? While I have not heard of this happening, I think it is very possible for debaters today to run a plan as their 1AC. All one would need to do is win the theory debate about “whole resolution” debate versus “plan debate” (whether or not it is okay to be ‘conditional’ in the LD sense for the purpose of exchanging breadth for depth.) If this is true, then LD rounds can be virtually anything, assuming it can be defended against the theory attack. LD might then be appropriately renamed from “Value Debate” to “Theory Debate.”
The Big Question then, is “Should there be limits on where LD can go?” Should it somehow be established that LD must be whole resolution debate? If we decide that there should be some limit, then the further question is how can those limits be enforced? Previously I mentioned that tournaments can set certain rules for use in the debates. However, most of these rules are only enforceable insofar as the judges agree with them. For example, many judges opt to disregard tournament disclosure rules. Some judges have allowed the use of flex-prep at tournaments that did not mention its use. If these concrete rules have been easily bent, it does not bode well for tournaments creating regulations about the substance of the debate. If a judge is open to hearing a narrative, I do not think that she is going to change her paradigm because of a line in a tournament packet that many people do not read. The community itself does not seem capable of locking in norms either. Today, “traditionalist” attempts at constraining the direction of debate are objectively failing and I have overheard many conversations about “taking back debate” and the like. Every year the activity is moving faster and faster in a “progressive” direction, whatever that may entail. If tournaments and the community cannot constrain LD, I do not know what can.
This has interesting implications on the activity as a whole. The first of which is that we may never have a relatively stable conception of what is allowed in an LD round and what is not. The main problem I have with this state is that it is very difficult to debaters to know when certain sorts of debate are allowed, and cannot prepare for rounds accordingly. Secondly, local debaters that do not travel much tend to get “left behind.” National circuit LD is a vastly different creature from the debates that occur in many leagues around the nation. The speed at which the activity is changing and the uncertainty of what is allowed and disallowed makes it much more difficult for debaters to make headway at large tournaments without the help of a coach or teammate that participated nationally.
I find our inability to situate ourselves to be problematic, yet I like many of the changes that are occurring in debate. Since it is ultimately the debaters that debate exists for, I would find it even more problematic for an old guard of community members to impose rules that the debaters themselves dislike. Perhaps we will reach equilibrium where LD finds its niche, much as policy has, and continues to undergo change, but not at the same, event-defining rate that LD has been going at.
Popularity: 2%
test
Posted from: 24.44.230.238
April 11th, 2005 20:58
http://coachean.blogspot.com/2005/03/ten-years-after.html
Read It!!!
Posted from: 169.229.113.93
April 11th, 2005 21:42
While an interesting read, I do not feel that Mr. Menick’s blog post is particularly applicable to mine. To say that it is only national circuit debate that is changing and that local circuits have existed in a stasis would be a gross oversimplification and assumes that there is some binary distinction between local and national. In reality, both “circuits” influence once another and change. If we accept that local debate is also stretching its limits (even if those limits are more narrowly or broadly defined than the norm), then I don’t see why the legitimacy of national circuit debate as being an issue in question here.
Posted from: 24.44.230.238
April 11th, 2005 22:04
I completely disagree. I think that the idea of a newfound gap between the national circuit and the local circuit is something that should be discussed. The new developments in debate that you address in your article are certainly existant, and I think contribute to the centralization that Mr.Menick so beautifully articulates. While it is true that these changes are apparent throughout the debate community, I don’t think that it is a stretch to say that the changes are infinately more apparent and on a larger scale nationally then they are locally. LD is without a doubt becoming harder and harder to be understood by outsiders and this is one fo the main reasons why. Your post talks about the possibility of limitations upon the activity and what the nature of LD actually is. What Mr.Menick does, at least the way I see it, is point out some major harms that have derived from the recent changes in the activity, as well as what debate was when he first entered the activity. His article reflects the development of the activity and I think that it needs to be taken under heavy consideration as this discussion progresses. In my opinion, while I do think that Theory brings a lot to the table, it does contribute to the things that Mr.Menick talks about. Whether or not we need to prevent the spread of Theory, I don’t know, but I do think we need a clear idea of what the activity is meant to be.
Posted from: 204.210.37.132
April 12th, 2005 00:40
while i think that ryan’s observations about the direction national circuit debate are headed in are accurate, i think that the progress the activity has made has been overwelmingly positive. many people, including ryan, are concerned that the increasingly progressive and specialized nature of ld make it inaccessible to outsiders. while this seems intuitive, the trend towards progressive debate has been accompanied by a substantial decentralization of debate “power”, for lack of a better word. the apple valleys and vestavias that typified the “old order” in the activity have largely been replaced by independent progressive vanguards like mission san jose and menlo-atherton.
even more importantly, this decentralization of power requires a different approach to the role of the coach in contemporary ld. back in the day, coaches controlled ld by sending their students to the camps of their choice, controlling the travel schedules of their students, etc. even though the traditional coaching arrangement is still present in many schools, those sorts of programs are increasingly being pushed towards the margins by the proliferation of college-aged coaches and uncoached students. those in the vanguard travel when they want to, bring a college student or two to judge, and get their friends to tag along. they go to the camps that they want to, write the sort of arguments that they want to, and have become so successful that the traditional coaching arrangement, once seen as a necessity, is seen as an archaic relic of the days of value debate, a constraint upon their debaters’ success, or something in between.
the shift away from the power of coaches is important for two reasons:
first, it makes debate more accessible to those without programs at school. while debate is still inaccessible to many people, anyone with a few thousand dollars and a couple of weekends to spare can usually do pretty well on the national circuit if they put in the work, even though that might not have been possible a few years ago.
more importantly, the terminal implication of ryan’s argument is that the changing face of ld will cause established coaches to engage in reactionary struggles against progressive ld and bring back the resurgence of good ol’ fashioned value debate. however, given that those coaches are becoming less and less relevant, we have nothing to fear. their power will only exist at the margins, because the bulk of the national circuit will keep picking up the debaters in the vanguard, whether the old order likes it or not.
(to preempt a response i see coming: when i talk about the old order, i’m not trying to draw a simple dichotomy between debaters/college students and coaches, but rather between relatively progressive forces in the activity and more reactionary forces. older coaches like aaron timmons and michelle coody, for instance, have been consistently willing to adapt to the changing face of ld, whether they think that everything that’s happened over the last 5 or 10 years has been good for the activity. i’m talking about the old, withered coaches who sit around in bars at tournaments drinking bourbon and screaming about how debaters are talking about facts in ld debate and about how we need more philosophy back, not people like mr. timmons, mrs. coody, et al.)
most importantly, though, i think the internet has made it really easy for debaters to learn more about the activity and become exposed to new ideas. obviously, trying to learn everything from lddebate.org or a VBD column is silly, but sites like those contain most of the information one needs to acquire basic skills. practicing those skills is another thing, obviously, but i think that exposing people from all around the country to a relatively universally accepted national circuit style is one of the best things that’s happened to debate in the last half-decade or so. i know it helped me a lot.
Posted from: 24.88.76.229
April 12th, 2005 06:52
An often overlooked argument as to reasons why potential schisms can be negative is the actual effect it has on coaches. While ASmitty notes that coaches are becoming increasingly irrelevant, a lot of institutions will simply cancel a program if there is no coach/teacher that wishes to helm the debate program. This is not to say that coaches should be the only ones who get to make decisions within the LD community, but it does suggest there are tangible impacts if coaches become so isolated and disenchanted with an activity that their answer is simply to not do debate anymore.
Posted from: 24.190.160.99
April 12th, 2005 07:51
I understand why LD has had so much flux. It has never been defined. However, the idea that the “old guard” should not dictate what debate is ignores an important fact: LD is an educational endeavor endorsed (for the most part) by school systems. As such, it MUST be first and foremost an educational experience. And as a teacher, I believe it is imperative that the educators be the ones defining the educational experience.
In schools, students do not set the curriculum; that is the job of the “old guard.” Their responsibility is to see to it that education is substantive, not merely trendy. When the students define debate, their outlook tends to be less pedagogical. This activity lives and dies with the support of the schools, and the loss of educational control over the event can mean the loss of educational support.
I bring my students to tournaments to teach them to think on their feet and to learn how to speak well. I am distressed at the level of eccentricity and the speed which LD is taking, because I see this as a loss of the basic pedagogy of forensics. Speech & Debate exists to foster communnications skills; the current trends on the national circuit tend to devalue communications skills in favor of speed and esotrica. While some may make a case for learning games theory, this has not been the educational purpose of forensics. And the educators should be the ones setting the educational values of this event.
Any other school activity is dictated by those who run the activity, not the participants. Science Olympiad is unapologetic in its rules, many of which are quite arbitrary. The chess team plays chess, not checkers. Why should debaters be the ones dictating the rules of debate instead of the teachers?
To add to the problem, the internet has allowed group griping. Every tournament is “illegitimate” because it does not conform to the debaters’ standard of judging. Don’t get me wrong; I know that there are bad judges out there, but a tournament is now “illegitimate” if it does not subscribe to the fast, arcane philsophy of the national circuit.
Many times, I have mentioned an article that has appeared in the Rostrum a number of years ago. In it, a CX coach said that if he were to take his school administration to see the best he has to offer, he would never let them near a CX round. He was afraid that he would lose his funding. The same thing is happening in LD now. Coaches feel that they are losing control of the activity, and they are unwilling to put in the time and effort necessary to make it run. Many of my debaters knwo that I am seriously considering a shift to Public Forum Debate in the near future. As someone who is a member of the “old guard,” (I was an LDer in 1982, when LD first became a local event.) I would be quite sad to see it go. But, as many have said, coaches are leaving the activity and are not being replaced by anyone in the school system. Sure, a college student as guardian and judge is nice, but it won’t last. Moreover, in this age of increasing lawsuits, schools are unwilling to allow an outsider to take responsibility for activityies, especially ones that have so much travel. And, as the threat of lawsuits increase, torunaments will become unwilling to accept students without a school behind them.
I have said to many debaters, you are cutting your own throats if you think that school personnell are willing to put in the effort for an activity that they see as increasingly esoteric.
Posted from: 205.167.47.158
April 12th, 2005 09:51
slaves should stay under the control of slave masters because that was the fundamental PURPOSE of SLAVERY!!11one
Quiz Bowl or Science Olympiad aren’t constantly fluxing activities because everyone in those events has already agreed that it’s an educational game that is played to win. With that in mind, they formed strict rules that everyone who plays the game follows. In LD, that’s currently happening. People are slowing coming to agreement that debate is an educational game that you play to win, and then rules are being formed (impact to the standard, offense/defense, warrant why T is a voter, warrant why performance is a voter, etc etc all these esoteric rules that we have). When rules are formed, people will stop complaining and will play the game.
The interesting thing about debate is that right now the only rule is that it is a rule-less game, save time constraints, the judge vote aff or neg, and the sides you are on. I’d like to keep it that way; it seems to be the most educational version.
Posted from: 130.58.224.109
April 12th, 2005 11:44
While many of the previous posts regarding placing constraints on the activity have begged the question, “What is LD supposed to be?”, perhaps a better question to ask would be, “When does the activity cease to be debate?” I believe there’s a critical point at which speed, jargon, obscurity, and dependence on “cards” become so excessive that rounds devolve into quickly-paced and nearly incomprehensible wars of assertion. Where that point lies, I don’t know, and I hope that debate never “progesses” to that stage. I do believe, however, that if we fail to establish some guidelines of definition, the “progessive” debate movement will become a race to the bottom, with each successive speech/round/tournament resulting in fewer fruitful exchanges of ideas and more claims of illegitimacy. Having coached more than one team that split its time between the local and national circuits, I would never discourage the use of creative arguments and not-completely-predictable value structures; nor do I grant myself the authority to regulate the types of debate in which my students engage. However, I can not emphasize enough that the movement towards making debate a game - using quickly constructed strategies aimed at confusing one’s opponent rather than engaging her - is antithetical to the idea of debate as, to second Brother John’s post, an educational experience.
What worries me is that debaters - both local and circuit - are beginning to see this “game” as the “legitimate” way to debate. I agree with Ryan wholeheartedly that the local circuit is increasingly resembling the national circuit in style and content - debaters are speaking faster, using more evidence, relying less on rhetoric, and refusing to adapt to judges. In the time I spent debating in Pittsburgh, which is a relatively conservative, insular debate community, speech rate increased with every season despite our coaches’ protests and constructive speeches became more and more like policy plans. While this might be the result of increased interaction between the two circuits, I think it has much more to do with the local circuit’s developing inferiority complex. The implications that local debate is being “left behind” and that local debaters can’t succeed when faced with national circuit competition are harmful in a few ways. First of all, they contribute to the local circuit’s desire to “catch up.” Secondly, they overlook local debaters - like myself and my former teammate Dan Boada, who took third at nationals last year - who prefer a more rhetorical and persuasive approach to debate but are fully capable of competing with circuit debaters. But finally, it’s really the “progessive” debate movement that is creating the perception that there’s only one correct way to debate and the rest is “lay debate.” I don’t think it has to be this way - I think there exists an opportunity to bridge the gap between the circuits WITHOUT establishing a hierarchy or encouraging the local circuit to move away from traditional styles.
Posted from: 169.229.113.93
April 12th, 2005 11:53
Just a couple quick comments: Alex, you’re reading value statements in my writing where there is none. I think you know where my views lie in terms of debate.
Bro. John, you raise an interesting point but I think that it largely assumes that the traditional approach is more educational. Despite the high-profile of college kids in debate, there are a lot of instructors that support “progressive” changes in LD. I do not see the debate is being between old and young, but simply between different ideas of what constitutes an educational activity.
Posted from: 24.44.230.238
April 12th, 2005 13:55
The questions as to whether or not “progressive” debating is more educational is interesting. On the pro side, debaters are reading a wider variety of material and are being constantly urged to think critically about topics that are seemingly self explanatory. In addition to that, you gain a certain level of lets say “creativity” when attempting to be “progressive. As an educational activity for the individual, I find that being “progressive” is in fact a good thing and may very well be more educational, whatever that means. However, in the long run and when we look to the dare I say big picture, “progressive” debating is in many ways harmful to the activity.
Posted from: 128.196.85.131
April 12th, 2005 14:07
I don’t believe the conflict is one between what constitutes an educational activity as much as one about the role of LD within that activity.
LD is a part of forensics. It is one event among many. And, as such, it can have a unique role without preventing students who participate in forensics from benefiting from those other events.
The more traditional understanding of LD sees the event as one focused on developing skills associated with public speaking, such as the importance of rhetoric and delivery, in a directly argumentative context. But these skills are developed by other events in our activity. Extemporaneous speaking, for example, helps students develop public speaking skills in the context of presenting an argument. The interpretation events further hone a student’s ability to convey emotions and ideas through vocal qualities and body language. These are, of course, important abilities for students to have.
But this creates a space for LD to focus on the development of other skills without sacrificing education in these areas.
The more “progressive” understanding of LD sees the event as one focused on learning about argumentation. It allows students to learn about the theory and strategy of argumentation. These skills are not developed by speech events because students are not forced to directly engage the claims and counter-claims of others. While policy debate teaches many of the same skills, LD provides an alternative forum for developing these abilities by allowing students to debate in a different format with different kinds of resolutions. And, as a lawyer, I can attest to the importance of these skills, at least in the legal profession.
In short, I don’t believe it’s appropriate to examine LD in a vacuum. The more “progressive” approach is preferable, not because either approach is necessarily less educational in and of itself, but because it allows students of forensics to obtain the maximum educational benefit from the activity.
Of course, most tournaments on the national circuit don’t allow students to enter LD as well as speech events. But many local circuit tournaments do. And this allows students to obtain this maximum educational benefit simply by dividing their time between the two.
Posted from: 131.229.177.243
April 12th, 2005 14:19
Ryan, an interesting piece.
My stance on the issue is that Kuhnian paradigm shifts happen. To the observer during the time of the shift, all changes will always seem radical. To the impartial eyes of time, however, very little is ever shocking.
It may be, of course, that progress is sometimes also wrong; ‘newer’ isn’t always ‘better.’ But LD is not a race - it doesn’t matter whether we all gracefully glide over the ‘finish line’ that marks the educational goals of the activity; we can bumble and stumble and trip - it only matters that we *get there.*
Politics, fashion, the dominance of either Platonic or Aristotelian ethic; all move in a cyclical fashion. As LD continues to mature as an activity, we will no doubt see similar cyclical changes in the goals it promotes, or the trappings it decorates itself with in any given season.
I’m for sitting back and enjoying the ride - my ballot, afterall, is my “normative” voice in this matter.
Posted from: 205.202.156.252
April 12th, 2005 14:34
I believe many people make assumptions about “progressive” LD debate that either characterize it too negatively or stereotypically or that label “progressive” LD debate as some kind of wonderland for rich kid fun which some old fogies will just never get.
There is room for change in any debate event. Young people have good ideas, and so do old coaches with experience. People who drink bourbon are not necessarily irrelevant. Everyone should calm down just a tad.
That being said, I have to make one argument about the state of current LD debate: Lincoln-Douglas debate ought to preserve speaking skillfully to a less expert audience as one of the aspects of this form of debate which distinguishes it from policy debate. I realize policy debate in some areas still preserves the art of speaking well (as to a non-expert audience), but this certainly isn’t true for the most part. Lincoln-Douglas was created in reaction to this reality. Some people think this makes the event less legitimate. I think it was a reasonable reaction.
Some may interpret what I am saying here to mean I do not approve of fast policy debate. Nothing could be further from the truth. I accept policy debate as it has become, and my policy debaters debate in a competitive manner. But I do teach them to debate differently, as speakers, for the NCFL and NFL tournaments, as all decent coaches do. When I do this, however, I do not whine about it, continually emphasizing that my policy debaters must now adjust their argumentation for “retarded” judges. Instead, I see it as an opportunity to give my policy debaters some actual communication instruction which is valuable to them for their future as speakers to real people.
Of all the changes which are sweeping through Lincoln-Douglas debate, especially among so-called “national circuit” debaters, the one that irks me most is the tendency to disgard speaking skills and consider them irrelevant to quality debate. In some people’s minds, I am immediately labelled as an idiot because I believe a well-educated person should learn that, as a speaker, she or he will be better served when she or he looks at the audience and adds appropriate inflection, pace, and tone to voice.
That makes me “old school,” I imagine, but I believe it was the original intention of Lincoln-Douglas debate to preserve such emphasis on speaking skills in debate. While I in no way support arguments based on original intention alone, I believe this original intention was a good one, productive educationally, and that its loss is harming the distinctiveness as well as the excellence of Lincoln-Douglas debate.
Finally, anyone who thinks that old coaches aren’t relevant anymore is being awfully foolish. Dr. JW Patterson is an old coach, and he is the reason for the TOC. His vision started the tournament and his dedication to high school debate insures that the tournament will continue.
Now it time’s to work out, and then I may go home to have some bourbon. asmitty reminded me of just how good it is.
Fred Robertson
Posted from: 130.58.224.109
April 12th, 2005 15:15
I would agree that LD is, above all, an exercise in argumentation. Perhaps in more progressive local circuits you’ll find more responsive debaters who rely on critical thinking rather than repetition of rhetorical crutches - a trend which is probably evidence of actual progress from the 1980’s paradigm. However, I maintain that debate can serve this end WITHOUT resorting to tons of jargon or policy-style speech, and logic and reasoning will always win in a contest with cards and evidence. I also think that debaters should not, in attempts to use “creative” arguments, run theories they either don’t understand or don’t expect their opponents to understand (i.e. most high school debaters simply don’t know enough about Wittgenstein to run a language K). Arguing obscure stuff without knowing its meaning doesn’t accomplish ANY educational goal - except maybe to make frustrated judges look it up afterwards. Perhaps this is more a criticism of poorly-researched cases than a criticism of progressive debate, but I think debaters would run more reasonable cases in a more comprehensive manner if they didn’t feel pressure to be obscure. I would echo Fred Robertson’s sentiment - that at the end of the day, the creative skills you acquire from LD will be of very little use to you if you have no means of effectively communicating them to anyone outside of the debate community. Sometimes, mommy judges know best.
Posted from: 204.210.37.132
April 12th, 2005 15:25
my argument isn’t that coaches are irrelevant (though i think that the “old guard” notion of a coach has gone from being the only way to run a team to being one of many ways). rather, my argument is that, given the strength of the progressive vanguard, attempts by reactionary coaches to resist change won’t work because their kids just won’t be as successful as those who are willing to go with the flow. debaters can become good in all sorts of organizational structures: david wolfish goes to a school with a very well-established program, adwait parker is coached by a law student who’s been out of the activity for over half a dozen years, and mission san jose is a student-run team (though they have a couple of college sophomores who work with them). those three programs are all successful because they’ve been willing to go along with the national circuit’s demand for change. even if locke and rousseau were successful ten years ago, they’re not going to be successful at any significant tournament; you certainly won’t find them winning TOC or the Greenhill Round Robin, and you won’t even find them winning NFL or NCFL nationals. the old guard can still survive, but it will only survive if it’s willing to change (at least a little) to meet the demands of the circuit. reactionary efforts to shut down progressive debate won’t work, because their debaters won’t succeed and other schools obviously won’t follow the lead of a school that’s not winning. a large move towards public forum might make everyone happy, but even that’s inevitably going to become too progressive twenty years down the road. it looks like you just can’t stop progress.
brother john–if schools withdraw funding, debaters will just travel independently. i’ve gone to nearly 15 tournaments this year and haven’t filled out a single permission slip to do so. public schools usually don’t do a lot to regulate personal absences, so many debaters just call themselves in sick every weekend to go to tournaments. i mean, we’re at the point where debaters can hold tournaments in their backyard, living room, or on their trampoline without anyone batting an eye; i’m sure people can be creative enough to figure out a way to get out of school on friday to go to a tournament.
more importantly, though, the argument that schools will cut off funding because they see the activity as absurd is patently ridiculous. schools care about the bottom line; if they know that the kids on the debate team are regularly getting the best grades and test scores, they’ll let them keep on doing what they’re doing because it makes the school look good. if schools are willing to sponsor lip-synching contests, improvisational comedy shows, and lunchtime apple-bobbing contests (all of which are sponsored at my school), i’m sure they’ll be willing to sponsor debate if there’s some obvious redeeming value (which there is).
Posted from: 136.167.228.251
April 12th, 2005 16:56
Without expressing my feelings about the “progressive” v. “traditional” conflict, I think it’s worth noting that any shift towards the former will always be checked by the fact that good speakers win close rounds. When judges need to do work to make a decision, having the judge work *for* you is always going to be to your advantage.
Think about debaters that have dominated in the past few years. Though not an absolute rule, the people that consistently win tournaments tend to have an ability to speak “persuasively”. Even if they don’t use it every round, or put it off until the last speech, the skill is still encouraged because the skill is still incredibly useful.
I’m not saying I vote on persuasion. I’m not saying I don’t vote against the way I want to vote all the time. I am saying that sometimes people make me do work for them, and in those situations it’s a good idea to have me (or any other judge) on your side.
Posted from: 65.28.174.75
April 12th, 2005 17:01
The bottom line with much of what asmitty writes is this–this style wins, programs that do what wins will stay alive, and if coaches don’t like that, kids will just go to tournaments anyway, paying for it themselves.
apparently asmitty thinks every school is mission san jose. This was indicated in his earlier missive in which he opined that “any kid with a couple thousand dollars” is capable of doing debate “progressively.”
There remain a few of us idealistic educators in this activity who don’t much care for that kind of unthinking elitism and who will fight for preserving an activity for many kids, with little or no money, because we think its worthwhile.
According to asmitty, we are doomed to fail.
we shall see. I, for one, rather relish a good battle.
One last thing–Locke and Rousseau are far from irrelevant. Dismissing their writing arbitrarily in such a way is a telling example of exactly what’s wrong with some schools of LD progressivity.
Fred Robertson
Posted from: 68.199.187.27
April 12th, 2005 17:47
I would post, having been quoted early on in the thread, but why bother. Fred R & Bro John are eloquent enough for me. Thank you, gentlemen.
And howcum I never get any bourbon?
Posted from: 204.210.37.132
April 12th, 2005 17:57
fred–
there are four problems with the economics objection:
1) having money of your own isn’t a necessary condition; it’s a sufficient one. obviously, some schools without as much money as mission san jose are still doing pretty well on the circuit (like des moines north, whove scrimped and scrounged their way to 485739207559384 bids this year), which obviously goes to show that people can be successful without a ton of school support or money of their own.
2) “some people can’t afford it” is a bad rationale for criticizing an activity. some schools can’t afford to have football teams or music programs–does that mean everyone should get rid of them to equalize the playing field? obviously, it would be nice if we all had the money to go to every tournament we want to, and we obviously don’t, but we shouldn’t criticize the people who do.
3) debaters still have the opportunity to go to local circuit tournaments, even if they can’t afford national circuit ones. i know this seems like a cop-out, but it proves that the all-or-nothing story you’re implying isn’t actually going to happen.
4) most importantly, a system in which debaters are able to pay their way to tournaments is better because it at least gives everyone the opportunity to make the money to go to national tournaments. if we institutionalize the old-guard model of the program or team as the only acceptable way of doing things, people without those programs are going to be lost in the shuffle. if we put the burden squarely on their shoulders, they can get a job, hold a lemonade stand, etc. to pay their way to a tournament or two or three. even if this doesn’t include everyone equally, accepting the old-guard model as the ONLY ACCEPTABLE WAY systematically shuts kids without inroads into the old guard out.
—
fred’s obviously right that locke and rousseau are important. what i’m mocking is the overuse of ebnlightenment philosophy in places where it’s clearly not as applicable as more topic-specific stuff. i mean, there are videos from the early 90s of very successful kids who relied solely on john rawls to explain why victims of domestic violence were justified or unjustified in retaliating. that’s sort of silly, considering the bulk of available topic-specific literature out there. i’m not trying to malign classical philosophers, i’m making fun of a “traditional” style characterized by the excessive use thereof. (as an aside, i also think that applying postmodern philosophy out of context isn’t any better, and is probably worse, considering its tendency to be obfuscatory and dense).
remember, before you post about how young’uns like me are disrespectful and don’t appreciate the work of coaches and schools and stuff like that, understand that my position is not “coaches are irrelevant” or “it’s ok that debate screws poor people”. here is my position:
over the last few years, two positive “progressive” trends have emerged in debate
1) increasing depth/complexity of argumentation and reliance on topic-specific literature
2)increased accessibility to schools without established coaches or traditional speech and debate programs.
these trends might alienate certain coaches, like brother john or mr. robertson. nonetheless, progressive styles of debate are winning, and old-guard schools are powerless to stop it without changing to adapt to the style that wins. educational institutions will be reluctant to stop speech and debate programs, no matter how obscure they become, because they produce kids who are somehow brighter and more well-read than most students. even if they do, debaters will still find ways to get around that.
we’re supposed to be some of the brightest high school kids in the country and the future leaders of america. i’m sure we can find ways to attend debate tournaments.
Posted from: 204.210.37.132
April 12th, 2005 18:13
oh, to respond to something ryan said way back, i’m not reading normative judgments about whether progressive debate is good or bad into your post. we’ve had that debate a million times, and we can’t seem to agree on anything, except that good debate is good debate and topic-specific arguments and literature are good. i’m just making and responding to descriptive and predictive claims about the way debaters operate now and the way that they might operate if trends go one way or the other. consider it an economic approach to progressive debate.
Posted from: 69.170.44.126
April 12th, 2005 19:08
Preach On, Brother John.
What Brother John brings to the argument is an idea of historic and practical scope to this event, which - no matter how you slice it - is an extracurricular activity supported in varying degrees by various schools administrators and school boards. Or in other words, money is the mother’s milk of the event. If you doubt, refer to the origins of LD when NFL faced a crisis over corporate support of CX in the early 80s.
As LD slides more and more into the abyss of one-person CX, we will see fewer and fewer teacher-coaches willing to coach it and more and more positions in schools for debate coaches going unfilled. A program can hire as many college coaches as it wants; but without some educator who will take the responsiblity of a program, prepare the mighty logistics for travel, and will be the stuck-ee for anything that might possibly go wrong on the road, debate programs suffer. You need only refer to the evidence of CX programs and the decline in numbers over the last ten years.
I believe the NFL was looking forward when it invested the energy into Public Forum… debate that makes it against the rules to use speed, spew, spread, and jargon. The explosive growth of PF over LD and especially over CX shows that the need for a debate event that can be judged and even enjoyed by a lay judge pays dividends.
Sure, LD is a great event and the ability it offers to craft arguments is an incredible opportunity that PF does not enjoy.
But, given the current esoteric progression of circuit LD, those promises will go a’gleaming.
Finally, as Matt Scarola (an incredible debater said), the real key of debating was actually speaking persuasively. When that is jettisoned for speed and spew, it may sway a few judges at isolated tournaments, but does not pay in the long-run.
Go to school tomorrow, hug your coach for putting up with unseen hours of paperwork and piles of unthanked lost weekends. And then get focused on how he or she can make you, not just a better debater, but a better teammate, a better competitor, and a better person.
Posted from: 24.44.230.238
April 12th, 2005 19:54
asmitty: I think that to say that not debating “progressivly” ensures failure is ridiculous. Sure a lot of the top debaters run unique arguments and enough critiques to last you a lifetime, but that doesn’t make it objectivly the best approach and more importantly the only one that works. Often times, many of these arguments are superfluous and the soul purpose of them and I guess the new tactical advantage mentioned earlier is that it confuses the hell out of people. I don’t think that is what debate is or should be about. YOu can certainly be succesful if you go the “traditional” route. For instance, I wouldn’t consider Matt Shields a progressive debater and I know that Joe Vaughn decrys the use of critiques, or at least that is what Shrenil tells me. needless to say, Matt is pretty darn succesful and I think that you can find dozens of really really solid debaters who are similiar to him. Establishing that “progressive” debating is the only way to succeed will lead to that truth, but I don’t think it is a maxim that we should be accepting. I know that I am going to stay “traditional”, in the sense that I won’t be running things that hold no truth or relevance to the topic and am running cases for the sake of running them, we will see how that turns out. I hope your wrong.
Scarola/the “old guard”- I completely agree, enough said.
Posted from: 4.167.110.120
April 12th, 2005 19:54
uh, that post wasn’t true at all, mainly because you took it upon yourself to blindly assert things to bolster a dumb position
if it were true that experienced coaches and teachers were necessary to make teams run, then teams that are virtually student-run (MSJ) or people who travel independently would cease to exist. it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to book plane tickets or send in entry fees.
but secondly, it doesn’t make ANY sense to force people to debate a certain way because you think it’ll work out for the best in the end for them. people debate for different reasons, and just like people can be educated in different ways, both progressive and traditional debate have value. progressive promotes strategic problem-solving with a higher propensity to understand difficult arguments faster, while traditional combines a desire for speaking with more simplistic areas of analysis.
but i’m sure the old guard will come back online and post some insane nonsense about how children can’t comprehend how debate is supposed to work.
Posted from: 4.167.110.120
April 12th, 2005 19:56
above was responding to mr. gregg
Posted from: 152.163.100.203
April 12th, 2005 19:59
I always find it enjoyable to hear how the formulation of new events will somehow “solve” the problems in other forms of debate.
Public forum as practiced in 2005 will be far different than that of PF in 2010. Events evolve mostly because students lead the change in the event. Ignoring this will just cause this cycle to repeat itself. So, if you view the cycle as harmful, perhaps jumping ship will do nothing to solve these issues.
Close debate rounds always come down to a turn of a phrase or the nuance of a response. That’s why they are close and that makes debate. Will speed exclude some folks? Yup. Does most of the evidence debaters read exclude the “common person?” Yup.
Just my 11 o’clock thoughts.
Posted from: 143.229.132.226
April 12th, 2005 20:06
craig - what do you consider ‘progressive debating’? matt shields, for example, runs kritiks. i mean, i know he has run really ‘traditional’ positions (exclusively kant-based cases, which have been very successful) but he’s also run positions based on much more contemporary literature, at least from what i’ve seen. is progressive debating just speaking fast, or using lots of jargon, or what?
just my 2 cents. i think the progressive/traditional labels are biased and silly, by the way, and matt shields is a great example of how it’s really hard to classify people into one of two artifically-constructed categories.
Posted from: 67.124.49.254
April 12th, 2005 20:15
Without progressive debate and the freedom to innovate, I would get bored and probably leave the activity (or take it less seriously). Sadly, that situation would mean no educational value.
Posted from: 24.44.230.238
April 12th, 2005 20:16
That is the part I am having the most trouble with. I said Matt because I have seen him debate more than any other succesful debater and most of it was his Kant stuff and what I would consider traditional. I have heard he runs critiques, but I am yet to see them, and I am sure that theya ren’t the superfluous kind as described. In defining “progressive” debating, I think that I have to go with the old I know it when I see it, as Menick would say. Prashant saying the sun will implode=”progressive”. Of this I am sure. I think that discussing what makes arguments “progressive” is a totally different discussion that will more likely than not end without a clear definition anyway. In response to the second part, I agree. That is why I have been putting “progressive” in quotes this whole time. I suppose that you label a debater based on what you have seen of them and for the majority, Matt included, who run cases that are sometimes “progressive” and sometimes not, I think it is best to call them, simply put, good. The bottom line is though, “traditional” cases can be very succesful and you don’t have to be “progressive” to win. I think anon made some good points in saying that people do debate for different reasons and being “progressive” will not be best for all of them. however, if it is just winning that you are in this for, something that I hope is not the case, you shouldn’t have to constrain the nature of your argumentation with foolish rhetoric that states taht only “progressive” debating can win.
Posted from: 144.62.202.74
April 12th, 2005 20:25
Oh, if only I could respond to everything, but I shall have to pick and choose…
First, I guess I’m already “old-school” and I’m 19 years old. That scares me. Anyway, I did LD for three years, in addition to many other forensics events, but for my senior year I moved my debating focus onto student congress. Coming back to judge this year, I’ve almost always been judging LD. In every round, I see things that remind me why I moved away from LD, and little glimmers of hope that give me confidence for the event. Unfortunately, from my perspective, most of the things that people on this thread are calling “progressive” debate are those things which make me cringe at LD in general.
First of all, speed. The best debaters are good speakers. Period. I don’t think that’s *exclusive* of speed, in fact, far from it, many good speakers are also fast speakers (relative to how any average person would talk, not how policy people talk). The thing is, people are losing track of the little nuances that make good speakers. If you read your case like you are reading the ingredients on a box of Twinkies, it’s hard to be very engaged. If you are hunched over at your flow spewing out responses, they must not be that good if they don’t warrant some kind of eye contact. Basically, people are ignoring what it means to be a good speaker. That hurts the event deeply, even if it gets you the all-important win. I highly believe that you should CARE about what you are saying. Granted, you do debate on both sides, but I don’t want to be presented any argument unless YOU are excited by it. And thus, you should express that excitement and interest. Otherwise, it’s just some other speech, for some other win, to get some other trophy, and who cares that there are real people expressing these ideas and listening and analyzing them, when we could just have the arguments be read by computer.
In that sense, I agree with a previous idea that most of these new techniques are merely strategies and tactics to win. As a general rule, they do not serve to add any depth into the debate. In fact, speeding through a 7-point response to each contention means that every blip of a refutation is shallow. That happens to be one idea I’ve noticed. (Granted, the idea of spreading is nothing new, but it seems to be more prevelant.) Additionally, making the same overview on every single case that you encounter does not show that you are analyzing your opponent’s specific case position - it just shows that you are trying to corner them into a spot where you can tell the judge that they must “affirm/negate by default” because of some definitional or observational truth. That just screams originality.
Now, these are just some personal rants. I should clarify that most of the rounds I have judged this year have been very impressive. I say that not just in the sense that every debater was flawless - every debater has something to learn. What I mean is, most debaters that I have judged are polite, they intend to have good debate, and they put forth their best effort. Unfortunately, there are always those few isolated cases where I want to vomit on my ballot to express my true opinions (but I wouldn’t make any tab room have to deal with that). It’s those cases that particularly stand out, and that particularly make me fear for the future of the event.
As far as the idea of the “economics” of travel, my high school did not require any students to pay anything to travel. I think our situation was usually that some students could afford a lot of national travel, while others would find it very difficult to compete even locally. We “equalized” the playing field in our own school (I’m not advocating any such idea to apply to ALL debate teams everywhere, as someone brought up). We had very, very little national travel, as a result (in fact, the only bid tournaments we attended were fairly local anyway). I would say that aside from those already close locations, the only national circuit travel we had were nationals and the congress tournament of champions.
The problem is that asmitty kind of puts the cart before the horse. There’s this assertion that if someone is a nationally competative debater, they WILL find the money to travel. I’d say sure, that’s true. But the question is - how does one become a nationally competative debater? Do they really just pop out of the floorboards, as we’re led to believe? You have to know what is on the national circuit to be able to compete on the national circuit. If a school team does not exist in the first place, the likelihood that a student will suddenly say “Hmm, I’d really like to qualify to the TOC” is extremely small. Moreover, for this school team to exist, it has to be doing something useful and educational (even if it’s not particularly successful).
When that base faulters, yes, extremely committed debaters can continue on their own. If they have the means. But some people do not have any means to start with, and the less accessible LD is, the less a chance they have of participating at all.
I’m ranting, I’m not coming to any kind of point, sorry. It’s way hard to join in the discussion so late. But, since I already wrote so much, I figured I’d post it. *shrug*
Posted from: 64.167.148.171
April 12th, 2005 20:34
b.a gregg is completely wrong on all accounts.
he says:
What Brother John brings to the argument is an idea of historic and practical scope to this event, which - no matter how you slice it - is an extracurricular activity supported in varying degrees by various schools administrators and school boards. Or in other words, money is the mother’s milk of the event. If you doubt, refer to the origins of LD when NFL faced a crisis over corporate support of CX in the early 80s.
–what? i think smitty has answered you on multiple accounts (I believe he made 4 specific answers earlier in the discussion) which you have glazed over. debate teams DONT need centralized coaches. I speak from personal experience: myself, stephen, and our mothers have coordinated our travelling this year entirely on our own. our coaches are college kids who do no logistical work whatsoever…just prep work. BUT WAIT WE WILL GO AWAY BECAUSE WE DONT HAVE AN INSTITUTIONALIZED TRAVEL COACH AHHHHHHHHHH
in terms of your reference to the “corporate crisis” that CX faced…i don’t really care. the NFL’s crisis has no effect on invititationals, or even NCFL. But it wasn’t even really a crisis, since CX is still the most prestigious event at nationals.
Gregg continues:
As LD slides more and more into the abyss of one-person CX, we will see fewer and fewer teacher-coaches willing to coach it and more and more positions in schools for debate coaches going unfilled. A program can hire as many college coaches as it wants; but without some educator who will take the responsiblity of a program, prepare the mighty logistics for travel, and will be the stuck-ee for anything that might possibly go wrong on the road, debate programs suffer. You need only refer to the evidence of CX programs and the decline in numbers over the last ten years.
–mmmm refer to above. you don’t need to spend money on a full-time coach to do logistics. The reference to CX’s decline doesn’t apply; LD doesn’t require the institutional complexity of a CX team, even in its most progressive forms.
Gregg added:
I believe the NFL was looking forward when it invested the energy into Public Forum… debate that makes it against the rules to use speed, spew, spread, and jargon. The explosive growth of PF over LD and especially over CX shows that the need for a debate event that can be judged and even enjoyed by a lay judge pays dividends.
–Where are you getting this info about the “explosive growth of PF over LD and especially over CX?” At every tournament i’ve been to, and on every team i’ve talked to, PF is the biggest joke on the planet. It requires no preparation, and most kids who compete in it are either LD/CXers who have given up on succeeding in those events, or LD/CXers who want to do it for the hell of it, and borrow cases from the “full time PFers.” Maybe i’m wrong about PF’s success? mmm, But i don’t think so.
Gregg:
Sure, LD is a great event and the ability it offers to craft arguments is an incredible opportunity that PF does not enjoy.
–Yeah…LD and CX’s ability to educate far surpasses and will always surpass PF simply BECAUSE speed, jargon, and argumentative complexity are allowed and encouraged. But we’ve already had this debate a million times before.
But, given the current esoteric progression of circuit LD, those promises will go a’gleaming.
–Nope…wrong again.
Finally, as Matt Scarola (an incredible debater said), the real key of debating was actually speaking persuasively. When that is jettisoned for speed and spew, it may sway a few judges at isolated tournaments, but does not pay in the long-run.
–Huh? what? You mean like how most NDT (college policy) debaters, the MOST esoteric, jargon laden, speed oriented event, end up in the best law schools in the country? Last time i checked, most academic fields were pretty damn specialized. That is of course, why you go take up to 8 years going to college and grad school in the first place.
Go to school tomorrow, hug your coach for putting up with unseen hours of paperwork and piles of unthanked lost weekends. And then get focused on how he or she can make you, not just a better debater, but a better teammate, a better competitor, and a better person.
–No. I’d rather go cut cards for TOC (I travelled to all of the tournaments where i received bids WITHOUT an institutionalized team’s logistical support) instead of wait around for that instution to ALLOW me to go to tournaments.
Posted from: 66.93.17.219
April 12th, 2005 20:57
a couple of quick thoughts:
* that what people seem to think is revolutionary now (progressive argumentation, people traveling independently, people having teams of one) are not at all revolutionary. this has been going on for a long time.
* the self-righteousness of those who believe that their “progressive” debate is “more educational” is so ironic given previous discussions on disclosure.
Posted from: 4.167.110.120
April 12th, 2005 21:01
just to add on, it’s total bs that school coaches are these selfless, sacrificing individuals, when most of them get paid hefty stipends for supporting debate.
Posted from: 144.62.202.74
April 12th, 2005 21:02
P.Rai, not everybody’s mommy or daddy can or is willing to travel to debate tournaments. Some schools, like I guess yours, are very lucky to have so many people (outside of a traditional “travel” coach) willing to go the extra mile for your education. That is awesome for you, and many other students, but it just simply isn’t the case for many others.
Posted from: 143.229.132.226
April 12th, 2005 21:03
“hefty stipends”?
I wish.
Posted from: 204.210.37.132
April 12th, 2005 21:07
going from the bottom up:
julia–you don’t have to be qualified to the toc to know it exists. i didn’t really have a coach with lots of connections, but i knew some people from camp and from lddebate.org. i went to camp, started traveling a bit as a sophomore and junior, and found out more along the way.
(as an aside, i think i learned a lot of valuable life lessons from figuring out the logistics of tournaments and coordinating them. i now know how to shop around for plane tickets, how to identify hidden costs most people don’t consider up front, etc. these are little things that help a lot.)
anyways, the point is that a lot of people hear that the national circuit exists from the internet or other local debaters, and if they’re interested, they can go to a tournament or two and see if they like it. remember, kids will still have local exposure because local programs will still exist, even if they don’t travel nationally, so they’ll find out what the toc is through the grapevine. the argument about economics was dealt with in my response to fred robertson. the fourth argument there is especially important on two levels:
a) if kids have the resources to travel, why not let them?
b) if kids don’t have the money but have the wherewithal to earn it, why not let them?
the solution your school implemented seems to be the worst one; even if it wasn’t possible for everyone to go to every tournament, there’s no reason to prevent those who can from doing so. your alternative artificially constrains people with the desire to debate from doing so, and that doesn’t do anything but keep us all down.
craig–whether or not you have to be “progressive” to succeed, you’re not going to win the toc with arguments about locke’s social contract. my claim is just that SOME degree of adaptation to the demands of the national circuit (like being able to cover a spread or use evidence) is necessary to be really successful. but kudos for your resolve to always be a traditional debater; i know that i totally believe the same things now that i thought in eighth grade.
rev. gregg–while i think it’s good that older coaches like you are chiming in, i think you misinterpret or mishandle several of the claims that i’m making. to wit:
1) rev. gregg claims that ld was created to be an alternative to cx so the nfl could get corporate funding. first, prashant dealt with this with the slavery argument. second, “the nfl needed to do this to get funding” isn’t a warrant for why certain practices are educationally valuable or inclusive. if the lincoln financial group gave the nfl a billion dollars to hold a grunt-off or pie-eating contest at every tournament, that wouldn’t make those practices more educationally valuable or relevant than ld. finally, the funding argument is specific to the nfl. aside from funding nfl nationals and a bunch of district tournaments, the nfl doesn’t really do that much on the national circuit. the fact that some executives on the board of some hoity-toity corporation don’t like ld anymore isn’t going to have a major impact on tournaments like the glenbrooks or st. mark’s because national circuit ld already has an established base of support.
2) rev. gregg claims that teachers will be unwilling to coach ld if it becomes more obscure. first, most schools give stipends or full teaching jobs to coaches, so they have a financial incentive to keep up with the changing pace of the circuit. second, many teams–even those with coaches–are student-taught, so it’s not going to be a big deal if teachers themselves don’t know every single thing about the circuit. even if people like bro. john and rev. gregg are right that we need adult people to do legal stuff, teachers can still fulfill an administrative role while leaving the teaching up to someone else. but we don’t even have to consider that, because independent travel can and does happen in the status quo.
3)rev. gregg agrees with matt scarola that the key to doing well in LD is speaking persuasively. this would be all well and good if it didn’t brutally mischaracterize matt’s argument. matt isn’t saying that persuasive speaking is a sufficient condition by any means; he’s saying that a baseline level of good speaking is a necessary condition in certain rounds. there are 3 differences between matt’s statement and rev. gregg’s reading of it.
first, speaking is a baseline, not a sliding scale. he’s not saying that the better speaker will win, but rather that a mumbling, spewing incoherent debater won’t be able to win most close rounds. after both debaters reach a certain baseline (which 95 to 99 percent of national circuit debaters are consistently able to meet), then the question of speaking is largely moot.
second, speaking is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. this is a pretty self-explanatory argument, because it’s obvious that the best speakers–by any definition–aren’t always the best debaters. adwait parker, fabien thayamballi, and david wolfish certainly aren’t the best orators in the nation, but they’re some of the best debaters.
third, speaking only becomes an issue in certain rounds or in front of certain judges. oftentimes, a worse speaker can beat a better one: that’s the reason that i don’t go 0-6 at every tournament.
Posted from: 128.135.192.184
April 12th, 2005 21:08
For anyone who has gotten a little too involved in disputing the merits of what asmitty called “Progressive” Debate, I think the correct reading of his original post refers to this as a generic term for “thinking outside the box” and the willingness to innovate. I’m pretty sure he didn’t intend to be prescriptive, i.e., debaters need to run these types of arguments to be successful nowadays. However, I think it’s probably true, and asmitty will agree with me, that it’s neccessary to understand what is typically considered more progressive styles of debate in order to be successful. You can’t show up to the TOC or NFLs thinking it’s 1992 and expect to do as well as you had done in 1992. For instance, “topicality is a policy term” is not going to fly in an LD round anymore. There is a general expectation nowadays that people learn, understand, and discuss the theoretical implications of specific arguments in rounds. This might not have been so in the past. There is no specific presumption that “progressive” arguments are good or better than “traditional” ones, just the expectation that debaters justify or dispute the validity of them based on the merit of their argumentation, not appeals to dogma.
Regardless, I think the main thrust of Alex’s argument is that the “vanguard” class of LDers who work independent of an institutionalized administrative hierarchy (school boards, coaches, principals, whatever) don’t encounter the same resistance that debaters entrenched under the “Old Order” find themselves at ends with when trying to catch up and learn what debate in 2005 is all about (for the very specific and largely unanswered reasons he provides).
Posted from: 65.28.174.75
April 12th, 2005 21:19
Damn, I haven’t laughed that hard in ages.
Hefty stipends for coaching debate?
In a few schools, perhaps, but very rare.
It’s obvious that there are areas of disagreement that may not be at all resolvable.
By the way, I never suggested that schools shouldn’t work to travel to some tournaments. We do this in the same way that Des Moines North does, by fundraising, and by travelling as cheap as possible. If someone has parents who will pay their way, that’s ok too. What I was scoffing at is the notion that a type of supposedly superior debate that is open to any kid “with a few thousand dollars” is open to very many kids.
Being raised on a farm in Nebraska and growing up lower middle class, I just plain react strongly to that kind of statement, and I always will.
Fred Robertson
Posted from: 204.210.37.132
April 12th, 2005 21:28
fred, i don’t think you and i disagree that much. my comment about the feasability of travel for kids of moderate means seems to be the only real area of contention between our positions (i feel like we either agree or have agreed to disagree on everything else). what i meant by that comment is that national circuit debate is open to almost anyone who really wants to work to get there. debaters are smart and are great fundraisers, so if they need to work to make the money, they can and will. obviously, some people will be able to debate more than others. that’s a shame, but i think that anyone who really wants to work and put in the effort can travel at least a little bit. the only people who aren’t able to travel are those whose coaches don’t want them to. THAT’s the biggest problem with the old guard. i think we’d both rather have a system where anyone who work can make it to a few tournaments, rather than one where very gifted and willing people can’t debate because they weren’t lucky enough to go to a school with an established program.
Posted from: 169.231.29.230
April 12th, 2005 21:31
I plan on making a more substantive engagement with this issue later, but in response to people commenting on Prashant running “the Sun is going to implode”, please get the context of this argument correct.
The imploding sun/superintelligant dinosaurs argument was meant as a mockery of debate to further a criticism of the imperialistic closure that debate creates. Even the most progressive debater will not run an argument like the Time-Cube or WGLF seriously.
I will however concede, that the K of Debate is most certainly a progressive position.
Posted from: 64.167.148.171
April 12th, 2005 21:39
Julia,
Don’t patronize me. my entire point was that there AREN’T a lot of people who help me out…I HAVE TO and CAN do it on my own.
Everyone is misunderstanding Alex’s arguments. Alex never says “institutions are bad.” I concede that for programs that can’t get themselves out there on their own (for whatever reason) can get helped out by an institutionalized coach. Alex’s only argument is that by NO means is an “institutionalized structure” with a “head coach” that dictates what tournaments the team can attend, what clothing they are allowed to wear, who goes to which tournaments, etc etc. NECESSARY to compete successfully, as McGrory and Gregg seem to imply.
Mountain View does well cuz we work hard for it, not because of some old white guy “coached us to greatness” with his “backbreaking hours” as “head coach.”
In regards to Alex’s “few thousand dollars” comment, I happen to disagree with Alex, I find that statement somewhat dubious and elitist. However I don’t think that Alex’s sentiment is incorrect. Debaters don’t need an extremely complex institutional structure to travel. Des Moines North is a great example.
Posted from: 24.44.230.238
April 12th, 2005 21:43
Mr. Gregg- Just because something was created to be an alternative to something else, doesn’t mean it can’t take on its own identity. When LD first started out, I think that defining it simply as an alternative to CX may have sufficed, but that is not the case now and that is what the beginning of this discussion was about. LD has changed and taken on its own identity, the question is, what does that identity entail?
asmitty- Yes, you are not going to win the TOC running social contract, but Locke says a bunch of other things. I can win the theory with philosophy other than critical theory and the like, I don’t think that anyone will deny that. I think the nature of the arguments of “progressive” and “traditional” debating can be found largely in the philosophy that drives such arguments. That may be an interesting area to explore.
In addition to that, I think that the idea of a stipen or economical incentive for a coach is ridiculous. First off, college kids get pay as well, so it isn’t like only the “old guard” wants money, but most importantly, that is not why coaches, the good ones at least, are involved in the activity. I think that my team is the perfect example. When Menick took over, it was suposed to be temporary. He was a volunteer who loved the educational nature of the activity and after coaching complications was more than happy to step up. As time went on, it became apparent that hen hud wasn’t getting a new coach anytime soon. Well, it has been 12 years and Menick is still with us, and still not getting pay. Coaches don’t do this for the money, they do this because they have a love of knowledge, enjoy seeing the progress that kids make over the course of their debate career, or a variety of other reasons that have nothing to do with money. Sure it is nice, and some coaches will in fact receive some sort of salary, but it is by no means the primary reason that coaches get involved with the activity. Furthermore, the primary reason we have coaches ISN”T THE LEGAL STUFF!!! We have coaches because we need guidance. Yes debate is largely an activity for the individual, and yes the individual is going to determine the direction in which their debate career will go, but saying that the activity will be the same or even better when we acknowledge that coaches aren’t important is absurd. As previously stated, debate isn’t just about winning. It is about the development of social skills, your mind, and other minor things that will help you in life. How do we define a good coach??? Someone who throws at us brilliant positions that are sure to do well, or someone who introduces us to new material that can benefit us on a greater level and is in more ways than one, a rolemodel?? I don’t think that that is too hard of a decision to make. Overall, what your saying holds some truth. LD is an individualist activity when it comes to success and the things you do in round, but it is the things tha go on outside of rounds that probably impact our lives the most and in that sense, coaches are vital to the activity.
There are more things I wish to discuss about what mr. gregg said, but a lot of them have been pointed out already and I suppose that I will just comment on them when the issues resurface. Excuse the rambling.
Posted from: 71.105.68.55
April 12th, 2005 21:47
navot, THANK GOD no one actually runs timecube.
Posted from: 169.231.29.230
April 12th, 2005 21:49
I lied. David Wolfish has told me he will run timecube in front of me. Without any kind of criticism attached.
I find this hilarious.
Posted from: 70.176.18.188
April 12th, 2005 21:53
To the extent that LD resolutions ask useful philosophical questions, I think debaters are obligated to attempt to answer them. This requires depth and often the implementation of concepts that are not easy to digest.
Yet, doesn’t the beauty of the activity lie in our ability to analyze those questions in a way that is educational for all involved? (Students, coaches and jugdes).
Often, what we say doesn’t matter if no one understands it. If an esoteric or “progressive” argument is necessary, or at least what we feel is the best way, to answer the questions posed by a resolution then we are obligated not just to understand it ourselves, but to do our best to present it in a way that our judge can understand, regardless of what their philosophy on ld is? Simply, why do these approaches have to be mutually exclusive?
If we really care about this activity, and I think all of us do, then these ideas have to find a way to coexisit. This means two things 1) we have to remain openminded different styles of debate 2) if we think an argument is educational or worth thinking about, we really ought to learn how to explain as well as possible, to as many people as possible. This is an admirable plight.
But I think this debate also encapsulates the identity crisis that we see today in LD. Personally, if you were to ask me what the difference between LD and Policy, I would say that LD is more interested in fundamental philosophical questions. That’s why the criterion exists, to tell us what is important, to act as a filter if you will. Debaters then, need to make a compelling philosophical argument why one set of values is more important or better than another. These are important questions and I think LDers should be proud to attempt to answer them in whatever way they feel does them the most justice.
My only fear of “progressivism” is when it is abused in a way that seems pseudo-intellectual, when it is used as a tool to win rounds instead of think, to dodge important questions instead of answering them. (but this is not usually the case) The solution should be simple, good debaters should learn how to counter vapid argumentation.
excuse the rambling, disoriented nature of these thoughts. I just wanted to point out that we may not be as ideologically opposed as we think.
Posted from: 143.229.132.226
April 12th, 2005 21:55
craig - matt shields ran a kritik of debate in the final round of debate yale was dropped on a 5-2 decision by a panel composed of a number of people who are probably at least open to ‘progressive’ argumentation (chetan hertzig, jon cruz, jed glickstein) to a debater who is generally seen as more ‘traditional’; i am sure he has probably also run kritiks that are less ‘progressive,’ or, more bluntly, less ’superfluous.’ (or are all kritiks ‘progressive’? see below)
and, again, as we’ve both mentioned, he has run kant and been very successful with that.
i point this out not to start a debate over matt, who is obviously very talented, but just to suggest that we evaluate the terms we are all using to broadly classify entire groups of people (debaters, judges, coaches)
would others consider kritiks unacceptable for ld? what if a kritik is explained in a slow manner with less-technical language?
Posted from: 169.231.29.230
April 12th, 2005 21:59
I’m real confused as to why the round should focus on only the questions raised by the resolution. What if the resolution begs the question, such as assuming that democracy is best served by a state. What if the affirmative decides to throw down some racist rhetoric.
Or what if we need to rethink the way we approach resolutions because standards and normative burdens are an imperialist approach to language.
I think its just as beneficial to use resolutions as a locus-point for political discussion, kind of like what Adwait did with synecdoche.
Confused? I’ll clarify.
Posted from: 204.210.37.132
April 12th, 2005 22:01
because a lot of people still misunderstand my position:
1) i’m not arguing that critical theory and huge spreads are the only good way to debate. i AM saying that running locke’s social contract INSTEAD of running more applicable and topic-specific arguments is a bad way to debate. imagine trying to apply locke’s arguments to topics about globalization or environmental protection. i’d even concede that locke is directly relevant on some topics (like this one–an essay on toleration has a lot of good insights for aff positions); nonetheless, the style ten years ago that tried to pigeonhole traditional philosophy into places it didn’t belong isn’t good debate.
that is the ONLY substantive claim i’ve made about progressive v. traditional debate. as long as people use topic-specific evidence, it’s all gravy.
2) economics and coaching (the thrust of the argument). lee and prashant interpret my position correctly. contrary to the implication of bro. mcgrory and rev. gregg, the traditional model of a schoolteacher-coach who controls where the team travels to and who gets to go isn’t the only way to do business anymore, or even the dominant way on the national circuit. certainly, programs with centralized coaching, like greenhill, st. james, or most teams in minnesota, can be very successful. there are even sometimes advantages to having an adult around who can coordinate logistics and teach kids about national circuit debate. however, the national circuit is also dominated by teams that don’t fit this model and are uncoached or have college kids coaching them. many different organizational structures work. there’s more than one way to skin a cat.
i admit that the “few thousand dollars” statement sounds elitist, but i think the general message behind it–that anyone who has the drive to debate can acquire the funding to do it–is largely uncontested. see dmn.
finally, the proliferation of uncoached or less-coached kids means that old-guard coaches have to adapt to the changing face of the circuit to remain successful. i’m not saying that you have to become schreiber or msj to be successful; relatively traditional programs, like greenhill and apple valley have stayed pretty successful, even with a head coach at the helm. however, their styles of debate have changed significantly over the last decade, and coaches who are unwilling to admit that debate is different than it was 20, 15, 10, or 5 years ago will be left behind by the national circuit.
Posted from: 68.104.26.169
April 12th, 2005 22:06
If I was a freshman coming into a highschool with no established debate program and didn’t know anybody from another school who was involved in the activity, how would I ever learn about it?
Not that I think college coaches are bad, I just think that having an established program with a coach and teacher is good in a general sense to introduce kids.
Posted from: 24.44.230.238
April 12th, 2005 22:11
The problems I have with critiques have nothing to do with how they are presented and the language they use, that is all fine and dandy. The problem I have with them lies in the nature of the critique. The use of a K as a device in which to win the round on technicalities or simply by confusing your opponent. A K in which the argumentation is superfluous and is only being said to win the round and not to be profound or display a specific opinion on the topic at hand. I suppose I am talking about performative critiques, although i don’t have enough experience with them to really identify the difference between a K and a performative K, so don’t slam me on that. I apologize for my ignorance. Anyway, if a critique is being run in aims of enhancing the nature of the question or to present a profound opinion on the topic, then by all mean run it. That is where the educational benefits that I described earlier come into play. If we all can look towards the “You got served” K, that was run in the final round at Lakeland for a second, we would realize that it isn’t really a joke. I mean, a lot of it was, but it had a valid issue to discuss. Erin said that the definition should be accepted because not doing so would subordinate the lower class because that is the language that is used and understood and they cannot comprehend advanced language such as the one that would be required to address teh topic the way Harrison was. He responded by saying that that was creating a hierarchy within itself because we are claiming that the lower class is inherently dumber than everyone else. Saying that the topic is setting up unneccesary boundries to the round and saying that debating the topic leads to nuke war are two very different things and one is clearly better for debate than the other. There are debaters out there who write critiques that are spectacular and I would even go as far as to encourage more cases like them, but they require an immense amount of research and understanding of the material.
Posted from: 169.231.29.230
April 12th, 2005 22:18
I’ve yet to see someone running a K in order to win the round on a technicality or confusing their opponents. But maybe like, in mythical progressive land where the real progressive debate happens, people throw down the confusion.
Posted from: 24.44.230.238
April 12th, 2005 22:38
Basically I am saying that you can run a critique and still be topical and say things with substance. Am I wrong to think that critiques get out of hand and obscure???
Posted from: 169.231.29.230
April 12th, 2005 22:47
I duno what “out of hand means”. Example?
Posted from: 67.124.49.254
April 12th, 2005 22:49
I don’t really see any form to this discussion so I’m just going to an idea in the air.
Why is LD have such a history of strict formality? It seems that in CX, or at least from the rounds I’ve watched, that everyone is much more relaxed and visibly enjoying the experience, whereas in LD you can get yelled at for whispering in the back during someone’s prep time. I honestly think this event needs to lighten up. So what if we feel like yelling about dinosaurs? Why does the event have to become another class or “educational experience”? I find the academic aspect fufilling but that shouldn’t be the primary concern.
Posted from: 68.110.162.251
April 12th, 2005 23:00
craig,
I guess shallow cases filled with 300 year old essentialist assertions dont get out of hand?
Why is spreading Butler or Baurillaurd any worse than reading sixteen pages of archaic language?
Posted from: 24.44.230.238
April 12th, 2005 23:10
Navot- out of nhand=off topic or not the right place for that specific argumentation or ridiculous
Dweeks- What I’m saying leads us all the way back to topicality essentially. I am looking to the content of the arguments and not the inspirations first off, but I think that critical theory is easier to corrupt than something like Locke because of the simpler concepts discussed. Anyway, the misuse of a critique leads to the question of whether or not one person is being topical or whether or not how they are doing it should be valid. The latter is really limited to the performative critique. Look, I have seen some very good critiques and I don’t think they should be thrown out of the activity because if run well, they enhance the activity. I just think we need to be cautious about what we are in fact saying within the critique.
Posted from: 169.231.29.230
April 12th, 2005 23:18
I’ve already endoresed non-topical cases above. I think in the event that the discourse/assumptions a side makes are bad, they should have the right to criticise that. Even if it means eschewing debating about the veracity of a topic.
As for “not the right place” or “rediculous”, I’m still unsure as to what that means.
Posted from: 204.147.92.3
April 12th, 2005 23:24
A judge has never made a bad decision. In THEIR mind they were persuaded one way over another for particular reasons. While a debater may think they should or should not have won a round only the person who signs the ballot has an opinion that matters in that round. In the discussion about what LD ought to be, and I still embrace the old school approach more than the new, we MUST not forget what debate is fundamentally about: persuading a judge to vote for you. You can use all the tools you want including unique positions, speed, etc. but unless you can convince the person with the ballot that you win it doesn’t matter. That is, at its most fundamental core level, what debate always has been and always will be.
(I don’t intend to say no judge has ever made a mistake or made a POOR decision, I’m just saying that if a debater FAILED to persuade them they won in a round they didn’t earn the ballot and therefore didn’t meet the fundamental burden of winning a debate round.)
Posted from: 67.124.49.254
April 12th, 2005 23:37
hahahahahaha
(I’ll give context to that later when I’m less tired.)
Posted from: 192.118.132.216
April 13th, 2005 04:35
I’ll admit I don’t know a hell of a lot about the modern day K but, as I understand it, here’s my problem (and I base a fair amount of what I think on that Stanford RR round so if that wouldn’t ground me much, sorry (and the debaters were really good debaters who, in my opinion, made really strange arguments at unreasonably high rates of speed for a communication activity).
The Jan/Feb resolution says something like R: A strict separation of church and state best serves democracy. Maybe it’s just me but the task of the debaters seems clear: the aff needs to show that, yes, strict separation best serves democracy (certainly, these terms need defining, but anyone is capable of coming up with fair definitions), and the neg does the opposite. Who cares if debating this question creates a mindset of phenomenological bestiality (I’m at work; I deal with “adult material”)? What would a critique of this question illustrate (or how would it better deal with the question than the question itself?)? That might be an interesting discussion but since tournament invitations say, “we’ll be debating such and such resolution” then the wording of the resolution should more or less proscribe how debate is done. Yes, there aren’t any rules as to how to debate, per se, but I do think there are definite burdens (which I actually think are equally incumbent upon the neg and the aff). Defend your position in a clown suit or while scratching your balls in CX but I think you’re obligated to do what the resolution tells you to do.
As far as the coaching issue is concerned, I basically agree with the dinosaurs. I was a hired gun for a year and my debater was relatively successful but, as a college sophomore, my best bet was to get him to win (that’s what I was paid for) rather than impart all the virtues of the activity (which I’m wholly unfamiliar with, too). So there’s a clear trade off, although not a complete trade: college kids can make debaters really successful (as, of course, can real live coaches), sometimes moreso than some coaches, but coaches are more likely to do the real teaching of the big picture skills. In light of the fact that coaches can do it all, it seems certainly preferable to be in a place like Hen Hud than a school where you have to take care of everything on your own.
If coaches decide that certain brands of debate are more persuasive, in that they best affirm or negate the resolution, then the activity probably will and should go in that direction. There is no doubt, though, that judging pools are a whole lot younger now and ex-debaters like it spicy so the trend is gonna be towards the K and the T and some nonsense. Of course, coaches change their views and disagree about how debate should be done but their sheer experience as adults, educators, and participants in the activity gives them the final word.
Posted from: 207.127.143.101
April 13th, 2005 05:55
This thread is obviously way too long and the topics too varied to have any coherent organization or conclusion.
My only question is: why do coaches care about how kids debate? Why is a 40 minute debate about standards worse than a 40 minute debate about the social contract? The resolution introduces a topic, the schem gives a side, and from then on, it’s up to the student’s control what he/she wants to do with it. There’s a reason why debaters, on average, are much more adept thinkers and better writers than other high school students.
Debate seems to be a teacher’s dream:
Kids love and dedicate lots of time and energy to an activity in which they work hard and learn about tons of stuff.
Isn’t that good enough?
Posted from: 205.202.156.252
April 13th, 2005 07:08
First of all, it was really good to hear from Noah Grabowitz. I will always think of him as one of the finest Lincoln-Douglas debaters I ever got to judge.
But mainly, I want to address a couple other things which have been brought up recently in this thread, and I’ll warn all reading that this is long.
Why do coaches care about how kids debate? petey asks.
First of all, I do respect the time and intellectual commitment put in by debaters, debate judges of all ages, parents, janitors, administrators, and everyone who supports debate in some way. But that doesn’t mean, as a teacher, I should decide that it’s best to let my students independently decide everything about how they debate. If my students are abusive to their opponents, or to judges, or to anyone at a school where we are guests, it is my absolute duty to guide them to behave otherwise, and if they won’t change their ways, to get them out of the activity.
As to more substantive instruction on “how to debate,” I’m simply going to argue that my experience as a teacher and coach means that I know much more about how to debate than do my students. I can see the big picture educationally much better than the vast majority of 14-18 year olds, no matter how intelligent they are. I have certainly worked with students more intelligent than I am, and I’m quite sure I am working with one or two right now who quite likely have more raw intelligence than