VBD Video Coverage: TOC Run-off Round
Fabien Thayamballi
Tara Tedrow
The round was adjudicated by Jon Cruz, Sean Mumper, and Adam Nelson. On a 3-0 decision, the panel voted for the negative.
Click to the streaming video. You can either watch the Windows Media Version or the Quicktime Version.
What did you think of the debate?
Thanks again to Jon Cruz and Ryan Hamilton for dealing with the logistics. Thanks to J.W. Patterson, the debaters, and the judges for allowing us to film. We have paid some big bucks to get professional streaming technology, so we hope you enjoy it You should be able to get pretty good video and audio quality. You can enlarge the window and get a big image. You can even drag the video bar and jump to a later part of the debate. Many people should be able to watch simultaneously. You do need either Windows Media Player or Quicktime installed on your computer (before either link will work). And some of the audio for the cross-ex is not as good because of the microphone.
Tomorrow: Octafinals
Your Sponsor
We are still taking applications for both sessions on a first-come, first-serve basis until spots fill. So join your fellow debaters this summer at UCLA! For more information, contact michelin@victorybriefs.com or call (310) 453-1681.
We are excited that Tara will be joining us on staff this summer!
Popularity: 2%
test
Posted from: 24.9.179.54
May 7th, 2005 00:40
werd. thanks VBI for getting this put up!
i think the round was a bit muddled, actually. but my experience to faster debate is limited, so i’m not sure how qualified i am to make that judgment…
Posted from: 70.33.109.201
May 7th, 2005 00:55
omigosh…I love debate
please sir can I have another
Posted from: 24.126.168.108
May 7th, 2005 01:11
Get back and I see this on VBD, so I decide to stay up and watch it to avoid all the potential lag later on.
Anyways, I thought it was an interesting round and I would have liked to hear the RFDs (I wonder if Mumper voted on T?). I mean I understood everything and most of the arguments, as well as where they were on the flow, and I wasn’t flowing, so in that sense the round was pretty clear and not super muttled. I liked Fabien’s case, and Tara’s case was a solid stock case (more or less in terms of stockness). I wonder how the round would have evolved had Fabien read a definition card in the 1AR, or if Tara had directly responded to the “Ebola virus” argument. I think she somewhat answered it by saying that sections of the case are speculative, but again, I didnt flow it. Also, it would have been clearler if Fabien made clear why his case was still topical under her definiton in the 1AR (it was somewhat unclear to me). Congrats to both debaters.
Thanks VBD for providing this great service.
Posted from: 151.204.147.105
May 7th, 2005 03:53
Adam Nelson voted on T, Jon said he could vote on T or on the AC turns about MLK etc, Mumper voted on that too.
I think?
Posted from: 65.101.101.70
May 7th, 2005 06:02
some of the sound on the quicktime version isn’t working, and he media player button only refreshes the screen… help
Posted from: 24.238.217.252
May 7th, 2005 06:39
just curious, but why did u make it streaming only? it just prevents people from being able to watch it where they want and it makes people have to stream it from this site everytime they watch it, which means more bandwidth used for you guys.
Posted from: 24.9.103.208
May 7th, 2005 08:12
+1.
Why the hell is this streaming only? I’m ecstatic this was posted, but it would be really nice to be able to download it.
Posted from: 66.167.22.14
May 7th, 2005 08:24
how long will this round be on the site before it is deleted if its deleted
Posted from: 70.32.114.163
May 7th, 2005 08:34
I’m glad people are excited at these videos… For a variety of legal and technical reasons (and in the interest of time given the deal we worked out with our server), we are streaming. That’s just the way it is–for now. If people want to talk about that, email me… I don’t want the comment thread to get hijacked… I promise this debate will be up for a while (certainly until its newsworthiness has diminished).
Posted from: 68.198.144.175
May 7th, 2005 08:43
way to go VBD!
this is awesome…I look forward to the upcoming videos
Posted from: 68.88.64.116
May 7th, 2005 09:10
I really think this is a huge deal in the proliferation of free educational debate tools. People who have never seen a round at TOC or been to Lexington can now watch extremely good debaters for free. This is a tremendous service to the debate community.
However, I would offer a few words of caution to impressionable debaters:
1) these are merely examples of ways of debating. I don’t think anyone should craft their styles to be identical to Tara’s, Fabien’s Adwait’s, or mine. That’s because none of us are perfect. Take what we do best and try to integrate that into your style.
2) despite what you may think, you are not watching the most important people in the room. This is a realization it takes many debaters take too long to realize. The cameras might be on myself, will, or adwait, but other debaters need to remember that these debaters are (or should be) adapting to the judges in the back of the room. What sucks is that we can’t see how the judges react to each arg (maybe one day…). They are mre important than any debater.
Regardless, this is a great tool but remember to take each video with a grain of salt.
David Wolfish
Posted from: 70.32.114.163
May 7th, 2005 09:22
I agree with David completely. You’ll see when the other videos go up, too, that there are different styles depending on the round. The one constant (at TOC, at States, at Nats, at CFL) etc., is that smart, intelligent, articulate debating wins–but you have to be able to communicate that to the people who are watching….
Posted from: 70.32.114.163
May 7th, 2005 09:26
By the way, instead of emulating style per se, I think these videos are very useful in at least two ways:
(1) See if you can flow the arguments and follow them. Being able to flow AND understand everything that’s going on is a critical part of becoming successful, at any level. And being able to flow and follow extremely fast debaters will equip you to handle anything. Remember, it’s not just being able to write things down, it’s being able to understand. In fact, after you flow it once, watch it again and follow it on the flow… did you miss anything?
(2) Try to actually figure out what they’re saying and why it’s important… And then see what you would have said in response or handled it. Even if you yourself don’t debate this way, this exercise is extremely valuable to getting better. Rarely do you get to replay a round to make sure you got it, and understood it.
In short, don’t be a passive learner.
Posted from: 24.6.20.123
May 7th, 2005 10:58
YAY!
Posted from: 69.142.209.230
May 7th, 2005 11:24
David is right, and quoting dead Roman poets gives him street cred.
Posted from: 24.196.246.145
May 7th, 2005 12:34
Just a quick question about something I have seen in this round and heard mentioned before: Is the passing of constructives from one debater to the other in-round common? About how common is it? Thanks in advance for answering a dumb question. : )
Posted from: 207.172.150.102
May 7th, 2005 12:50
If debaters go fast, calling for cases is very common. For instance, if you don’t understand something a debater says, it’s seen as an alternative to wasting CX on understanding arguments within the case. Heck, in many instnaces, it’s appropriate to simply walk over and read the case over the debater’s shoulder.
Posted from: 4.166.18.245
May 7th, 2005 13:01
the opinions of the above poster ARE NOT a typical debate practice, most would consider it extremely annoying for someone to read over another’s shoulder, not to mention it makes no sense strategically when it’s harder to flow standing up.
it makes far more sense to just ask your opponent to put a page face down on the table when they finish it and/or pass it to you.
Posted from: 169.231.29.230
May 7th, 2005 13:11
To add on things I think you should do if you’re watching this round
1) take victor’s advice on flowing
2) after CX, try and come up with a picture of what strategies the debater will take based on what you heard in CX
3) after each speach, figure out what you would have done differently and figure out what you would do if you were giving the next speech
4) at the end, figure out who you think won the round and provide a justification for why.
DOing the 3 things + flowing will help improve strategic skills and help you in conceptualizing rounds in ways that judges will find persuasive.
Posted from: 143.229.132.226
May 7th, 2005 14:33
David’s comment is well-taken. For a variety of behind-the-scenes reasons, we didn’t include RFDs in this inaugural run, but I anticipate that we will in the future!
Posted from: 65.12.227.240
May 7th, 2005 14:43
Thanks to VBD for this AMAZING service. Can’t wait for tomorrow’s installment. :)
Posted from: 143.229.132.226
May 7th, 2005 14:45
Also, I very much agree with Victor and Navot’s suggestions. These videos work better as practice for flowing, reflecting on in-round strategy, and perceiving the round from the perspective of a judge than as a model for “perfection.” Truth be told, while I judged consistently excellent rounds the entire weekend, I doubt the debaters who were recorded would claim these mark their greatest moments. (Though semis and finals were particularly awesome!)
Even the most nationally-successful debaters make choices that might surprise or confuse you in terms of presentation, persuasion, strategy, argumentation, analysis, or what have you. Reflecting upon the choices made, as Navot suggests, and refusing to be a passive learner, as Victor notes, are really educational.
Posted from: 69.23.246.38
May 7th, 2005 14:54
I don’t know if anyone’s mentioned this yet, but this round was much closer than a 3-0. Having discussed the round with multiple people afterwards, I know I’m not alone in thinking Fabien won the round.
This isn’t at all a bash on Tara (whose babies I want to have, despite of some rumors ;-) ), but more a 1. yayfabien and 2. notice to those watching that Tara wasn’t 100% the winner like a 3-0 indicates
Posted from: 69.23.246.38
May 7th, 2005 14:56
hahaha right before the first cx, I’m pretty sure Fabien says
“this is a huge struggle”
Posted from: 141.149.183.7
May 7th, 2005 15:15
Where is Tara going to college?
Posted from: 143.229.132.226
May 7th, 2005 15:21
I overheard Tim Case saying that Tara won a full scholarship to Wake Forest to debate for them, which is a pretty huge honor, given that they passed over policy debaters to give her and only her this scholarship.
If that is true, congratulations !!
Posted from: 143.229.132.226
May 7th, 2005 15:27
I think Casey is right that this was a close round. To be honest, as I had mentioned to Sean and Adam afterwards, I was surprised it wasn’t a split decision. The disagreement by some with the panel’s decision - which is not uncommon after very close, high-intensity, and high-stakes rounds - is another good reason to take Victor and Navot’s (and David’s) suggestions about how to make the most educationally out of these videos.
Anyway, congratulations to Tara and Fabien, not just on being in the run-off round, but for starring in the first-ever sanctioned recording of the TOC! :o)
And, a line of thought based on Casey’s second post…the best line of the TOC came in prep time during octas, so it unfortunately wasn’t recorded, but I’ll share it tomorrow, when that admittedly snippy round gets posted. :o)
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
May 7th, 2005 16:09
i dont want to catch a ton of flak for this because i really like both of the debaters and think that this is a close round. that said, given that the actual judges’s RFDs were not taped, it makes sense to me that people (debaters, judges, coaches, etc.) should post their views on what happened/how to evaluate the round/etc. since i think that there were ways to vote for either debater, im going to post what i see as the ways to vote neg (i list that first simply because tara picked up) and then the ways that i see to vote aff. i’ll leave it up to the reader to guess which i personally agree with.
NEG RFD:
fabien’s offense is contigent on him either winning lavzee or the argument at the bottom of the case that he makes a big deal out of in the 1/2AR.
i think that the lavzee card is mitigated in two ways:
1. taras extension about MLK and stuff which at least says that fabiens impacts are speculative and at most actually turns the AC.
2. the fact that the card links pretty hard into taras turn off the standard about fabien essentializing religion
the argument at the bottom seems to shift a tiny bit between speeches. in the AC it says “neg has no garaunteed benefit”, 1ar says “neg has no definitive ground”, 2ar says “aff has the only substantive benefit”. these are all essentially the same argument (the discrepancy is probably just how i flowed it; im not claiming anything was new by any means), but they all require that fabien has (a) offense that is (b) unique; if he doesnt, we can vote neg on presumption.
1. by mitigating lavzee, tara calls part (a) into question. i also think shes winning that there are internal checks in democracy (argument off the criterion about poor people still voting). this is where i see even a little bit of neg offense - tara might put pressure on people, but fabien systemically excludes them.
2. i think that fabien mishandles the overview a little bit; if tara is correct that fabiens cards are about capitalism, he loses uniqueness, but if shes incorrect and theyre about religion, it feeds into the turn on the standard (essentialization) which fabien admits in the 1AR would create an impact wash.
so i think one could vote neg on presumption, on the turn to lavzee about the church helping the poor, or on the weighing (systemic exclusion coming off the eckins card in taras NC is worse than the potential pressure on poor people).
AFF RFD
T: for me, the topicality debate becomes a wash. its never clear in the round how we weigh between tara’s definition (which fabien says isnt really defining strict separation) and fabien’s (which tara says he just made it). fabien is also right in the 1AR to point out that tara isnt giving any reasons that T is a voter; at worst, fabien has to meet her interpretation. i think that fabien’s extension at the bottom of the AC probably makes the T debate irrelevant.
so, speaking of that, the extension at the bottom of the ac:
fabien’s argument is that the negative world has no clearly defined ground and as such can’t claim benefits of a particular type of non-strict separation. although tara’s case implicitly questions this, it never gets directly argued on the AC. fabien makes it clear in the 1AR and again in the 2AR that its a pre-standards voting issue, which makes it an easy way out of a very complex round. also, his extension immediately below this argument that, even if he isnt solving 100%, the message of separation does good things takes out a lot of tara’s arguments against the AC and probably links into her counter-interpretation. thus, even a slight risk of the aff impacts is sufficient to affirm post-standards, because things like genocide and violence preclude the possibility of participation.
Posted from: 67.166.163.130
May 7th, 2005 16:15
casey, thats probably why you didnt have a ballot. also, so b/c you didnt think tara won was she the winner by 92%, 85%, or was it just by the measly 51%?
ps. i didnt watch the round, i just dont think casey’s comment makes much sense.
Posted from: 128.252.50.32
May 7th, 2005 16:16
“I know I’m not alone in thinking Fabien won the round.”
CTS I think there was a reason you were watching not debating.
Experts don’t go 4-3
Sam
Posted from: 69.23.246.38
May 7th, 2005 16:25
oh dear, I done been pwnd for my comment about how people shouldn’t assume Tara won the round really obviously…
Posted from: 169.231.29.230
May 7th, 2005 16:30
How many times do we have to go over the fact that just because you don’t meet the Sam Duby standard of excellence does not preclude you from sharing your opinion?
How many times do we have to tell you Sam, that your position that going 4-3 or not qualifying nullifies a person’s right to contribute is ABSOULUTELY nonsensical?
And on top of all that Sam, you are hardly the one to say questioning judge’s decisions is illegitimate.
As for Daryl, don’t trip. Your comment doesn’t make much sense either.
All Casey was saying was that the 3-0 decision does not reflect how close the round was, especially given the fact that other people who watched the round thought/think that Fabien won.
I don’t care to make a judgment on who I thought won the round, although if someone asks me I’ll tell them. I do however, care that elitist people like Sam Duby decide that because only four people make it to semifinals each year, only four people have valid opinions.
Do us all a favor, get off of your ego trip, and stop making ridiculous ad hom attacks.
Posted from: 68.212.161.158
May 7th, 2005 16:38
maybe its because i was mainly an extemper and didnt shift into LD and the whole vbd thing til really late in high school but i am amazed at how it looks like a thread of comments on the posting of a video already has the beginning of insults/arguing in it
…i mean all someone did was say not to think the 3-0 meant someone was destroyed in round
and fyi a TOC record doesn’t make someone an expert or dq them from it…seeing as there are a huge number of experts that coach and judge that came before the TOC existed
im done
Posted from: 67.166.163.130
May 7th, 2005 16:41
1) i dont know why a 3-0 necessarily indicates a face crush, anyone who followed the national circuit this year would probably assume this was a fairly close round, based on both tara and fabien’s competitive success, and more importantly no one on the thread had said it was a face crush.
2) the problem with her comment is that it does undermine the ACTUAL decisions in the round, which makes younger kids, whom when watching probably dont understand the nuances of the round, question the validity of mumpers/cruz/nelson’s decision.
Posted from: 67.166.163.130
May 7th, 2005 16:41
1) i dont know why a 3-0 necessarily indicates a face crush, anyone who followed the national circuit this year would probably assume this was a fairly close round, based on both tara and fabien’s competitive success, and more importantly no one on the thread had said it was a face crush.
2) the problem with her comment is that it does undermine the ACTUAL decisions in the round, which makes younger kids, whom when watching probably dont understand the nuances of the round, question the validity of mumpers/cruz/nelson’s decision.
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
May 7th, 2005 16:42
question for sam:
what does one’s record need to be to qualify for “expert” status? im not sure if im infallible yet.
Posted from: 134.82.142.23
May 7th, 2005 16:48
I’ll be the first to say this about Navot’s response to Duby:
PWND!
Posted from: 136.167.228.158
May 7th, 2005 16:49
The decision was actually (at most) a 2-0; Jon Cruz did not go 4-3 at the TOC.
If anyone knows the other two judge’s records at the TOC, please post them immediately.
Posted from: 136.167.228.158
May 7th, 2005 16:49
The decision was actually (at most) a 2-0; Jon Cruz did not go 5-2 at the TOC.
If anyone knows the other two judge’s records at the TOC, please post them immediately.
Posted from: 169.231.29.230
May 7th, 2005 16:49
I know that a 3-0 with 3 excellent judges is usually seen as indicating a clear win for one side. While this isn’t a universal phenomenon, casey’s comment seemed to be purley clarificational rather than a normative invalidation of the judge’s decision.
Which sort of answers number two. But explicitly, I don’t see how saying you disagree with the judge’s decision in anyway undermines it. Its silly on a multitude of levels. First, no one says a judge who squirrels necessarily undermines the decisions of the judges who voted together.
Second, its silly on the level that questioning doens’t equate to dissent. Debate rounds are very subjective because people flow, interperate, understand and evaluate arguments differently. With a complex round such as this one, there are bound to be differences of opinion. The fact that three judges managed to see the round in the same way doesn’t necessarily indicate that they’re opinion was the correct one. Nor does it imply that the judges are bad for voting a certain way. It simply indicates a difference of opinion.
I’m pretty sure those are acceptable. But I might be wrong. In which case I appologize to Big Brother, Ashcroft, the Thought Police, and Duby for daring to question objective truth. 2+2=5 and all that.
Posted from: 140.247.147.74
May 7th, 2005 16:52
I haven’t actually watched the round, but as a person who judges outrounds often enough, I can say that the breakdown of a decision says almost nothing about how close the round was. Often, a round can be very close, but very clear (as I imagine finals was, not that I’ve seen it), or a round can be fairly muddled (as this one seems to have been, based on the comments) with 3 people slogging through to the same decision, if not the same interpretation.
I think it would be a useful thing to, in the future, include judge’s RFDs with rounds that are taped. I don’t know if that’s possible, but it’s a thought.
Posted from: 69.110.144.206
May 7th, 2005 17:12
The audio is clearer if you reduce the bass. (in my experience at least)
Posted from: 143.229.132.226
May 7th, 2005 17:14
The final round of CBI was a 14-0 decision for Adwait over Hirsh, if one counts the student votes individually and adds them to the other 6 judges. The round, however, was not a face crush: it was simply to clear to the adjudicators.
From my perspective, as a judge of the round, I felt the same way: clear (from my perspective), but not a crushing.
Posted from: 128.252.50.32
May 7th, 2005 17:17
I think you’re 100% right Navot that it’s ok to say I don’t agree with a certain decision. The next 2 questions become. Based on what level of knowledge/experience do you make that determination? If there isn’t a certain level of credibility/experience/success behind that dissent, who cares if you dissent?
Since when is elitism defined as “Preferring those with achievements and objectivity to those who lack it”. I don’t think a disagreement over what defines credibility is a matter of elitism. I think the new mentality (that emerged during Edina’s recent domination) that even if I don’t win the ballots, I might have actually won the round or won the round in the eyes of my friends is very comforting for people because it allows everyone to win. I think just looking to the Score Board and the brutal truth is not as easy because I think it forces the realization that lots of people actually lose. I do think that over the long run records are by far the best evaluation of success relative to your peer group. Welcome to a competitive activity. Losing is part of the game.
CTS has continually posited herself as an expert on various debate issues. I don’t think she’s done anything to back up that claim.
Maybe we should just save the thousands spent on judges and just have competitors after they lose their 3rd round at TOC start judging?
My personal opinion is that students giving RFDs or their thoughts on the decision of a round at a competitive tournament is either a) a waste of time or b) detrimental. Students are some of the most biased judges I think it’s incredibly beneficial to envision yourself as the judge and figure out how you’d judge but posting your rfd or which way you’d have voted isn’t very helpful to anyone. Most people are sitting and watching outrounds because they don’t have as firm an understanding of how to evaluate arguments as the competitors or adjudicators. Of course, there are always exceptions.
But please continue to villify me because I think playing judge when you didn’t finish in the top 25% of the pool is a bit silly
Posted from: 143.229.132.226
May 7th, 2005 17:23
Claire - we will definitely include judge RFDs in the future. We were working out details regarding consent to taping with the tournament, but that should be fine next year. (I agree, it would have helped!)
P.S. Sorry it took me forever to respond to the e-mail about Mozilla! I think you’ll like the new look that’s coming to VBD soon….
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
May 7th, 2005 17:25
“My personal opinion is that students giving RFDs or their thoughts on the decision of a round at a competitive tournament is either a) a waste of time or b) detrimental. Students are some of the most biased judges I think it’s incredibly beneficial to envision yourself as the judge and figure out how you’d judge but posting your rfd or which way you’d have voted isn’t very helpful to anyone. Most people are sitting and watching outrounds because they don’t have as firm an understanding of how to evaluate arguments as the competitors or adjudicators. Of course, there are always exceptions.”
i dont really want to get involved with the vitriol here, im pretty sure that this video gives a unique opportunity for the students who WERE in outrounds to comment on the performance of their peers…
Posted from: 67.166.163.130
May 7th, 2005 17:30
Navot- why do you feel the need to act like a martyr whenever you have the chance to call Sam out? It seems to me like their is a huge double standard that exists within the circles of the NSD/NDF gangbang, for example Paul Schiano has the audacity to call the TOC this year a joke(for god knows why reason, but hey, he thinks he’s bigtime) and you all are just like “hahahahahah man youre so funny hahahahahahaha” yet, when sam says casey probably aint the best judge for innumerable reasons(which is just true), you all are like CRUSADE TIME. so if any of you geniuses care to explain the logic behind this to me, and please if youre going to make character shots i know i aint the standard of greatness so spare us all the time, rather itd be nice to see, for once, you all actually step up to the plate and make some sense/explain why the double standard exists.
Posted from: 68.88.64.116
May 7th, 2005 17:32
cts said,” don’t know if anyone’s mentioned this yet, but this round was much closer than a 3-0.”
Sam is abrasive but I do think he’s right in the sense that you really aren’t a judge and get to decide how ballot counts affect the closeness of a round. We all think there are some close rounds that are 3-0s and others that are 3-2s. However, your statement was a fact: this round was much closer than a 3-0. This raises a few questions that I don’t think you can answer:
How close must a round be to be a 3-0?
What defines close?
How much closer did it need to be a 2-1, for tara or a 2-1 for fabien?
I think Sam is wrong if his post could be construed to mean people shouldn’t discuss the round. I don’t think this was his intention, however, he is right in the sense that we should not be making statements about the accuracy of the decision without hearing the exact RFDs. After the RFDs, that’s fine. I’ve always thought that judges should warrant their ballots in the same way debaters warrant arguments.
What we fail to recognize when we are not debating is the srategic adaptations debaters make for judges. For example, the quetsion has been raised about the reading of constructives, but what about them sitting down the whole round? That was a strategic choice (a very obvious one) that no one is talking about.
The importance of Sam’s post is that we never know what people did in a round and for what exact reasons. For example, I am willing to lose the flow game in front of some judges and not for others. However, if someone walks out of the round saying the round was much closer in a round where I go big picture for the 2ar and drop most of the line by line, it is belittling to the in-round strategies of the debaters and the intelligence of the adjudicators.
In sum: people should talk about rounds and have discussions about RFDs, but because we can’t know exactly the startegic purpose of every style, phrase, or rhetoric, it is not fruitful to say how close a round really was because the debaters were not (hopefully) adapting to the spectators.
Posted from: 169.231.29.230
May 7th, 2005 17:36
Sam, I vilify you because you insult my friends. But I’ll engage you substantively because you do raise some good points.
My objections to your position are:
1) the standard you offer for when an opinion becomes valid is elitist insofar as it says that only the top echelon of debaters each year are qualified to contribute to the activity. Ignoring the fact that Casey could easily be included in the top level of debaters based on her competitive success, people who have not been wildly successful on the circuit have ended up contributing a lot to the activity. I’m pretty sure that Jake, Jon, and Bietz weren’t the most successful debaters in their classes. But Jake has coached some of the most successful debaters on the circuit, Bietz has established a record setting squad, and Jon has done more to open up this activity and increase inclusiveness than a lot of other people. The validity of a person’s opinion should be contingent on how well it is articulated and defended, not who it comes from. I think that’s pretty intuitive. The source of analytical arguments does not implicate their validity.
That ended up being like three objections rolled into one. Its elitist, its historically myopic, and logically untrue.
2) You’re argument invalidates the educational experience gained from critically evaluating rounds. Trying to decipher who you think won the round and justifying it was one of the ways I learned how to debate in this activity, because it forced me to conceptualize rounds in ways that judges can understand and accept. I think it enhances strategic skills and is necessary for people to understand how debate rounds function holistically. That’s why VBI had us write RFD’s for the Student Demo Rounds and our labs compared those RFDs to the ones the guest panel gave. While it is obvious that people who have yet to graduate high school should not be determining who is the ToC champion, the exchange of opinions and views on rounds is an educational process that enhances the activity. So yeah, there’s winners and losers. But to say that everyone except Adwait, Leiter, Hirsh, and Wolfish is not equipped with the faculty to offer their opinions on who won the round is hardly beneficial to the activity.
This is getting really long, so I’ll just summarize.
1) its elitist to say that only successful people and judges should share their opinions on debate rounds
2) its not educational
Posted from: 128.252.50.32
May 7th, 2005 17:41
1. I’m all for people writing RFDs. The process of doing writing it is the valuable part you’ll notice VBI doesn’t have kids stand up and read them, but leaves that job to the instructors.
2. You’re right people who didn’t win a lot have contributed a fair amount, but NOT by posting I thought the person who lost on a 3-0 acutally won the round. You have yet to explain what the value is of that.
What was educational about CTS’s post?
Why not answer DP’s answer of the NSD/NDF double standard?
Posted from: 169.231.29.230
May 7th, 2005 17:44
For the record, I thought Pawls comment on this year’s ToC was ridiculous and asinine. But Paul wasn’t insulting a friend of mine. More specifically, Sam has made similar arguments regarding the validity of my participation in this activity in the past. So his comments about Casey kind of touched home.
As someone who was not particularly successful as a debater, I think its important to give so-called ’strugglers’ a chance to prove themselves outside of the adversarial format. I
In the event that an NSD/NDF staffer says something I disagree with, I’ll call them out on it. For example, I agreed with Duby AT and the rest regarding the necessity of a ToC Case exchange.
I won’t claim to be unbiased, because my friends and debate and how I view the activity are will always inform the opinions I take and what fights I want to pick.
But I hardly think I’m the Dopplepalmer’s martyr.
Posted from: 169.231.29.230
May 7th, 2005 17:50
This posting format is a struggle. I didn’t answer DP until above because I hadn’t read his post since I was composing mine.
I don’t think Casey’s post should be read as a normative judgment that Fabien got screwed, Tara didn’t deserve to win the round, Mumper is a moron that can’t make decisions, etc.
Rather, it should be read as an opportunity for people to discuss the round and the implications of Fabien’s and Tara’s strategic choices on the RFD’s.
Cruz concurred - the round was close. He was surprised it wasn’t a 2-1. These should not be seen as attempts to say that we should go back in time and have Fabien debate Wolfish in octs. It should be seen as an openness for people to question the decision and formulate their own opinion.
I might be reading too much into casey’s post. If I am, she can correct me.
Posted from: 143.229.132.226
May 7th, 2005 17:52
while mr. cruz thought it was close, he also thought it was clear from his p.o.v. according to what he said above and others in the room watching also thought it was clear for tara
but i guess its all based on p.o.v.
Posted from: 169.231.29.230
May 7th, 2005 17:53
Sorry for the triple-post. My last post wasn’t as clear as I would like.
I was somewhat worried that people would see the 3-0 and assume there was no way to justify a ballot for fabien. That obviously isn’t true. Casey’s points out that some people thought fabien won. So it should be seen as an opportunity for people to formulate their opinion.
Since we’re not in a camp right now, there aren’t any lab leaders to talk about the Round, nor can we easily access Adam Nelsons or Mumper’s RFD’s. So at best people can post their views on the round and discuss.
Posted from: 136.242.122.72
May 7th, 2005 18:04
Haha I thought my record always put me in a particularly unique postion to comment on the judging at TOC — the bottom looking up is just as good a perspective as the top looking down.
Posted from: 204.210.37.132
May 7th, 2005 18:12
all imma say is that if there’s ever a panel with duby and evnen on it, i’m going to laugh so hard.
Posted from: 128.12.53.89
May 7th, 2005 18:13
“In sum: people should talk about rounds and have discussions about RFDs, but because we can’t know exactly the startegic purpose of every style, phrase, or rhetoric, it is not fruitful to say how close a round really was because the debaters were not (hopefully) adapting to the spectators.”
I could not agree with this more. I think lots of times audiences confuse good adaptation with bad debating, and that’s just wrong. I can’t count the number of time people have talked negatively about a debater and their “illegitimate wins” just because they’ve adapted to a panel or gone with a strategy that they feel is their best chance at a ballot. For example, I’ve been told (I think in large part because I always made a huge effort to adapt in rounds) that I only won rounds because of “parlor tricks” despite the fact that I probably read as much or more and cut as much evidence or more than just about everyone in the country last year. Obviously there are exceptions to this idea, like blind luck (a judge just choosing a random aspect of the round that clearly wasn’t due to adaptation or thought on the part of the debater, such as the color of their tie) or violations in ethics (new in the 2), but overall I think the reason success and who picks up the ballots at the end of the day are the most important determinants of success is because that’s the only thing that’s even close to a universal goal amongst competitors in the activity.
On the other discussion:
Does Navot like to martyr himself? Sort of, he likes to stand up for his friends against his enemies, which means he picks his battles, we can define that as noble or martyr I guess, at the end of the day which label you choose probably depends on whether you are his friend or his enemy =P
Is Casey the most qualified person ever to comment on a round? No, but neither were the judges on the panel or Sam or Daryl or anyone, really. That’s why our activity is subjective and things like adaptation are necessary.
Does Casey not being the most qualified person judging the round mean that she can’t comment on it? I don’t think so. Is there anything really wrong with a debater stating their opinion on a round, even if it is flawed by some “objective calculus” (oh, and for those asking questions about “how you decide what a close round is”, could you please give us a completely objective and perfect way to decide things like how to adjudicate a round in the first place?)
Did Sam dismiss Casey’s point in the most ad hom and offensive way possible by indicting her performance at the biggest tournament of the year (a performance she may or may not be happy with)? Yeah, but debate is Sam’s play land so he doesn’t mind being a total jerk (I love you Sam, and you may be able to post up here and make it seem like you have a good point, but you gotta concede at least that much).
And finally, the most important question of all: should we get back to more substantive discussion? YES PLEASE.
Posted from: 69.23.246.38
May 7th, 2005 18:14
my post’s point was actually not anything anyone has responded to…
I was simply trying to point out to people watching the video (especially debaters who aren’t as experienced yet and just trying to learn from the round rather than actually critique it) that it’s important not to watch it with the assumption that Tara’s winning the whole time.
I really do feel that a lot of people would watch the round differently if entirely unaware that Tara had won, or that she had won on a 3-0 (which is what I specifically wanted people to avoid).
I’ll grant that I shouldn’t have posted that I thought Fabien won. While I don’t think that’s because I went 4-3 at TOC (I couldn’t find Cruz, Nelson nor Mumper on VB’s scoreboard, by the way), I do think it was at the very least impolite to Tara and the judges.
My point in saying that other people watching disagreed with the decision was simply to show that had the panel been larger, it would not have been 100% of the judges voting for Tara (ie. a 7-4 or something instead of an 11-0).
Conclusion: my overall point was check your assumptions while watching the round, and my point of mentioning my disagreement with the decision was simply to point out that the round was much closer with dissentors in the room).
ps. Navot doesn’t work at NSD nor NDF.
Posted from: 151.204.147.105
May 7th, 2005 18:34
Why did this thread devolve into mudslinging?
I’m cool with people arguing the substance of a round (I think I did argue with Liz and Prashant about the decision afterwards) because I think it a. trains current debaters to be good judges b. it is just a generally educational practice c. serves to checks errant decisions on the part of the judges in the room. So let casey say whatever the hell she wants. If the only people who are capable of judging LD are the 20 someodd people with 5-2 records at TOC well the national circuit is due to shrink pretty drastically pretty quickly. Not to mention a lot of shitty debaters make good judges and a lot of good debaters make shitty judges. And more case specific, Eric Palmer, 5-2 record last year, thought Fabien won too, so if he qualifies as someone who has the right to make decisions, well, yeah, there’s that too.
I think it’s pretty sad that Navot, Duby, Daryl and Casey, as much as I like you all, have become the focus of discussion. You weren’t debating the round and I have yet to see (outside of conversations with Navot and Casey) any of you actually give substantive reasons why the decision is right/wrong. Personally I thought Tara won. But isn’t it kinda pathetic that on a forum that was made to encourage discussion of issues and improve access to quality debate we are too busy focusing on whether casey has the right to spaek her mind and have ignored the actual content of the argument?
Posted from: 69.111.152.253
May 7th, 2005 18:36
is it just me, or is Navot’s prose ponderously big-wordy? i wonder if arguments would be more ‘accessible’ if they were simply put, or written with/spoken in a voice that wasn’t uber-intellectual or academic or whatevz. note that i almost said “particularly” for the syllables to not look stupid posting this.
also, its possible to have a round that is ‘close’ in that 50 well-debated arguments wash but the NEG pulls across the only remaining extension that can clearly be voted on.
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
May 7th, 2005 18:45
im posting this again because we got substantially sidetracked and no one ever bothers to read anything but the last 5-10 posts on any thread.
*REPOST*
i dont want to catch a ton of flak for this because i really like both of the debaters and think that this is a close round. that said, given that the actual judges’s RFDs were not taped, it makes sense to me that people (debaters, judges, coaches, etc.) should post their views on what happened/how to evaluate the round/etc. since i think that there were ways to vote for either debater, im going to post what i see as the ways to vote neg (i list that first simply because tara picked up) and then the ways that i see to vote aff. i’ll leave it up to the reader to guess which i personally agree with.
NEG RFD:
fabien’s offense is contigent on him either winning lavzee or the argument at the bottom of the case that he makes a big deal out of in the 1/2AR.
i think that the lavzee card is mitigated in two ways:
1. taras extension about MLK and stuff which at least says that fabiens impacts are speculative and at most actually turns the AC.
2. the fact that the card links pretty hard into taras turn off the standard about fabien essentializing religion
the argument at the bottom seems to shift a tiny bit between speeches. in the AC it says “neg has no garaunteed benefit”, 1ar says “neg has no definitive ground”, 2ar says “aff has the only substantive benefit”. these are all essentially the same argument (the discrepancy is probably just how i flowed it; im not claiming anything was new by any means), but they all require that fabien has (a) offense that is (b) unique; if he doesnt, we can vote neg on presumption.
1. by mitigating lavzee, tara calls part (a) into question. i also think shes winning that there are internal checks in democracy (argument off the criterion about poor people still voting). this is where i see even a little bit of neg offense - tara might put pressure on people, but fabien systemically excludes them.
2. i think that fabien mishandles the overview a little bit; if tara is correct that fabiens cards are about capitalism, he loses uniqueness, but if shes incorrect and theyre about religion, it feeds into the turn on the standard (essentialization) which fabien admits in the 1AR would create an impact wash.
so i think one could vote neg on presumption, on the turn to lavzee about the church helping the poor, or on the weighing (systemic exclusion coming off the eckins card in taras NC is worse than the potential pressure on poor people).
AFF RFD
T: for me, the topicality debate becomes a wash. its never clear in the round how we weigh between tara’s definition (which fabien says isnt really defining strict separation) and fabien’s (which tara says he just made it). fabien is also right in the 1AR to point out that tara isnt giving any reasons that T is a voter; at worst, fabien has to meet her interpretation. i think that fabien’s extension at the bottom of the AC probably makes the T debate irrelevant.
so, speaking of that, the extension at the bottom of the ac:
fabien’s argument is that the negative world has no clearly defined ground and as such can’t claim benefits of a particular type of non-strict separation. although tara’s case implicitly questions this, it never gets directly argued on the AC. fabien makes it clear in the 1AR and again in the 2AR that its a pre-standards voting issue, which makes it an easy way out of a very complex round. also, his extension immediately below this argument that, even if he isnt solving 100%, the message of separation does good things takes out a lot of tara’s arguments against the AC and probably links into her counter-interpretation. thus, even a slight risk of the aff impacts is sufficient to affirm post-standards, because things like genocide and violence preclude the possibility of participation.
I’d love to hear substantive discussion on these issues. Duby can go first if he’d like, i dont really care, but i want to actually hear how other people would have evaluated the round.
Posted from: 69.111.152.253
May 7th, 2005 18:52
just to clarify, i can read Navot perfectly. i said it in jest, though i think the sophistication of debate case writing nowadays among debaters de-emphasizes communicability. i’m a fan of stupid analogies and rhetorical tricks, and, if i were to ever judge, i would give speaker points for apostrophes.
i do think the TOC champ was right in saying what one thinks is ideal in the debate world is not necessarily right for each round. but on the other hand, i think having a TOC tourney and qualified judges would mean there’s a uniform format that rewards those who are in line with the ‘trends’ of debate. still, i dont think ms. CTS’s comments took away any credence from the judges in a way that could be counterproductive to youngins in their grasping of what is ‘ideal’ debate, since everyone wants to win the way judges would vote, whatever their reservations are.
Posted from: 64.123.102.76
May 7th, 2005 18:57
So Sam Duby makes the rediculously stupid comment that, “Experts don’t go 4-3″. By my count, that means at least 4 people on the UNT staff for this summer are not experts, being that 4-3 at the TOC (or even qualifying to the TOC) would have been an improvement in their performance. Can Sam please explain why debaters should be paying to learn from people who aren’t experts? Because I’m really very curious.
Posted from: 24.110.207.172
May 7th, 2005 19:39
I’ve enjoyed reading the comments on this thread…quite humorous..and I must say congrats to both debaters for an awesome showing at the TOC and for a very close very well fought bubble round. 3-0, 2-1 whatever…
I will say rather comically that I certainly hope records at the TOC dont determine your ability to judge rounds fairly and well…if it does than I apologize to everyone I’ve ever judged in LD, especially Matt and David whom I judged in the outrounds at the TOC…because IVE NEVER EVEN DONE LD…in fact…I just judged my first LD round this December, and I’d like to think that everyone who’s had me as judge didnt think i was moron because of it.
Posted from: 204.210.37.132
May 7th, 2005 20:22
dude i love tim case
Posted from: 204.210.37.132
May 7th, 2005 20:51
also, didn’t daryl go 4-3?
Posted from: 134.173.93.214
May 7th, 2005 21:15
Top 10 Things I’ve learned from this thread:
10. If you didn’t break at TOC, you aren’t allowed to comment on debate rounds. Thank you for informing the public Sam Pinto, I will alert tab rooms and debate camps everywhere.
9. People like to gangbang Daryl.
8. Navot works at a camp known as “NSD/NDF”.
7. Navot is a martyr. Soon he will be canonized as the first saint of dopplepalmerism by Pope Eric I.
6. UNT hires non-experts.
5. You shouldn’t ever criticize or question the validity of judges’ decisions. God forbid that debaters think about rounds.
4. If I do not attack Paul Schiano, but Navot contests something Sam Pinto said, there is a double standard for employees of “NSD/NDF”.
3. 2+2=5
2. NSD/NDF is a band of crusaders. Soon we will recapture the Holy Land. Today Drake University, tomorrow Jerusalem!
1. Sam’s life is best characterized by the Toys R Us theme, “I don’t wanna grow up”.
Posted from: 152.163.100.203
May 7th, 2005 21:26
+1 to Tim Case’s comment.
I think he’s a fine judge. I guess I’m biased b/c I too have never debated a round of LD. Actually that’s a lie. I did it once my sophomore year of hs but then threw up. My ulcer-ridden stomach couldn’t handle it so I switched to duo.
Posted from: 24.46.122.189
May 7th, 2005 21:33
In a round Duby judged me in this year, his RFD was “The Neg forgot to bring a timer”
Now that, folks, is legit
Posted from: 24.46.122.189
May 7th, 2005 21:34
In a round Duby judged me in this year, his RFD was “The Neg forgot to bring a timer”
Now that, folks, is legit
Posted from: 67.124.253.5
May 7th, 2005 21:52
just to make sam happy…
i got to quarters, and i agree with casey.
Posted from: 67.124.49.254
May 7th, 2005 22:15
I don’t want to grow up i’m a toys r us kid!
I love how Duby gets defensive and angry when he’s desperate to fill slots at his camp. NSD IS THE DEVIL!@#)$@!@#AAhhH.
how cute.
Posted from: 128.252.50.32
May 7th, 2005 22:55
You can bash on me you want for phrasing things harshly, but if you’re all 100% right that I was inaccurate,then why don’t they let the debaters that went 4-3 or 3-4 and had pretty good years judge the octos quarters, semis, and finals? Or maybe we’ve screwed this all up and they should be. So someone preferrably those of you without the guts to post your name should start a petition.
I’m not sure why if everyone agrees that you should adapt to the judges why CTS saying I thought this person won/lost has any merit. You can evaluate their strategy given the 3 judges they had to win a ballot but to say I would have voted differently isn’t constructive especially in a world where you were a competitor that was emotionally invested in a tournament. My argument is not that you have to win 5 or 10 rounds at TOC to be a good judge but rather you can’t be a good judge when you’re still a student, especially when you’re at a tournament evaluating a round you wanted to reach. If Aaron Timmons and Cherian Koshy debated at the TOC this year were emotionally invested and had gone 4-3 then yeah they’d make awful bubble round judges too. Tournaments such as the Lexington RR this year and the Greenhill RR in ‘02 show that students sometimes let their emotions and perceptions play a role to reach conclusions that are much different from some of the activities most respected critics.
Now to all my friends
To angry dude who didn’t bring a timer- I dropped you cause you gave an 8 minute 1NR while you were holding the only timer in the room. It wasn’t because you didn’t bring a timer. You can’t give an 8 minute 1NR and expect to win. If you gave a 20 minute routine in gymanastics when the time limit was 6 minutes and then were shocked you didn’t win most people wouldn’t reallyeel that bad for you.
To Epalm- We both know you’re different talking 1 on 1. If you got to puff out your chest to look cool to your supporters more power to you.
To everyone who wants to hear how X or Y would have evaluated the round- The question of how people would evaluate the round is not an appropriate question to ask. It tells us nothing about how to be better debaters. It doesn’t say anything about how one should debate. A discussion of what these judges paradigms are and what moves you’d have made differently given their paradigms might prove to be interesting. For example, last year the common cheer after TOC was that John Mcneil didn’t deserve to win, but at the end of the day he figured out how to win the ballots each time and the trophy sits in Minnesota. So if 10,000,000 people say they don’t think he won and that E Palm crushed him, well that doesn’t change much despite Asmitty’s claim Epalm is the best ever the trophy from TOC along with a boat load of others are still sitting in Minnesota not Ohio
To the why pay for UNT if they are Non-Experts- I mean I’d argue a couple hours with AT given dual wins at St. Marks, Emory, GBS,MBA NFLs,TOC is probably worth a trip to Texas itself. David seemed to dominate, he probably has something smart to say. I mean they don’t have all the groupies they seem to have most of the trophies though. I know there are those who disagree. Shoot me an email if you’re really interested in discussing staff quality, because I’d love to talk about it. I don’t think the UNT staff is perfect by any means. I think we have certain stregths. Online discussions of camps have yielded great lines like “Experience is relative, behold I was like a man of 70 years but could not figure out why the seder was at night until I spoke with Ben Zoma” (Hey a joke only conservative/orthodox Jews get and an answer to Epalm that has to be record breaking)
Asmitty- Daryl went 4-3 but he didn’t say the judges in the bubble round who voted for Epalm screwed up.
To the capitalist out there who is like Duby is doing this to get kids to UNT- YES that’s what this 40,000 dollar undergraduate business degree is teaching me. Criticize something completely unrelated when 95% of customers have already made their decisions is actually the key to increasing profits. FYI, we have 55 spots filled and a staff of people I couldn’t be more proud to be a part of. So I’m sleeping ok over here. Thanks for the concern though.
Lastly to all those who don’t leave a name- If you aren’t going to put your name to it, doesn’t that suggest you don’t even think what you’re saying is that intelligent. If I had something smart to say, I’d probably want to take credit for it.
Posted from: 199.74.93.130
May 7th, 2005 23:01
Double standards? Let’s talk about how Mr. Pinto personally accosts staff members at other camps to harrass them about their employees personal lives. Let’s PLEASE listen to Mr. Pinto about the validity of other’s debate records. As you can all tell, Mr. Pinto is the most validated and sought out critic, and employee, thanks to his immaculate debate record. We should all aspire to a record such as Daryl’s.
Daryl did not go 4-3 at the TOC, we should all listen to him. Maybe the TOC wasn’t a joke to Daryl this year, because he taught the great debate minds that excelled there.
I wish I would have been in Mr. Pinto’s lab, maybe then I could have caught a glimpse of his glory.
I’ll now be watching “Kingdom of Heaven” to get advice on how NSD/NDF should continue their crusades.
Posted from: 67.166.163.130
May 7th, 2005 23:16
paul:
a) i went 4-3, im not necessarily proud of it but for only having really debated 2 years and 1.5 on the national circuit there really isnt much more i can ask for. unlike you i didnt an older really good teammate that would help me out, nor did i have anywhere near the travel opportunities you had till i was a senior.
b) no need to bring your personal beef into this online discussion, unlike you i never did/nor will feel the need to be validated through this activity, so im happy for you that you did so well in debate b/c i know it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside.
c) i put alot of time and effort into my lab last summer and i can guarantee you that my lab people not only had a fun time but also one helluva educational experience. I can guarantee you anyone who gets put into my lab this summer will get 100% from me, and at the end of the day, i think thats all that really matters.
Posted from: 70.32.114.163
May 7th, 2005 23:26
A request: Let’s try to keep these threads civil, and not personal attacks. There are other places people can do that. Let’s try to keep the focus educationally, and if people disagree, let’s leave it at that. We’re providing these videos as a way for people to learn, to ask questions, and for people to answer them. Constructive dialogue is most welcome.
Posted from: 169.231.29.230
May 7th, 2005 23:56
Sam misses the point. The discussion here isn’t claiming teh decision was wrong. Its attempting to derive educational value from analyzing high-profile rounds. All the other arguments Sam and other have made are ancillay. This is going to be my last post on the subject, because i don’t think sam has raised any new or unique objections that haven’t been dealt with. So please: follow home-row’s example and post rfd’s. Discuss the round. Just don’t engage in this nonsensical babbling and mudslinging.
Posted from: 128.252.43.83
May 8th, 2005 00:11
People are also encouraged to post how they would have scored the Ice Dancing in the 2002 Olympics.
Posted from: 67.112.26.11
May 8th, 2005 00:23
Holy Jesus You all write alot……….wow..that took me a long time to read….all i ahve to say is gj to everyone @TOC and i dont see why i cant comment on rounds………..
on anotehr side who feels fabien won the round, if so why?
Posted from: 70.180.111.226
May 8th, 2005 00:44
i didnt watch the movie becasue my computer, much like this flame war, sucks. sam, why is credibility an issue on the vbd, dude? it’s not like anyone slapped the judges and told tehm to be quiet while a better rfd is given. as a side note, there are people who did worse than 4-3 who are respectable debaters too. and what about hadaway and your sister who couldnt attend? i respect you personally sam, i just dont know why you’re saying this.
Posted from: 67.42.243.178
May 8th, 2005 01:03
granted I’m not a top debater with lists of championships, but I really didn’t think this round was very good. I thought it was 1v1 policy. I was really excited about this round just because I’ve heard these names all year, but now I’m just really dissapointed that the tippy-top escheleon of LD debate is like this. I geuss they’re both good at what they’re doing… I just don’t like what they’re doing. But that’s only one opinion. It’s certainly not the worst round I’ve seen- don’t get me wrong, they’re obviously really good. But it was far less than what I expected.
Posted from: 128.252.43.83
May 8th, 2005 01:04
Maybe I’m just missing something. What is educational about competitors/debaters publicly sharing which way they would have voted on the round? I understand completely what is educational about going through the process and envisioning you are the judge. I understand why analyzing a string of arguments makes sense. I’m not sure what is educational about posting an RFD on a message board when the round was debated not as a demonstration but as a contest of adaptation (as every competitive round is) for the ballots of 3 critics. Who learns when another debater explains how they’d have voted? The 2 participants in the round? The critics of the round? Other people watching the video? And what exactly is learnt? Why isn’t discussing performance/adaption based on the judges’ paradigms a much more educational discussion?
Additionally, what is the proper response if someone posts an opinion you disagree with about the round? How can one say I would have voted the other way without taking away legitimacy from the decision? Or a better question if everyone says Fabien won what does that mean? Lastly, I think there was a huge double standard at play in that if I posted comments similar to CTS that I thought Fabien won, I think we would have gotten the same mud sling, because most the time it’s about issues just about being on the opposite side of an issue.
In summation I’d love to know why a here’s how I would have voted is comparatively better to an assessment of adaptation to judge paradigm or just a discussion of the arguments?
Posted from: 24.6.81.188
May 8th, 2005 02:01
I don’t know what the hell is going on up there, but I have a very serious question that needs to be answered — has there ever been a better-looking outround pairing at the TOC? Perhaps Jon “debate trivia” Cruz can help me out here.
I guess I’m not qualified to declare who is beautiful though, since I did not break to elims at the Miss America pageant. Really, I tried, but you just can’t beat baton twirling when it comes to displaying talent.
Posted from: 128.223.186.206
May 8th, 2005 02:30
Please just STOP it already.
Posted from: 136.167.228.158
May 8th, 2005 02:33
I personally thought that Lobacheva and Averbukh were a million times better than Anissina and Peizerat, though both teams were clearly superior to Fusar Poli and Margaglio, whose third place finish was, to say the least, fortunate.
Of course, congratulations to everyone just for qualifying, especially to Lang and Tchernyshev; NY PRIDE!!
Posted from: 136.167.228.158
May 8th, 2005 02:37
*NE PRIDE!!
Posted from: 69.231.67.47
May 8th, 2005 03:48
just some comments about this entire thread (for what its worth):
1) i think this round and thread is actually indicative of the year we’ve just seen in l-d on the national circuit. debaters speak more quickly? yes. debaters debate theoretical issues? yes. people get feisty and territorial about decisions? yes. a flame war between people who passive-aggressively call each other out over the most trivial things on the internet? yes.
in reading many threads here and westman, these all seem to be increasing trends. tread lightly? yes!
2) a round can be both a 3-0 and close. in a world of mpj people generally prefer critics whose philosophies are markedly similar. i don’t know adam nelson as a critic; but, from his reputation as a judge, i certainly think his judging style is quite similar to messrs. cruz and mumper. if all three judges see a close debate in a similar fashion, it’ll be a 3-0. i think we all know that ballot count can mean that a debate was one-sided, though that is often not the case.
3) expertise is tricky. i never went to the toc. i’ve qualified a good number of students to the toc and their records are mixed. some people think i’m an idiot; others think i’m an expert; others think i’m mediocre. who you trust, the amount of sleep i’ve had until that point, or whether i voted for you in a debate, i suspect, determines your answer.
as for my own experience, i only went to two toc tournaments as a student. i had a losing record (2-4) at one, cleared at the other to the out-rounds, and lost the bid round because i spoke too quickly for two of the judges to understand my biggest argument. they didn’t like policy style fast debate. i spoke too quickly. the judges were tired. i lost. it happens all the time when there’s a communication gap.
4) friends shouldn’t judge friends. speaking of communication, i think we all agree that this is what debate is about. when you generate a personal relationship with someone, you begin to “speak the same language.” no one is immune.
what this means for debate is that we have to be very careful about our choices for the students whom we’ll allow ourselves to judge. often, when we are listening to our friends debate, we fill in the gaps of their communication. quite literally, we hear their words differently. by understanding their body language, word choice, and syntax better than others, we can more easily decipher their meaning. in debate speak, we “do a lot of work” for them.
the problem arises within a communicative community wherin there’s a premium on being understood. debates are often judged within the smallest margins. by judging our friends, we unfairly privilege their discourse over an opponent who must work all the harder to simply get their point across (much more, be persuasive in the process).
back to sleep,
michelinmassey.
Posted from: 143.229.132.226
May 8th, 2005 05:44
To “Dissatisfied” -
The interesting thing about TOC outrounds this year (and, looking past results, in other years as well) is that a very wide range of styles was represented. Some coaches commented that they thought this year’s outround pool was the most diverse stylistically in at least a few years.
In terms of “one-on-one” policy, I think it’s also important to remember the comment David Wolfish made earlier about judge adaptation and in-round strategy. Remember, Tara also won the NCFL, which is a very persuasion-based tournament.
I think you’ll find the contrast between this round, and, say, semis, interesting. Keep watching!
Posted from: 69.23.246.38
May 8th, 2005 08:50
I know everyone’s really sick of this thread already, but this post isn’t to try to ruffle any feathers but simply to clarify and maybe make go away what Sam/Daryl are so upset about.
If you look up a ways, Sam, before you posted at least twice about how awful it is for students to question decisions, I also posted. I responded to your interpretation of my post and outlined the point of my whole post and the point of specifically saying that I and others saw the round a different way.
If you’re really interested in not just picking sides and opposing the NSD/NDF crusade, then you should be interested in reading that post and considering what I’m ACTUALLY trying to say, rather than just bashing me for posting my decision.
I agree wholeheartedly with Lebowitz’s article (posted on the main part of VBD) that debate teaches us not to discuss, but to try to win at all costs.
I conceded in my post that I probably should not have posted my personal decision for the round; I outlined the main reason why I did so in my previous post, but I also did so to basically give a shoutout to Fabien who I think did incredibly well this year and at TOC and deserved more than a perception of having lost on a 3-0! in the bubble round.
I’ll finish with my original point yet again:
Don’t watch the video with the preconceived notion that Tara is winning the round. You’ll learn more without that perception, and you’ll see the round more objectively.
Posted from: 68.88.64.116
May 8th, 2005 09:19
This post has nothing to do with the above posts, with the exception of how people should watch the round. This post is worthless for this video (but not for future videos) becasue:
a) most people have already watched the video and
b) it is impossible to forget it was a 3-0.
My sole qualm is CTS’s post which reads, “Don’t watch the video with the preconceived notion that Tara is winning the round. You’ll learn more without that perception, and you’ll see the round more objectively.”
If the goal is objectivity, then how canyou tell someone to think the round was close (the opposite of thinking it was an easy 3-0)? This could easily cause debaters to second guess their instincts of to give more weight to fabien’s analysis than was actually there.
I understand CTS’s goal was for debaters not to automatically think that whatever fabien said was awful and whatever tara said was golden just because it was a 3-0, but at the same time her pursuit of objectivity runs contrary to its goal because it perscribes that debaters should think the round was close.
Posted from: 67.124.49.254
May 8th, 2005 09:53
I think the easiest answer to Sam’s general question is:
Discussing issues after the round helps us conceptualize debate from different angles. Those who post how they would have resolved the debate lets us understand how other people (not just those 3 judges would have voted). I’d find it interesting for someone like CTS to comment on how she felt because then next year I could be prepared to debate with her in the back. You falsely assume that the three judges on the panel are the only critics that matter. Unfortunately, the event is much larger than one outround.
We also don’t ice skate so that examples absurd.
This entire thread is absurd.
Posted from: 24.6.18.181
May 8th, 2005 10:44
To “Dissatisfied”—
I appreciate your comment about the round because it outlines specific problems that other debaters could try to avoid in the future. I am glad that you expressed dissatisfaction because it gives me the drive to succeed in all of the…oh wait I have no competitive rounds left in my career. Hmmm, what a predicament. Maybe I can go back in time and debate better! That way, I’m sure that you’ll be pleased with the result; getting to octos would only be a peripheral benefit and definitely wasn’t enough of an incentive for me to succeed in this round last week. Please continue to contribute well-reasoned criticisms of admittedly disappointing (in many ways) rounds like this one; God forbid the activity should degrade into 1v1 policy.
Posted from: 69.203.144.21
May 8th, 2005 10:58
The modifier “admittedly” is becoming the next “dabbled” in the list of words that make me cringe Spring/Summer 2005 edition.
Aside from that and the fact that criticizing classism makes him a communist, Fabien was one of my favorite people to judge when I wanted to be simultaneously entertained and irritated.
Since I watched this round at the TOC, I should post a lengthy unsolicited RFD, but Sam Duby’s grammatically questionable argumentation combined with my need to finish a take-home final has dissuaded me.
This thread is yet another reason I will sorely miss being involved in the debate community next year.
P.S. Does anybody have the link to Wes Craven’s website where other videos were supposed to be posted? And, on a related note, I forgot to give him my email address at TOC. It’s conveniently available right below if you click on “jake.” It’s also on my Westman profile.
Posted from: 143.229.132.226
May 8th, 2005 11:04
i don’t think the site is up yet
Posted from: 207.200.116.196
May 8th, 2005 11:23
To respond to Chris Lin’s question about the most attractive TOC outround pairing…
Not to be narcissistic, but my octos round vs. Merve Emre in 2003 was quite sizzling… Yes.
Anyway, I thought Fabien won too, and I did better than Sam at TOC, and I’m the most (reverse) objective commentator on this matter, and I would have been less “dissatisfied” if Fabien had debated better.
Posted from: 207.172.150.102
May 8th, 2005 11:39
Ummmm, to add on to what was said, if one is “dissatisfied” with the round, there should be objective reasons why. Is it because both debaters spoke fast? Would you rather hear them speak slowly and talk about justice and morality? The point is, the resolution is a statement of value concerning a policy, which opens up the resolution for argumentation that you deem “policy-like”. If we’re going to be objective, this wasn’t the best round for either debater, in my opinion; I’ve seen each of them debate better. Having said that, it’s important to look both at the specific good things and bad things that each debater did, rather than dismissing the round and criticizing it for being “1v1 policy”, which must be a bad thing.
Posted from: 70.33.109.201
May 8th, 2005 12:29
Duby, in response to your ice dancing jibe i’m pretty sure that most of the judges at the olympics weren’t ace competitors back in the day, yet their trusted to give rankings to some of the best atheletes in the world. I’m pretty sure that the judges are democratically elected.
Posted from: 209.30.85.116
May 8th, 2005 13:13
i ice skate
Posted from: 24.126.168.108
May 8th, 2005 13:30
Honestly that round wasn’t even THAT fast. I mean they both read their constructives quick, but when they responded it was at a moderate speed, and Tara didn’t like five point block each of Fabien’s arguments. That wasn’t near policy at all in my opinion.
Posted from: 66.199.88.56
May 8th, 2005 14:30
This thread is hilarious.
First off, it was definitely close, although what I thought was a poor round. I think I prefaced my RFD with “this reminded me of a bad JV policy debate.” Regardless of the speed, I think the arguments throughout the round were simply bad understandings of capitalism and how it functions. But I digress…
One thing I do agree with Sam is the amount of bias. It is funny sometimes in rounds when debaters argue with me (or within earshot of me) about decisions when they are friends with the loser. Sometimes it’s after clear crushes. Which why, although I love them, it’s interesting how the breakdown goes for who thought Tara won. You have eric/CTS/prashant/etc, all peas in the same pod. On the other hand you have Shyaam R among others. Shrug.
Either way, I guess I want to offer a counter to CTS’ post. Regardless of it’s a 3-0, dont let one or two people say “a lot of people thought fabien won…” to influence how you felt about the debate. It’s more fun to disagree about a decision, because then you get to bitch about judges :)
so watch the debate without any preconceived bias. Pretend it’s cruz voting aff, nelson voting neg, and you get to be the third judge. Dont worry about the outcome, or what CTS says.
Posted from: 66.41.125.193
May 8th, 2005 14:42
“Not to be narcissistic, but my octos round vs. Merve Emre in 2003 was quite sizzling… Yes.”
I was pleased to adjudicate that debate–distracted I was. (Sorry, too many Yoda commercials)
Sam neglects to mention the MBA RR, which also has a high disposition to split between the demo round winner and the ballot winner. Putting 10 people in a room who you just beat isn’t a good setup for a round to be adjudicated fairly. Kids teaching kids has always seemed to me to be like the blind leading the blind but I’m sure Casey’s intentions were good though.
The only comment I’ll make about this biznass is that expertise is established retroactively. Some people get street cred from their debate record and they have the potential to become good or bad critics/instructors. Some people didn’t debate or were bad debaters and have the same potential. But in the end, we only know AFTER they prove themselves. Popularity isn’t a substitute for actual ability whether it be in debating or coaching. I’m not suggesting this a jibe on anyone in particular (as I’m sure it can be applied to everyone from different points of view) but rather to be demonstrative of an important cautionary tale…brought to us (ironically) from ice dancing:
I don’t know how well versed Sam is but it’s really interesting that he picked that example. Throughout the late 80s and most of the 90s, the Russian team of Pasha Grishuk and Evgeny Platov were dominating the sport of ice dancing. However, there was a big “to do” about the 98 Nationals where Grishuk and Platov had a very substantial early lead (analogy to being higher seed maybe) but fell three times during the finals. The Canadian team was appalled because they didn’t have any technical errors. In ice dancing, not unlike debate, the subjectivity of the sport lends itself to some variances in judging. It wasn’t uncommon for ice dancing judges to “rep out” for particular teams. Now, let’s be honest, if you think ice dancing is a mundane example, that’s fine but you might take a moment to read up on what’s actually involved.(www.isu.org) It’s as complicated (if not more complicated) than debate.
In any case, while the Russian team was very popular their popularity didn’t merit ignorance to actual performances. Truth be told, I think the other Russian team would have won and not the Canadians but that’s a debate for another thread.
This discussion should lend itself to us questioning the credibility of the voices in any kind of public forum in this activity whether it be in the form of posting on these types of things, instructing at a camp, or serving as a critic. This discussion should also help reconsider the notion of judge preferences. Popularity definitely does not make one a “good” judge and unpopularity does not make one a “bad” judge. Certainly, even the highest standards of judging aren’t sufficient for many on this site or at the TOC this year where a lot of former semifinalists or finalists as well as TOC championship level coaches were sitting around while relatively inexperienced or objectively less qualified judges were judging up a storm. I’m not suggesting that if you’re not an Aaron Timmons or a Mike Bietz you have no place in the activity, I just think there’s a broader theme here that indicates that perhaps we need to talk more about the merits of effects of popularity and credibility in the activity and how we can play better together.
Posted from: 66.199.88.56