“The Truf”
Two opinions are here featured: (1) On the strategic gap created by Sophist mercenaries; and (2) On the incoherent treatment of the ballot.
The first opinion is just true (I kid, I kid), and the second is really an open call for comments and recommendations.
In effect, this opinion piece could be divided into multiple pieces, but thanks to the Levitra, my staying power allows me to write for hours.
The Strategic Gap
I have always been impressed with strategic debate; it reflects a care for one’s argument and is a superior means of persuasion. Socrates was not simply persuasive and brilliant. He was infinitely strategic. But, to be sure, there was something sublime about Socratic strategy. Over and against the Sophists, Socrates integrated humility, irony, humor, and a genuine care for the truth into his strategy. Perhaps this was because argument, for Socrates, was not its own *telos*. It was a means to another end (an end that typically involved a critical self-transformation by his interlocutor). Debate in the status quo seems to have drifted quite a ways from this timeless model. We are more likely to emulate the Sophists than Socrates, fetishizing the form of argument itself to the end that games and engineering ever more “effective” tactics replace all other priorities. This displacement from the object of the argument-as-pursuit (truth, understanding, education, enjoyment) to the pursuit itself reflects a disconcerting turn inward. Socrates, as a servant to his interlocutors, could ill afford to enjoy such neuroses. Indeed, argument for Socrates is a practice in engaging the Other. Though without a consistently foreclosed outcome, this turn outward marked a central distinction between Socrates and his contemporary counterparts. Sophists, incidentally, were the hired-guns of their day, teaching aspiring elites and businessmen the art of rhetoric (and other useful skill sets) for a price. Argument was, accordingly, just another skill set and to the extent that it indeed served a purpose outside itself, that purpose was typically political or financial. Today, we face a similar ‘disturbance in The Force’. Hired-gun coaches seem often to fancy themselves as small-market Sophists, fetishizing the argument and employing it only to the end of winning ballots. Typically without the long-term investment in education shared by those deserving of the term “teacher,” these merchants troll the high school circuits to share their idolized skill-sets. Sometimes a price is paid, but the real currency in effect is adoration and imitation.
Where does this leave us? With some very nifty arguments for which we quickly pat ourselves on the back, to be certain. We are certainly not in danger of losing technically proficient debate… debate saturated with tactics and gamesmanship. And while this is not anything new, despite the clamors of Mr. Chad Henson, its proliferation has certainly made for a level playing field. We ARE, however, in danger of losing that which is sublime in debate. Though ostensibly in the age of debate progress, I have seen almost no ORIGINAL debate in the last two years. And no doubt, the puppets of second-rate Sophists need not actually innovate when their tactics are lauded as exemplary or ‘cutting edge’… by other second-rate Sophists. As long as the tactics continue to win a few ballots, who cares right? Those who enjoy interesting positions might care. Those who applaud positions in which students believe might care. Those who want to learn something through dialogue might care. As much as I was *not* a fan of Amanda Liverzani’s Fem case on the September/October topic… I was impressed as hell at her willingness to write unpopular positions that she honestly thought were true. The judging pool seemed to appreciate that too.
The solution, quite simply, seems to be a turn outward: a willingness to write positions aimed at their audience, at the truth, at understanding… positions that reflect more than a mere perfection of the argument-as-such. As Adorno remarked, there is an unique beauty to the imperfection in a recording of music, for that imperfection, as a gap between the sound itself and the experience of the listener, frames the sound… locating it. There is something honest and authentic about experiencing art that has not yet succumbed to mechanical reproduction. Likewise, the art of rhetoric seems to mean much more when it expresses something heartfelt or true than when it simply reheats last year’s successful leftovers. From the 45 minute discussion of narratives at the Greenhill Round Robin inspired by Vikrum and Garvin a few years back to the discussions of gender at this year’s incarnation to the introduction of refined post-structuralism into LD by Jake’s kids, the most meaningful experiences generated by rounds themselves in this activity have come from somewhere genuine, be it a sincere academic curiosity or a student’s heartfelt calling. Is all this mutually exclusive to a community infected with Sophistry? Probably not. But trends tend not to seek accomodation so much as self-congratulations.
The Ballot
We may be unsure of the precise role ballots have come to occupy, but we can be reasonably certain of what they are not or are no longer:
They are no longer sovereign. I would encourage whatever full-time coaches are still left out there to lay down some ground rules about post-round fall out. Once upon a time, it was fair for a coach to say, “No whining about judges until you are 30 minutes away from the tournament.” But now, the forums of choice include the internet and one’s posse. Ballots are treated as of secondary importance to whatever the “legit” opinions might be, and that secondary importance merely reflects their function in advancing someone through a tournament. The unwillingness or inability to adapt is then viewed as a badge of honor: why sell out just for a ballot?
They are rarely coherent. Typically, this is blamed on the critic, and that is unfortunate. I tend to think the real failing of many critics is not the ballot they wrote, but the confusion about WHY the ballot was incoherent. At some point in history, “crystalizing” came to mean this: a debater highlighting the arguments they liked in the round and re-extending or re-explaining them. There are maybe four debaters I saw consistently WRITE THE BALLOTS this year, not only explaing to the critic what mattered, but providing her with a complete story of how to vote and why–comparing arguments, weighing them, debating the standards with arguments that go beyond “this is necessary but insufficient,” etc. Critics should feel free to write incoherent ballots and blame them on incoherent debate rounds. Shouldn’t they?
They are no longer the real measure of success. This trend seems to me good and bad. On the one hand, measures of success are vastly overplayed hands. They can be helpful when deciding whose ideas are better in the marketplace that is debate education. But they can also exclude a lot of kids and a lot of voices. It seems like we should practice an ethic of listening, but remain reasonable by attaching credibility to the ideas to which we listen. To the extent these measures are sometimes useful, shouldn’t ballots come before “word on the street” which is just a kinder term for totally incestuous hysteria? Duby has made this argument elsewhere, and it seems like no one listens: how can a debater ‘get robbed’ by judges when the other debater just adapted better? Whenever a debater comes out of a round and says, “I definitely/probably won that debate,” my question is always: by what standard? Only one standard actually matters, and it has zero to do with what debaters believe. In a world populated by some many different schools of thought and expectations for a round, I don’t understand what the objective win/loss calculator looks like. In a world in which most rounds feature multiple extensions on both sides and little to no comparative debate or development of a decision calculus, I don’t even think most rounds produce “wins” and “losses”. The ballot has to be signed one way or the other, but it typically reflects an estimation of proximity to a win. And that leaves some gray area, to say the least. If there is such a thing as ‘debating well,’ shouldn’t it be measured by the student’s ability to consistently impress the judges actually sitting in the back of the room rather than some “objective” determination of the win?
So where does the ballot go from here? Should tournaments start to issue “unofficial awards” based on the popular reflections on who ACTUALLY won the rounds? Should judges continue to endure (sometimes harsh) criticism for making decisions students didn’t like or failing to explain those decisions adequately to debaters who apparently failed to explain their positions adequately? I’ve always contended that this activity is about the debaters, and not the critics. But to be at the center of something seems to imply obligations in addition to entitlements, the least of which including an ethic of respect for one’s audience.
Popularity: 1%
test
Posted from: 68.229.50.40
May 14th, 2005 14:20
first- while i’m remembering-
babb- if you have the time, could you explain to me what badiou means by the “void” in relation to p. xv of the translator’s intro- in ethics- when it talks about the “site” of truth in relation to “what is most vulnerable, most anonymous in the situation (ie what is percieved as empty or void from the perspective adopted by those who dominate the situation”- the footnotes reference the proletariat in capitalist ideology, the immigrant, etc.
now onto the article-
two questions-
1) just where does this ethic of respect for critics originate from- is it on the basis of the role of the critic? if so, should critics be held to a corresponding standard of expertise/knowledge? I see it like this: if debaters *ought* to respect critics in their critical capacity, then don’t we need a clearer definition of the role of the critic and the obligations/duties that correspond to that role? My problem is this: assuming that critics are to be held to some standard of expertise (as they are now), then doesn’t this ethic of respect lead to a very static understanding of the role of the critic? That is, if debaters are to respect critics as long as they are upholding their obligations as critics, then doens’t this defeat the purpose of the type of productive flux you seem to be arguing for in terms of paradigms, valuations of debaters, etc.?
2) Insofar as the ballot is the only formal representation of the structure of a tournament (rounds are won and lost in terms of ballots for the sake of the competition itself), then if we subvert the ballot- by not trying to win *it*, but the critic- then where does that leave the critic herself? At this point, it seems to me that we’ve reached the end of possibilities in terms of reform. Down with the ballot entirely? Down with wins, losses, and the like? Down with organization at all? Obviously the freer the forum, the better the discussion- but what type of structural arrangement would facilitate such an open forum?
Posted from: 68.198.144.175
May 14th, 2005 14:53
Having read most of the Platonic dialogues, I think I can safely say that Socrates would dislike Lincoln douglas debate as a whole, regardless of specific case positions. To begin, for a person to espouse opposite sides of a the same question (aff. and neg. cases) is inherently anti-socratic, but beyond that, Socrates actually promotes the censorship of certain people- sophists, but even poets, novelists, and others who are not deemed to speak the truth. Lastly, let’s not forget the difference between Socratic and LD discourses: in LD, the winner is not (s)he who promotes the truth, but rather the better debater, and specifically the more tatical and cunning debater. In socratic dialogues, it’s not a dialectic with thesis and antithesis, but rather a discussion- a dialogue. And so ends my incoherent rambling, which should have been a lot more clear.
Very Nice article overall. I agree with you on many levels, but when you say, “There is something honest and authentic about experiencing art that has not yet succumbed to mechanical reproduction”, I think you ought to consult Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”. He makes somewhat of the opposite case, and if you’re interested in (critical?) Art, it’s a good read.
Posted from: 24.162.117.201
May 14th, 2005 14:56
Sup Max.
On the two comments…
(1) I don’t know how critics *would* be held to a standard of expertise. I think their are plenty of other grounds for respect, namely that the critic has listened to and attempted to navigate the round. If the critic hasn’t listened at all or has initiated the hostility, then debaters have an excuse. But, while I wouldnt advocate standards for judges, I think that to the extent we can bridge the gap as a community and clarify our ideas about how rounds ought to be evaluated, that’s a good thing. To that end, I love websites with judge paradigms. ;-)
(2) I don’t think we need to do away with ballots; maybe I’m misreading your comment. I think the current problem is that folks are more interested in winning a round by some ‘objective’ calculus which is always (conveniently) a calculus very clear and agreed upon by cliques of fellow debaters than the critic’s ballot. Duby has called this the “win-win” scenario, insofar as no matter how ballots you lose, you can still win your friends’ non-existent ballots. That wouldn’t be a problem except that the competition for a debater’s attention means critics don’t receive proper adaptation and a lot of worthwhile projects (NFL Nationals) and critics (the oldschool folks) are pushed to the margins of the community. If progressive debate was predicated on a democratic culture in the community, it seems like the voices of *all* critics should be respected… if you don’t have a ballot, it isn’t your turn to vote. Democracy isn’t chaos, because chaos precludes good procedure. Restoring some sovereignty to the ballot seems like an important part of that procedure in debate. “This isn’t Nam… there are rules!”
[Annnd on Badiou]
The reference to immigrants (for example) as the void of a situation simply means that within the dominany ideology or constellation of that situation, the group is “anonymous”. In other words, France’s political arrangement doesn’t approach the issue of immigration in a way that properly accounts for its singularity and particular content; it is reduced to a meaningless label: “immigrant” (and nothing more). Badiou describes a situation as a process of ‘counting’ or naming. There are elements that belong and are counted as part of the situation and elements that do not belong and are counted as part of another situation. But some elements are caught in a no-mans land of sorts in which they “belong” but are not counted as belonging; these elements are the void. This is a political concept, but it’s also an expression of Badiou’s ontology which is effing complicated. Other examples, though, might be American Indians, the early Christian Church in Rome, the working class in revolutionary France, the Jews in Nazi Germany, etc etc. And Badiou maintains that it is at the edge of these ‘voids’ that Truth-Events emerge, because Truth can only be Truth-as-such if it is un-counted by the situation (otherwise, it would be ‘knowledge’–the truth/knowledge distinction is one of badiou’s more controversial premises). Anyway, if that was unhelpful u can IM me later: igotid5 .
-b
Posted from: 24.162.117.201
May 14th, 2005 15:08
I think I agree with Scarsdale for the most part, and surely I don’t mean to equate Socrates with my vision of LD so much as reappropriate the Socratic opposition to Sophistry to the current predicament. A couple a comments though:
1. Espousing opposite sides on a debate topic is not at all inconsistent with the way in which Socrates would proceed with a dialogue. Socrates would often occupy multiple positions, because those positions were only ostensible; in reality, they were placeholders for a strategic engagement with the interlocutor. You can’t honestly think he *meant* half the stuff he advocates–hence the use of irony left and right.
2. Debate isn’t a pursuit of ‘the truth’ sure, but we can certainly learn things from the discussions that inhere to an antagonistic structure. There’s no reason that structure is incompatible with dialogue. Cross examination is THE Socratic art, and you get to do it for 3 minutes every round. Sure debate is game-like, but Socrates rolled that way too. It wasn’t that he had no love for tactics; he’s seen using them and admiring them a number of times (and admiring the Sophists *specifically*). And that’s why my claims are not ANTI-strategy. The distinction is that for Socrates, there was more to the games than just the game–they were incorporated into a more meaningful project; I don’t see why the same cannot be the case for debate.
Posted from: 132.161.139.134
May 14th, 2005 20:36
Babb,
I’m not sure if your Socrates v. the sophists analogy works completely for the situation, but I do think you’re right to liken most hired gun-type coaches to argument technique sales-people. But you overstate, I think, the extent to which teaching argument technique is opposed to helping students seek truth: even Socrates valued teaching his students the rules of logical argument, because that’s how you evaluate and refute others’ claims. The “Strategy Gap” only emerges under pretty unusual circumstances — probably only at the most competitive national circuit levels, and only in front of judges who are members of some elite group. It’s troubling that it exists at all, but there is some consolation in knowing that students engaged in that sort of super-strategic back-scratching in those elite rounds have generally already mastered the basics of argument techniques that actually ARE helpful Truth-seeking skills. Perhaps debate has already taught those students all of the Truth-seeking skills it has to offer, because LD does have limitations — I don’t know (and, frankly, I doubt it); but for students who aren’t on that level, learning to win ballots — even ballots in front of “second-rate sophists” — requires learning the valuable kinds of argument skills. Perhaps the strategy gap is beginning to emerge on other levels of debate besides the elite one, and, if that’s the case, then it’s troubling; but I haven’t heard much about that yet.
It’s also worth noting that Socrates was an absolutist about Truth: what is True is True independent of circumstances, emotions, etc. To value a position or mode of debate because it is more “heartfelt” seems to play into sophists’ hands. I’m not sure if you were actually arguing in favor of that or not, but I don’t think that originality or strength of feelings or whatever are really justifiable reasons to vote one way or the other.
But it’s always interesting to hear Socrates come up, even if he is just a hollow idol.
chase
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
May 14th, 2005 22:11
i agree with babb that debaters are way too caught up in their conception of what it means to ‘win’ or ‘lose’. however, im not sure that this constitutes the subversion of authority that he seems to think that it does.
surely i’ve disagreed with plenty of decisions, and surely my stylistic preferences differ from the preferences of many judges, but despite the flak that i’ve caught for the video posted on this site from the TOC, i truly believe that the best judges are those with consistent paradigms - whether those paradigms be traditional, progressive, moderate, or whatever. are there frequently rounds where i disagree with the decision calculus that was used? sure. do i complain? yeah, sometimes. but as long as a judge is clear about her paradigm, i accept that it is my responsibility to debate the best that i can within that paradigm. do i fuck up at my attempts to do this frequently? yeah probably. but my failure at adaptation shouldnt be read as a refusal to adapt any more than a loss should be read as a refusal to win - we all make mistakes. similarly, my questioning of a decision shouldn’t be read as a rejection of the judge’s authority. i see no reason that we shouldnt think critically about how to approach a debate round.
a logical extension of this argument (which babb doesnt fully explore) is that we owe a great deal of thanks to EVERYONE who is willing to give up a weekend to listen to kids rant about justice and politics - obviously not just the “sophists”, but not just the “Socratics” either. would debate be better if every judge explained decisions with in-depth RFDs like cherian koshy or stacy thomas (or various others obviously - those two just came to mind first)? yeah probably. but in the real world, we have to accept that there are a limited number of people willing and able to judge debate rounds. we shouldnt make anyone feel unwelcome by decrying them as bringing some evil on the activity. to put a “pomo” spin on it, babb’s “revolutionary” project fails to generate authentic change because it doesn’t escape the basic logic that he’s criticising: that one group of people is “better qualified” to be judges/coaches/debaters than another. babb’s implicit “alternative” is essentially the opposite side of the same coin - turning from sophists to socratics. this is doomed to failure because, if put into action, we’d surely see a mirror-image criticisms from other babb-like characters in the future (bizzaro-babb? the anti-babb? some other cute monicker?). SUBVERT THE BINARY BABB! TRAVERSE THE FANTASY! SUSPEND THE UNWRITTEN RULES! no, seriously, let’s laud EVERYONE willing to give up time to help debate work.
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
May 14th, 2005 22:19
oh ps (just to steal navot’s thunder)
WE ARE WANDERING SOPHISTS!
/end lame wglf-wanna-be post
Posted from: 4.131.122.219
May 14th, 2005 23:02
“truf” has been bastardized long enuf
Posted from: 69.149.45.130
May 14th, 2005 23:09
I have a question that I think relates to Babb’s topic about the perception of the audience and the clique vs. the actual ballot. Here are the statistics of Debater A and Debater B. In the 5 tournaments that both debater A and B competed in 2003-2004, Debater A did better 4 times, winning those 4 tournaments. Can someone logically explain to me why Debater A has gotten almost no love and Debater B has been thanked at the Finals of TOC and had people claim he was the best they ever saw. N/A is indicated where one debater did not attend
2003-2004
1st Semester
Greenhill
Debater A Champion
Debater B Double Octos
Valley
Debater A Octos
Debater B N/A
Apple Valley
Debater A Champion
Debate B Double Octos
Glenbrooks
Debater A Champion
Debater B Semifinalist
Blake
Debater A Quarters
Debater B Finals
2nd Semester
Chesapeake RR
Debater A N/A
Debater B 2nd Place
Omaha Westside
Debater A N/A
Debater B 2nd
Emory
Debater A N/A
Debater B Finals
UC Berkeley
Debater A N/A
Debater B Champion
TOC
Debater A Champion
Debater B Quarter-finalist Top Speaker
Nationals
Debater A 9th Place
Debater B N/A
Any and all explanations are welcome
Posted from: 24.162.117.201
May 14th, 2005 23:14
I love Mangus’ post–it’s the kind of well-thought out contribution I totally appreciate. And, I think he makes some very good points. Bizarro Babb would be awesome, incidentally.
I suppose my response is this: I don’t know that we need to choose Socrates over the Sophists in some kind of naive binary. It seems to me that encouraing a more Socratic approach is the ultimate permutation; we need not lose anything contributed by Sophistic education–in the best of worlds, we simply supplement it through a refocusing of argumentation (the turn outward, as it were). Ideally, this doesn’t involve an exclusion of anyone (even the Sophists), as it is a pursuit accessible to everybody. I dont see that as a revolutionary project and I certainly don’t view my contribution in the guise of a truth-event; I guess I just dont see why anyone would want debate to be less than it could be. We can master our gamesmanship AND turn an eye toward more meaningful contributions. If anyone is in position to produce revolutionary projects, it isn’t me–it’s the debaters. My criticism simply acknowledges a central culprit in the foreclosure of this possibility: that debate coaching has often become a neurotic practice in mimicry rather than a genuinely educational dialogue.
Chase correctly points out that this is not a sweeping phenomena, but the monotony that is the national circuit ’style’ suggests it is one worth diagnosing (however localized it may be in the grand scheme).
peace,
b
Posted from: 69.149.45.130
May 14th, 2005 23:15
I looked at that and think that doesn’t tell the full story of their careers
Junior Year
Debater A Won Glenbrooks, Won Valley, 2nd Apple Valley, Semifinals TOC
Debater B TOC At large recipient Octofinalist
Posted from: 64.170.194.139
May 14th, 2005 23:26
DUBY, LET IT GO.
Don’t you have anything better to do than to rag on someone who seems to get alot of respect? Are you just really jealous that people like him? Seriously, dude, GROW THE FUCK UP.
to pre-empt the inevitable answer…
*turns on palmersignal*
DOPPLEPALMER LEAGUE, UNITE!
Posted from: 204.210.37.132
May 14th, 2005 23:29
wow you just derailed a really productive discussion on the nature of truth in LD to complain about how you don’t like eric palmer.
sam duby, everyone.
Posted from: 12.216.148.58
May 14th, 2005 23:31
Sam-Why do you rant about how bad evnen was when he advanced farther than you at TOC-twice?
Also, it’s not “debater b’s” fault that debater A didnt debate second semester. Maybe that’s when debater B got hot. It was, after all, effectively his 5th semester of debate…
Posted from: 69.149.45.130
May 14th, 2005 23:33
I never said P. Rai that he isn’t deserving of respect and that he isn’t incredibly talented. My question was what about the community leads to the disparity in overall popularity and respect from students despite records that suggest an opposite result. You pre-empt better in rounds, btw. I think your pre-empt feeds my link and brings about the inevitable question.
Why are there no Dopple Mcneils?
Why are there no Dopple Mckays?
Posted from: 24.162.117.201
May 14th, 2005 23:36
Unless I’m confused, I think Duby’s contribution was an illustration of my comments regarding the incoherent role of the ballot–it seems reasonable to explore why debaters who didn’t win the official ballots get more street cred than those who did. That doesn’t have to be a slight to Epalm; there may be a good reason for that. Maybe the formal ballots are obsolete? But anyway, that seems to be a question that has yet to be answered.
Re: Prai’s response… how is linking harder with no impact turn a good answer? Is the palmersignal like the Bat Signal? Because that would be freakin SWEET! lol. ;-)
b
Posted from: 24.162.117.201
May 15th, 2005 00:21
I just saw the show Next on MTV, and despite it becoming a new addiction, it’s the MEANEST SHOW EVAR. From now, this column (subject to Jon Cruz’s approval) will solely be dedicated to pop-culture MADNESS, especially shows on MTV. I don’t have anything to say yet, but that’s the plan anyway. The people are MEAN on their dates oh my gosh!
b
Posted from: 64.233.226.156
May 15th, 2005 06:37
this discussion has quickly become garbage.
Posted from: 205.188.117.69
May 15th, 2005 07:50
it’s DOPPEL!!!
And to discuss the questions in this thread, I think it’s probably a good sign of the intellectual nature of our community that debaters have respect and admiration for someone who didn’t win as many ballots. It shows that we don’t care as much about the trophies and statistics. I think this gets back to the issues that Babb originally raised: if debaters are willing to appreciate unique styles or approaches, why should we discourage them simply because those tactics have not been competitively sucessful?
e.g. I don’t respect the president because he’s part of an organization that was able to successfully dupe millions of stupid people to vote for him, but I would respect him if he were intelligent or crafted unique and historically informed approaches to important issues (both of which are attributes relatively unnecessary for “success” in mdern politics)
Posted from: 207.172.150.102
May 15th, 2005 09:13
I think what Sam (and Babb) are arguing is that, to many, winning a round “legitimately” is more important than winning the ballot. While everyone is obviously entitled to their opinion about what Debater B brings to the activity/their role in making it more intellectual, I think the major distinction between a debate round and, say, a Presidential election (which was brought up earlier) is that, in the debate round, winning the ballot is the end toward which each debater strives, while the President still has a function to perform beyond getting into office. So while everyone is entitled to their opinion about who was a great debater and who wasn’t, it’s not unreasonable to say that, in the only objective measure of “goodness” that we have in the debate community, Debater A was really really good.
Posted from: 63.226.182.105
May 15th, 2005 09:28
let me say a few things…
(1) all judges appreciate argument development. in fact, judges prefer that you explain your arguments in such a way that you can outline the origin of your arguments (in the debate) and talk about their new relevance to other issues addressed by you and your opponent. as every judge sees heightened incoherence, though, they wonder what they can do to stop this trend. to this end, they begin extremism in pursuit of their virtue.
in this scenario, some judges are lauded as champions for excellent debate; others are viewed as the most strike worthy. that is fine — it is assuredly within the right of every person to express preference. however, as some preferences tend to produce desirable outcomes and others do not, isn’t it vital that we monitor which preferences are ultimately destructive?
(2) disagreements about decisions have lasted as long as competitive debates have been judged. i think that what’s hurtful is the intense personal antipathy associated with a disagreement about a debate decision.
i think that duby’s point about mcneil and palmer (who, by the way, were both excellent thinkers and debaters in their time) is particularly illustrative. every posting is infused with passive-aggressive adhominem angst. and, it’s not just my issue about new millennium flame wars. it’s almost as if you are a bad person if you vote the “wrong” way in a debate! that ones motives are constantly under scrutiny in a world of increasing mistrust means that a lot of people are going to just get pissed off and stop judging.
finally… i agree and disagree with babb about the bad debate = bad ballot thing. on the one hand, i think that bad debating is inherent to this structure. i mean, even though we are dealing with the most intelligent young people, debate tournaments are a site for potential perpetual education because we all make mistakes. in a bad debate, judges have a prime platform to talk about what went wrong and offer constructive advice for what can be done to remedy the issue in the future.
on the other hand, in a bad debate, judges may be confronted with so much incoherence that their capacity to respond with coherence is highly diminished. for instance, if a debater extends a dropped argument that the critic simply does not understand because it’s incomprehensible for whatever reason, how is the judge to reply? what if this argument is crucial to the rest of the debater’s position?
in this situation, it’s a lose-lose proposition for the critic:
a) the judge votes for the gibberish citing their desire “not to intervene.” the losing debater asks, “what does that argument mean?” the judge replies, “i dunno…but you dropped it.” in this case, the judge is a moron because they are willing to privilege the absurd.
b) the judge votes against the nonsense citing that the argument is pure drivel. the losing debater asks, “what about my main argument that s(he) dropped?!” the judge replies, “i have no idea what you’re talking about; i refuse to vote for something i do not understand.” in this case, the judge is an idiot because they admit that there’s stuff that they just don’t comprehend (for whatever reason).
i mean, seriously, what are judges supposed to do?
michelinmassey.
Posted from: 143.229.132.226
May 15th, 2005 09:36
“From now, this column (subject to Jon Cruz’s approval) will solely be dedicated to pop-culture MADNESS, especially shows on MTV. I don’t have anything to say yet, but that’s the plan anyway. The people are MEAN on their dates oh my gosh!”
No. :o)
“i mean, seriously, what are judges supposed to do?”
I realize this is slightly off-topic from the round, but I think it’s a really good question. I consider myself very open-minded to all kinds of argumentation. But that kind of open-mindedness, I think, comes with a price: I expect to be able to understand what is being argued. If a debater is so totally inarticulate with an argument that she is unable to make it clear to me, I’m not going to vote off of it. I wouldn’t vote *against* the debater for it, but I wouldn’t factor the incomprehensible into my decision-making calculus, because what does a decision mean if the judge can’t explain how it works?
Posted from: 64.170.112.216
May 15th, 2005 10:52
On the McNeil/Palmer thing - both of them were really really good debaters. I don’t understand why people have always felt a need to take one of their sides in some type of debate ideology battle; can’t we just accept that they both rocked at debate and leave it at that?
I pretty strongly agree with Babb’s point on ballots, but I have a question (I apologize if I misinterpret or mischaractize something Babb has said, which I probably will). If the ballot is the only objective designator of “good debate” and legitimacy and we don’t privilege any other conceptions of good debate or good debaters, why do we as a community give more weight to Greenhill than, say, the New York State Tournament? We as a community naturally say that one tournament is better because it has better judging, better competition, etc. How can we designate some judging or competition as “better” than others if we don’t have any other calculi for determining what good debate is than the ballot? Someone could go through the whole New York State Tournament and not drop a ballot, but we as a community would still give more attention to the person who Greenhill because they won against “more legit” competition, won with “more legit” judging, etc. Does accepting the ballot as “sovereign” mean we no longer privilege certain tournaments over others by disregarding personal assesments of “good debate”?
I apologize if that made no sense or completely mischaracterized what you were saying.
Posted from: 207.172.150.102
May 15th, 2005 10:59
I think that’s a really interesting point. I think the mark of a really good debater is the ability to win ballots anywhere, regardless of judging or competition. The reason we might value Greenhill over the NY State Tourney, I think, is that more people who consistently win ballots come together at Greenhill than do at NY states. Similarly, Glenbrooks is considered (arguably) the most prestigious tournament in the country because it consistently brings together the most successful debaters in the nation. Thus, while the ballot is sovereign, the ability to win the ballot transcends tournaments. That, I think, is why the same people consistently win a lot of tournaments, both on the circuit and off (at NFLs and such).
Posted from: 65.189.214.191
May 15th, 2005 11:15
I think if Sam Duby wrote music textbooks they would say things like:
“50 Cent sold more records than Beethoven last year. If you like Beethoven’s music better, you aren’t being objective, and you ain’t got nothin intelligent to say. SCOREBOARD!!!”
Seriously, people can like whatever debater they want to like. That doesn’t mean the ballot has slipped into absurdity and we’ve entered a new epoch of debate an-arche where we will slowly sink below a rising tide of madness, it just means sometimes debaters do a better job appealing to the audience than they do some of the judges. Now this point isn’t meant to be a direct analogy to Sam’s comparison of my record with John Mcneil’s. Everyone knows he won more than I did, as he well should have, given that he debated nearly twice as long as I did, with teammates and coaching. He was a good debater; everyone knows that too. The point is that the logic of Sam’s argument, “the ’scoreboard’ is all” would justify the statement above.
It’s fine and dandy to tell debaters to think about things they could’ve done to win a round they dropped (I do this all the time when coaching), the “you’re responsible for all your losses because you didn’t adapt well enough” reply is as absurd as the straight up “the judges always screw me and there’s nothing I can do better” attitude.
First, if a panel lets one debater debate in their preferred style and makes the other one heavily adapt, there’s no way the playing field can be level in that round. Debaters always have to think about the actual progression of arguments in the round. If one debater has to add onto that constant thought about how those arguments will come across, whereas the other can basically go along on autopilot, it’s really obvious that the second debater is at an advantage.
Second, the “you should’ve adapted better” paradigm assumes judges are like black boxes, and that inserting variable x will always produce to response y. It’s really obvious what’s wrong with that view. A huge number of factors constantly affect judges, from their mood, to personal biases, to things like illness and tiredness. To assume that judges can be systematically classified, with no aid beyond maybe a 2 paragraph paradigm, is absurd.
Neither of these arguments is meant to suggest that debaters shouldn’t try to adapt. On the contrary, I think the best way to respond to these challenges is to try to familiarize yourself with as many styles as possible so as to maximize your chances of winning if you wind up in the unequal playing field situation (most debaters do at some point). Nevertheless, there are limitations to what adaptation can accomplish. Saying “whoever wins adapted the best” as though that person necessarily knew exactly what the judges would like, was perfectly prepared to debate in that manner, and made the conscious decision to do so seems to make most winning debaters superhuman. Surely most debaters make conscious attempts to adapt, but to say that any time one debater won and most of the audience disagreed that was an instance of the winner divining exactly what the judges would like and implementing the results of that divination to perfection is just laughable.
Sometimes judges make mistakes. I don’t understand why that notion is so controversial. I know Sam doesn’t believe otherwise; I’ve heard him rant about how Larry McGrath hacked for Hirsh to keep Wolfish from clearing at St Marx many times. Does that mean Sam has a double standard for himself and his friends? Well yeah, but truth be told I’ve never seen the “you’re responsible for all your losses because you didn’t adapt enough” advanced for any reasons but self-serving ones. It’s a weapon to silence criticism of debate techniques and judging styles. It reduces debate to an effort to pick up the ballot by any means, even unethical ones. If adaptation is everything, why not “adapt” by giving a new 2ar, if you know that the judges will vote on the new parts? Why not lie blatantly about your opponent’s arguments?
Maybe there are things that matter more than the ballot.
Posted from: 207.172.150.102
May 15th, 2005 11:32
“First, if a panel lets one debater debate in their preferred style and makes the other one heavily adapt, there’s no way the playing field can be level in that round. Debaters always have to think about the actual progression of arguments in the round. If one debater has to add onto that constant thought about how those arguments will come across, whereas the other can basically go along on autopilot, it’s really obvious that the second debater is at an advantage.”
I agree with many of the arguments made above, but not this one. As absurd as it may seem to say this, I think there is such thing as a style that is more universal than others. In other words, the fact that many debaters, as is argued, “don’t have to adapt at all” is, at least in part, a byproduct of their having a style that is more universal than others. Ultimately, a relatively small cross-section of judges are hardcore flow judges who will vote off of theory, topicality, the second turn against the second contention, etc. That’s why I think ultimately the debaters who win the most are those who have a “least common denominator” style, i.e. one that is equally effective in front of hardcore flow judges and lay judges. This is not to say that there aren’t great debaters who can win a round on the flow one round and out-persuade their opponent the next, but I think history has shown that those who are the most successful are those who don’t need to adapt, but can always debate in a similar manner.
Posted from: 69.23.246.38
May 15th, 2005 12:13
in response to Alex’s last post:
1. “Ultimately, a relatively small cross-section of judges are hardcore flow judges who will vote off of theory, topicality, the second turn against the second contention, etc.”
This really isn’t very important to point out, but on the national circuit, that’s just not true. People who don’t vote off of turns are kind of crazy (if the turn wins the round, obviously). Also, a lot of judges are willing (or are becoming willing) to vote off well-explained and impacted theory arguments.
2. While you may be right about the goodness of being able to appeal to lots of judges, that’s not really in contestation with what Eric’s saying. Eric’s point is that if crazyflow debater A hits sweettalking debater B in front of a lot of judges, debater A is at a disadvantage because they have to be constantly thinking about how to extend dropped arguments on the flow in a persuasive manner, whereas debater B naturally speaks like they always do and appeals to the judge.
Furthermore, while I do think, especially coming from Edina, that the mostly-universal appealing style of debate is awesome and more successful (see John McNeil and David Wolfish’s TOC wins), there are never debaters who appeal to EVERYONE. That means, if I were to hit Petey Gil in front of a pomo-lover, or a blip-spreader in front of a pull-the-trigger-on-one-sentence judge, then I have to adapt like mad. Probably not successfully.
Point is, if I drop to an orator from MN in front of a judge who really just wanted everyone to sound pretty and smile wide, while I may have actually lost the round too, I was at a disadvantage through the round because I come from the national circuit where I get to be a big nasty mean girl and just look down at my flow the whole time.
Posted from: 207.172.150.102
May 15th, 2005 12:24
1. Granted, many circuit judges will vote off turns and theory, and I probably explained this poorly. What I’m arguing is that debaters with extreme styles who are really successful are more likely to drop than are debaters with more mainstream styles who are really successful because they will appeal to a greater cross-section of judges. Sure, most judges will vote off of turns, I probably exaggerated that, but I’ve seen very few debaters (David being one) who can make accessible, intuitive theory arguments consistently.
2. While this will happen frequently, I think the solution is, as I argued, the “least common denominator” approach. Sure, hitting Petey in front of a pomo-lover would disadvantage you, but that probably won’t happen often enough for it to make a big impact, whereas if someone relies on going 300 WPM to win rounds, while they may win on the flow every round, that doesn’t necessarily make them the best debater. I guess the argument I’m really making is that there will be a lot of judges who will drop a debater going really, really fast on face, but next to none that will drop someone for going reasonably slow and weighing a lot, like recent TOC champions have done.
Posted from: 64.170.195.58
May 15th, 2005 12:52
in response to babb and sam:
my pre-empt was a impact take out that granted the link. my claim of a palmersignal was a joke, indicating that there isn’t some united front to defend palmer, i just posted because sam was unnecessarily attacking him, and he’s my friend.
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
May 15th, 2005 13:51
i think a lot of people are assuming that every debater has only one style which, in a lot of cases, doesnt reflect reality. i know that i have two very different styles when i debate at like toc and stuff and when im debating a local alabama tournaments, and i dont see either one as being ‘abnormal’ for me; theyre just different. i would say that the best debaters are not those who dont need to adapt, but rather those who can adapt without having to consciously say ‘well i need to do X and Y differently than i normally do’ - ideally, no debater would think of 1 particular style as her ‘normal’ one. im all about national circuit debate and everything, but i think there is a certain charm to more traditional and local circuits that prevent debaters from becoming formulaic robots.
Posted from: 24.162.117.201
May 15th, 2005 13:59
So wait is John Mcneil 50 Cent? That might be even sweeter than a Doppel Signal.
I think Sheehan makes a really interesting point (why do we hold the champ of greenhill in higher esteem than the champ of blue key?). And Eric makes a similar point, and is, I think, dead on when suggesting that it’s reasonable to believe judges make mistakes (and that this is something different from losing due to adaptation, etc). It is nearly impossible to adapt to a completely unpredictable and random move a judge will make; and perhaps, it is precisely this *unpredictability* that casts some judges in a bad light. Even if I stylistically diverge from a predictable judge, I as a debater may at least know what’s expected of me. It’s the unpredictable judges (unpredictable due to *whatever* reason) that strike us as strike-worthy.
On Sheehan’s point, sure something outside the ballot has to unofficially indicate prowess. When I judged Oscar Shine affirming against Josh Anderson is doubleoctafinals at Greenhill, Josh won on a 3-0. But Oscar’s 1AR was one of the sickest I have ever ever seen. Despite losing the ballots, I was entirely convinced that Oscar was one of the top 3 debaters that year based on that 1AR alone–and of course he went on to win quite a few ballots that year, too. I guess my initial question in the article (regarding ballots, anyway) is designed precisely to reach some kind of consensus about what to say: perhaps there’s no epoch of absurdity (I dont want to overstate anything), but there may be cause to rethink the emphasis we put on trophies and ballots. It seems to me, however, incoherent to praise debaters so thoroughly when they DO win the ballots, if we are still primarily persuaded by other more subjective and popular measures of one’s “success”. And yet we continue to do both!
There remains a separate and worthwhile consideration, perhaps more of a sociological question. And while I’m comfortable with acknowledging the ballot’s lack of sovereignty, I’m still curious as to why (as Sam puts it) there are no Doppel Mckays. I really don’t raise this question with just Eric and John in mind–I thought Merve was a Top 3 debater her year and easily the most intelligent debater in the pack, but the popular spin on her was, “she just uses big words.” Not only was there no DoppelMerve phenomena, there was somewhat of a backlash to her success. There was the exact same for John Mcneil, who I honestly thought was the best debater that year (not because of trophies, but because of the rounds I watched him). Hell, I sat out for him in semis at TOC his *junior* year. But even in Eric’s post, John’s success has to accept the caveat that he had teammates, coaching, and debated longer. I don’t know that it’s at all unreasonable for some debaters to get mad respect for reasons other than ballots, but why is it that some debaters seem to generate more backlash and adoration? This really does predate the DoppelPalmer phenomena–a guy named Neils Melius won a lot of rounds when I was a senior, and the popular explanation was that the shine from his forehead blinded judges into voting for him. And it happens all over the place on a smaller scale. But what is it that makes debaters instantly gravitate to some performances and not others? In the Dallas area, for example, Bryce Adams was all but deified for his debating, while I thought he was just getting by much of the time with interesting but irrelevant commentary rather than argumentation. So yes, judges definitely have conceptions about who’s “good” and who “isnt,” and I think those exist indepedently of ballots, too. But AS a judge, I also wonder why it often happens that the student-vote in round robins diverges from the actual critics’ vote. I’ve seen that happen a number of times. I guess I’m most interested in hearing what drives to debaters to hold other debaters or former debaters in such high or low esteem. Or, in the case of someone like Nick Green, it seemed like everyone excepted he was a sick, sick debater.. but even then, there wasn’t like a massive Nick Green following. There’s a difference between passively recognizing someone as “hella legit” and actually contributing to the fan-demonium. I’m curious about what causes that.
b
Posted from: 24.162.117.201
May 15th, 2005 14:02
+10000 to Mangus’ post.
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
May 15th, 2005 14:22
Okay guys, now I’m not sure here but I think I might have figured out Duby’s thingy above. This is just a wild guess, but is “Debater A” Salvador Dali and “Debater B” Max Ernst? I’m going to plug their names into a paraphrased version of Sam’s “question” [sic] to check it out:
In the five tournaments where both Dali and Ernst competed in 2003-2004, Dali did better four times, winning all four tournaments. Can someone logically explain why Dali has received almost no love and Ernst was thanked at TOC finals and multiple people claim he was the best they ever saw?
It totally works! Just yesterday, I was at the Met and everyone was like “OMG Ernst was like the most bestest most influential artist ever he rocked Dada and surrealism and Fobfob was amazing so much political value” and so on. Despite the comma splices, their commentary was consistent and pervasive enough for me to get the message: Ernst should be worshipped and emulated.
So, what about Dali? Dali obviously was and is more commercially and popularly successful than Ernst. How many people do you with that poster of the melting clocks in their dorm or bedroom or john? Now compare that with the number of people you know with Ernst’s “The Petrified City.” Maybe the young pretentious obnoxious idiotic ugly hipster artsy ones have the Ernst, but the people’s choice is Dali.
Worse yet, these pretentious industry insiders talk smack about poor dead Dali. They call him overrated, talentless, uninspiring. They say that his agent threw around political weight to get him big exhibits; that his love for bouillabaisse was a ruse covering a much more quotidian, embarrassing love of Whoppers; and that he contributed nothing to Un Chien Andalou or art in general.
So, to (finally) get to Sam’s question: Is there a logical explanation? The obvious answer is “Hell yeah! Commercial popularity, critical success, and industry legitimacy don’t have any stable relationship. Look anywhere from music to debate to obscure philosophy: there are cults of popularity, canonized favorites, passing fads, and detractors of them all. Modern art is no different.”
But that answer, like Sam’s question, begs more questions. Who cares about logic? As an artistic community, we’ve embraced not only Dada and surrealism, but rephotography, cubism, hyperminimalism, graffiti, whatever shit Matthew Barney is doing these days, and much more and less. Sometimes the very purpose of a given artist, piece, or movement has been to question authenticity and logic.
Finally, and perhaps more relevant to these two specific artists, maybe we shouldn’t choose between Dali and Ernst. Maybe we should just admit that Debord was right: surrealism was a politically counterproductive waste of time and resources and that crap about dreams and symbolism and automatic writing set back all legitimate intellectual and artistic causes 50 years or so. Maybe we should gather as much Dali and Ernst as we can, along with Tanguy and Magritte and Breton and so on, make a big bonfire, and roast delicious kosher hot dogs and s’mores and sing love songs to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
This is the moment in our project that Bone Thugs-N-Harmony would call “Tha Crossroads.” We have to make a decision–actually, YOU have to make a decision, because soon there will no longer be a me in our community (and perhaps there never was, despite the arguable appearance of “refined post-structuralism” at certain exhibitions over the past two years). So I will leave you with this momentous decision, and go dream of gardens morphing into copulating insects, Madonna emerging from a disembodied ear, and the pipe that is not one (ending with Freud = truf).
Posted from: 69.23.246.38
May 15th, 2005 16:31
I don’t see why people are so surprised that there are DoppelPalmers but not DoppelMcKays/Neils. People don’t get adoring fans from just being good at debate; there are way too many solid debaters for that to be one’s only appeal. There are too many octos-bid-tournament champions for every one of them to be equally obsessed about by Hirsh.
Here’s why people like Eric are different:
1. Eric’s not shy. While I think John McNeil’s a pretty cool guy (I’ve played Diplomacy at his house hehe), he was never very social at tournaments. It’s impossible for people to fall for someone who doesn’t talk very much.
2. To expand on that, Eric also didn’t have the team to stick to; rather than just talk to a teammate, he talked to pretty much everyone. When I was a lonely junior at Greenhill with very few acquaintances, Eric (and Tom Evnen and Paul Schiano) included me in his conversations and treated me like an equal; even some of the people I was friends with didn’t treat me like that.
3. He helps strugglers. While still debating, Eric edited debaters’ cases, gave people sources and evidence all the time, and he taught other debaters about strategy, etc. He was never overly competitive or secretive about what he was running. With so much of the activity becoming overrun by uncoached students, how could people not like a guy who comes from Howland, OH, and helps them out?
This is why people like Andrew Garvin are so popular, too. John McKay himself tells a story about how he debated a kid at Logan who conceded in the 1AR; Garvin, the judge, made the kid stand up and try– with Garvin’s help, of course.
4. Eric also ran interesting stuff in interesting ways. It’s a lot easier to be awed by someone running something you haven’t seen (Eric’s NRs, like Ryan O’Hara’s, for example, were pretty unique and impressive) than by a stock debate done well. While Wolfish’s TOC semis 2ar was incredibly impressive, it’s not as incredible to watch as someone running Heidegger with the sense that they really are interested in the arguments they’re making, not just in winning some rounds by being universally appealling. And how cool is it that the kid 10-pointed deontology off the top of his head for one of the most talked-about victories at Emory last year or that he went down running a critique of ethical cognitivism (and even though I honestly don’t even know what that means, he made his arguments really clear for even me)? Everyone knew Nick Green was really good, but it was way more exciting to watch Tom Evnen run 100 Monkeys.
5. Eric’s funny to watch debate. I watched him at the Greenhill RR against Neil Conrad where Eric watched himself in the dance-room’s mirror almost the entire round. And, honestly, who hasn’t heard of/ seen Eric’s Satanesque horrified looks? I’m not saying this correlates with being good; it’s just incredibly memorable.
6. Everyone roots for the underdog. While this might not apply to McKay, who formed his own team, basically, McNeil came from a pretty well-established and previously successful team. Eric, on the other hand, went from local Ohio debate his sophomore year to breaking at the TOC his junior year. Not only was he the underdog, but he was a quick learner; people who start debate in 7th grade and break at TOC their junior years just can’t compare to someone who breaks as basically a JVer (this obviously isn’t referencing either McKay or McNeil). People like Sam Duby also picked on Eric almost from the start; everyone loves a “flash in the pan.”
7. Eric coaches. Merve and McNeil don’t. Few people will fawn over someone they don’t even really see anymore. Plus, Eric coaches for teams that really don’t have much to offer him; he could have taken much better-paying jobs (in debate or not), but he stuck with DMN which is all but an independent team and Mountain View. He also continued to help random strugglers throughout the year even if they were on nationally competitive teams.
John and Jed recognized Eric as their most feared opponent; I’ve never seen Jed so impressed as he was with Eric’s aff case at Blake last year (a case he’d written the morning of).
While other people clearly match parts of that list, the point is, Eric really stood out as someone who really cared about other people in the activity, was good at the activity, and who took a different approach to the activity. It isn’t really worthwhile to focus on his debating accomplishments anyways; people now aren’t so much concerned with that considering that after this year, most debaters won’t even have seen Eric debate. It’s more worthwhile to consider that in his first year of coaching he qualified 5 debaters to TOC (not including some debaters who got an incredible amount of help from him but weren’t officially coached by him) and got two of them to outrounds (including a junior to quarters).
Posted from: 70.57.145.42
May 15th, 2005 17:05
Hah- having been invoked by CTS, I guess I should add my two cents.
Calling Eric our “most feared opponent” seems more suited to american gladiators (what does that make him? Nitro?) than debate, but I’ll admit I thought the guy was awfully good.
I should say that having John McNeil be talked up by Sam Duby in an anonymous face-off with Eric Palmer may be the most bizzare thing I’ve seen happen on these boards. This is the kind of thing you can’t make up if you tried.
On the other hand, the same goes for this:
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2668992?htv=12
Think of John as the little black kid, Eric as the fat white girl, and me as Mr. T. Can’t we all just get along?
Posted from: 204.210.37.132
May 15th, 2005 17:19
just to add a couple of other personal anecdotes to illustrate what an awesome guy eric palmer is (there are like a million, these are just the two i remember best):
1) eric dragged me along to panchero’s with steph on the first day of iowa after my sophomore year, even though he had only met me once in passing at berkeley. while we were there, he tried to include me in the conversation and was really friendly, even though he didn’t know me very well.
2) i debated eric round 1 at emory my junior year. eric, as expected, kicked the living shit out of me. after the round, eric didn’t go around saying that he kicked my ass, but instead told people that i made a couple of really smart arguments and tried to be nice.
these 2 anecdotes, on top of the COUNTLESS other things eric has done for me and tons of other people, illustrate how committed eric was to making the activity a better place. this obviously doesn’t answer the question of whether he was a better debater than john mcneil (though i think casey touched on that), but i think it proves why a lot of us are more indebted to him than to john.
Posted from: 64.12.116.203
May 15th, 2005 17:35
Points to Jed.
I think now is the time to discuss the formation of the “Love Squad”. For those of you who are tired of the “haters”, whenever you feel a thread has gotten wildly out of hand (I feel like I’m discussing a street brawl….I only wish), just post some love lyrics. For example….
“People all over the world, join hands. Start a love train, a love train”.
Sip off the haterade, and join the love squad. Then everyone can be happygoluckyyaygofightwinteam!
Posted from: 64.170.195.58
May 15th, 2005 17:41
i wanna join!
Posted from: 65.189.214.191
May 15th, 2005 17:44
Jed,
Wasn’t American gladiators the one where all the steroid freaks named like “Nitro” and “Storm” beat up guys who were like firefighters and cops? How do you decide who gets to be a steroid freak guy and who gets their ass beat?
Posted from: 64.170.195.58
May 15th, 2005 17:46
actually, i don’t really wanna join. all i care about is winning.
Posted from: 67.124.49.254
May 15th, 2005 17:51
i’m down - insofar as we can get crunk in the (love lyric) club.
i actually agree with sam here. ppl love eric too much for being an awesome person. shame on them. shame on eric.
DOPPLE DUBY FOR LIFE
Posted from: 24.6.37.58
May 15th, 2005 17:55
epalm says “Sometimes judges make mistakes. I don’t understand why that notion is so controversial. I know Sam doesn’t believe otherwise; I’ve heard him rant about how Larry McGrath hacked for Hirsh to keep Wolfish from clearing at St Marx many times.”
yea, this is somewhat off topic, but i’ve been wanting to discuss this st marks incident for a while now … but because i dont want to be the subject of a flame war i thought id present a couple OBJECTIVE, UNQUESTIONABLE facts and just leave it at that. i was at first reluctant to share my opinion and change the direction of this thread, but upon realizing that i did better than 4-3 at the TOC, i realized that i was indeed, an EXPERT!
1) sam, “watching” this round, fell asleep midway through the 1ac, and woke up after the 2AR. qualified evaluator? you bet!
2) larry mcgrath, in the name of “cali love”, squirelled in semis of TOC when i defeated adwait. clearly, its cali love all the way with mr mcgrath.
Posted from: 209.30.24.4
May 15th, 2005 17:55
Eric Palmer Judged me round two at the glenbrooks this year and voted for me. About a week later, I bothered him to ask some questions about the round. So me some random kid that a. Eric has no advantage to talk to and b. no real reason to help bothers him at some random hour of the night about one of at least fifteen rounds he judged earlier that week. Not only does Eric talk to me about the round but he also goes through alot so shit about the case i was running and my debate strategy in general based upon what he saw in the round and helped me alot. Eric let me see old copies of his affirmative cases because i wanted to see some good cases because the affirmatives i wrote on the first two topics this year had dumb structure. Althought i did not copy erics style in what i have run later this year, i have won alot more affirmative rounds than I used to. So erics a nice guy. But what I think distinguishes Eric from over 90% of people in debate that I have talked to or know is that he really knows what the fuck he is talking about. I don’t know anyone else in the community that I could or have had a two hour discusion about Kantian ethics with or that would be willing to do such with me just because I had some random wierd perspective on what the guy wrote. Im sure there are a done of very smart people in debate, I just think that Eric in my experience has proven to know alot of shit about alot of stuff. He also doesnt think that because something was writtin by X cool philospher that it makes it intelligent or good which alot of people that try to pretend they are smart do. I do’nt think i have had as many intelligent coversations with anyone in the debate community as I have with Eric.
I think an interesting think about babbs article is the notion of the debator who debates to win versus the debator who debates inorder to vallidate their notion of truth or for i guess more than the love of the game. Eric is one of the few people I have talked to that got into debate because they did shit like read philosphy rather than to add to their college resume or because they really liked to argue or whatever. Then it seems like babb’s demand is not much different than the dopplepalmers fetish. The want to the return to a socratic level of debate rather than the druge of sophistry? Then it would seem that Eric has created a fan club because he is the most modern form of socrates working to teach tricks of the trade while focusing on the end goal which is still a level of truth. Then doesnt Babb’s article answer Duby’s question?
I have no clue how good of a debater eric was because i never saw him, I just know he is a hella smart guy that seems to actually care about debate.
Posted from: 64.170.112.216
May 15th, 2005 18:07
I don’t understand why everyone can’t just chillax. Eric was an awesome debater (and a great philanthropist too, apparently). John was an awesome debater too. So was Jed. So were Mckay and Hogan and everyone else who did really well. Why do people’s preferences for these debaters have to be so ideologically divisive? Why can’t I really like both John and Eric? So many times this year it’s seemed like I’ve been forced to “choose” one of them - groups of friends form around icons, and you have to choose whether you’re in the group or out of it. It’s obviously not that explicit, but so often the implicit message is there - you’re either on this person’s side or you’re not cool. It’s not like it’s just Eric and John; a lot of the same stuff has happened with this year’s debaters - I won’t name names, but certain debaters who were very succesful were treated terribly by the community for a long time just because they weren’t part of the right in-crowd. This happens among teenagers all the time, of course, but it sucks to see it mirrored in an activity like debate that you would think would attract the brightest kids.
Ultimately, this is a high school activity. It’s supposed to give kids a chance to learn a lot, meet friends, and have fun. “Respect” in this activity means that a group of high school kids thinks you’re cool - why is that something worth fighting so much over? Why do people make it so personal and clique-y?
A little ride on the relaxy taxi wouldn’t hurt anybody.
Posted from: 12.216.148.58
May 15th, 2005 18:11
Sorry, but i think eric sucks. i hate him.
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
May 15th, 2005 18:14
Do you people actually think that either a)Eric Palmer is horribly insecure or b)anyone is CONVINCED by Duby’s pathetic attempts to indict him (or anything else Duby says)??
If so, please leave debate and join a community that is unrelated to intellectualism and academics and critical thinking.
By the way, I hate love and love hate, but most of all I hate that no one pays attention to my posts and love Mike Mencher.
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
May 15th, 2005 18:19
WHERE ARE TIM AND PAUL IN ALL OF THIS NONSENSE!??!?!
no, really. they were like pretty good at debate. i officially declare myself the intersection of doppleschiano and doppelhogan. now i just need someone to talk shit about them.
ps eric is nice and friendly
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
May 15th, 2005 18:25
oh pps. even though eric and i are pretty good friends and all and i think he’s really great, hes not the only really nice debater who ive met in the past. pretty much everyone who was a senior last year was really nice and friendly to me (eric, tim, pawl, mckay, brugato, even john and jed who most people seemed to think of as reserved or whatever) long before i had ever done anything noteworthy in the debate world.
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
May 15th, 2005 18:27
ppps the point of my last comment was “as cool as eric is, we should have doppel-everyones”
Posted from: 24.162.117.201
May 15th, 2005 18:39
Two posts stick out for me:
(1) Mangus’ first post on the subject, which suggested it’s important for us to broad appreciation to those who contribute to the activity.
(2) Sheehan’s last post that problematizes the taking of sides.
When I was curious about why some folks get fan clubs and others get backlash, I didn’t quite have in mind the laundry list of endorsements from the fan club. But, they represent a very telling narrative–I’m still curious as to why these narratives form the way that they do. Honestly, I could pick names out of a hat and tell a completely honest story that deifies that name. Neil Conrad is, I think, one of the nicest people the activity is seen. He was inclusive to ’strugglers,’ showed a lot of respect for his opponents, and had no team or coach of which to speak. Oh yah, we won the Greenhill Round Robin and some other stuff too. I saw Neil go out of his way not only to work with kids that were no-ones, but no-ones who (because of their failure to participate on online forums almost hourly) offered no prospect of public adoration. And the kid did some interesting things when he debated too, winning a lot of line-by-line debates with an unusually persuasive gameplan. And hell, he wore a bowtie to boot. No Neil fanclub.
I could produce similar narratives about a lot of people: what about Mcneil as the ‘uber humble guy who never engaged online antics’ or Elizabeth Haddaway as ‘the super nice girl who never played politics’ or Petey Gil as ‘the guy who finally talked about cyborgs’. I mean the bottom line is that there are a lot of really nice people in the activity and a lot who give time for free and a lot who are incredibly intelligent. But for some reason, they dont all have cheerleaders. By the sounds of things, Eric is quite the stud. But I see a lot of studs without the fans, and that confuses me.
It’d be nice to see sides taken less often I guess so that everyone got their due credit. I mean, I feel like I could write a book on how frickin awesome Max Stevens is. But alas, no Max fanclub. Perhaps I will start a Doppel Max club… with a Max Signal and all. ;-) Or maybe we could just ditch idols and give everyone mad love no matter what.
Posted from: 24.162.117.201
May 15th, 2005 18:43
Jake I loved your post. It was hilarious. What is there to say about it.
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
May 15th, 2005 18:50
jake knows so much about modern art and debate and everything he is so hot and cool and he helped me with my debating and he rocks so hard ok bye
Posted from: 69.23.246.38
May 15th, 2005 19:04
two things:
1. who’s upset? why the need to “chillax?”
2. anyone who advocates loving everyone and everyone being in everyone’s fan club is retarded. I learned in kindergarten that I can’t be everyone’s friend. Is it bad that I like Liz Scoggin more than other Edina kids?
Take a step back and think about what’s being argued by Mangus and Babb. We should all be in Duby’s fan club if you really listen to what they’re saying (or at least just give him equal mad love).
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
May 15th, 2005 19:15
yes, thats exactly what we’re saying…right. way to go casey. you cracked the case.
Posted from: 64.170.112.216
May 15th, 2005 19:20
My post was directed more at Duby than anyone else, but I think a lot of people (this is not by any means specific to Sam, I think this applies to a lot of people but he’s the easiest example here) take these debate “fan clubs” too seriously. I’m not saying everyone should be in everyone’s fan club; I’m saying I don’t like the idea of combative fan clubs altogether. Obviously some people are going to have more friends than other people and that’s cool, but I wish people wouldn’t have the “with us or against us” mentality that seems to implicitly be there a lot of the time. I don’t understand why people (Duby in this specific example, other people at other times) care so much about the “respect” certain people get from a group of high school kids that they’re willing to become so combative (and oftentimes mean) about it. Maybe I’m a bit too idealistic, but I wish these fan clubs could become more open and less divisive.
Posted from: 24.162.117.201
May 15th, 2005 19:20
Be in Duby’s fan club? Or resist the fan club mentality altogether?
But agreed on the number one; I don’t think anyone’s upset.
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
May 15th, 2005 19:21
yeah my non-sarcastic answer is the same as babbs: my position is that we should deify no one, not that we should deify everyone.
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
May 15th, 2005 19:25
ps before casey goes and quotes it, i didnt really literally mean that we should actually have special ‘doppel-everyone’ clubs. i think the notion is absurd, and im pretty sure that my posts made that clear even if the language was ironic.
Posted from: 64.123.102.76
May 15th, 2005 19:26
I don’t think its such a bad thing that people don’t always go for the ballot. I don’t think this activity would’ve grown to the place where it is today if there weren’t debaters willing to push the envelope. I really agree with what Petey said - that it is a sign of a mature community that we are willing to respect intellectualism, progressivism, and friendliness as much (or in some cases, more so) as we appreciate strategy and win-loss records.
For example, look to the semi-finals of Greenhill. Even though Fabien took the round, I guarantee you that more people talked about Amanda’s case. Likewise the “stable subject k” generated tons of controversy after St. Mark’s, even though there were tons of reat, strategic rounds debated at that tournament.
But beyond that, I think a lot of debaters have their own reasons for not going for the ballot. For example, at NFL Districts this year I dropped a round because the panel was two judges who had never judged a single round before and one flow judge. I could’ve adapted to the lays, but the flow judge was a coach on our circuit who I had a tremendous amount of respect for and who has jugded me for several years. It was more important for me to show him how much I had progressed as a debater and give a really clear debate for his ballot than to pick up the round. And that’s what I did. I don’t regret it because his respect was more important to me than the win in that circumstance.
Posted from: 65.189.214.191
May 15th, 2005 20:01
DC,
I don’t really feel that I have a fan club. There are people that like me. There are also people who like you, Babb, Mangus, Ernie, Jake and Casey. When anyone is attacked, their friends will probably defend them. Notice that there is no real appearence from the “dopplepalmers” until Sam launches into attack. I don’t think that means I’m any more liked than anyone else, more likely it just means that someone (i.e. Sam) really dislikes me.
Posted from: 204.210.37.132
May 15th, 2005 20:13
why is the “dopplepalmer clique” a divisive group?i mean, it’s a bunch of random kids from around the country who are friends with each other. how is it any different than, say, the dan/hirsh/wolfish/will “strugglers club” from vbi? i mean, we’re a bit more vocal, but that’s just because there are people out there (duby and jerry fugit being the two biggest examples) that are consistently assholes to us and we’re not the most grin-and-bear-it types of people.
that’s the big problem with the babb’s/mangus’s/dan’s approach of shifting the discussion to talking about fan clubs altogether. whether or not they’re correct, that approach just validates sam’s diatribe against eric. sam’s been waging a crusade against eric for the last 2 years or so just because he doesn’t like the fact that other people like him. getting rid of fan clubs may or may not yield a more inclusive community. i really don’t know. however, if we’re committed to an inclusive, friendly model of the debate community, then i don’t see how we can have a nice chat about cliques over tea and crumpets while sam gets to scream bloody murder about how bad he thought eric was. i think getting rid of bullies is a bigger concern than having everyone be friends with everyone else.
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
May 15th, 2005 20:14
before theres any more scandal, the only point of my earlier post was this:
eric palmer has done a lot of great things for a lot of great people, but eric is not the only nice person in the debate world. there are a whole lot of nice people, and we should support them for caring about debate and about others. this is a continuation of the point in my first post: that we should be happy that people are willing to give up time to help advance debate. this doesnt entail that we love anyone with anything to do w/ debate, but it does entail that we support the people who contribute positively to the community (be they eric palmer or a sophist or socrates himself)
here’s how the thread breaks down for me:
people: “why does eric have a fan club?”
other people: “because eric is nice”
me: “a lot of people are nice. we should support them. lets talk about the actual topic that babb brought up.”
casey: “mangus and babb like duby”
to this i say: VACUOUS.
no seriously though. i do like eric, and everything that people say about him being really nice and charitable is true. but if sam is trying to incite peopel to dislike eric, i think we all know that hes ultimately doomed to fail; do we really need to post a ton about it on multiple threads? lets let eric fight his own battles and get back to talking about the article (which eric actually tried to do to begin with - that should be testament enough to his character without a bunch of posts backing him up)
Posted from: 64.170.112.216
May 15th, 2005 20:42
I guess I should be a little clearer with what I’m saying. Having friends is great. The fact that Eric has more debate friends than Duby shows that he’s really friendly and well-liked, and that’s cool (I can vouch for this too - Eric’s always been really nice and friendly to me, even after consistently seeing me in some of my worst rounds this year). My problem isn’t specific to the Eric Palmer fan club (or group of close friends; maybe calling it a “fan club” isn’t the best way to put it); my problem is with the general combativeness a lot of people have developed over things that, to me at least, are pretty silly, like the level of “respect” former debaters get from high school kids on a website. I’m not indicting the behavoir of people on this thread who came to Eric’s defense; they were just defending a friend, and I think that’s a noble cause, not something to look down on. I’m indicting the behavoir in late-night debate chatrooms and behind people’s backs at tournaments that is more hateful and targets people for exclusion from the “in-crowd” for silly reasons. Obviously all of us (myself included) have done things like this at some point, but lots of the time it seems to be something that continues and is tacitly supported by the community. I think Duby has this problem (his attack on Eric’s following indicates this), but I think a lot of other people do too - whether they’re friends with Eric or not, a lot of people are consistently mean to or exclusive of other people for silly reasons. I’ll try to keep checking this but I’m not sure how consistent I’ll be. All of you guys (Alex, Eric, Casey, whoever) have my screename, and I’d be happy to continue this on AIM (or if anyone else wants to e-mail me or whatever that’s cool).
Posted from: 207.172.150.102
May 15th, 2005 20:52
+1 to Dan’s post. Ultimately, it’s not the facade of friendliness that we may put up on these discussions, but the actual behavior that matters. As someone who’s participated in the late-night debate chatrooms cited, I can say that, while many people claim to want to be inclusive and be friends with everyone, the actual nature of these discussions becomes vicious and conniving. I’m not indicting anyone in particular, least of all Eric and Sam, neither of whom I know personally, but just generally saying that this whole country club atmosphere in chatrooms is counterproductive to the creation of an open, accepting community.
Posted from: 64.170.195.58
May 15th, 2005 21:04
am i the only one who finds the idea of daniel sheehan complaining about talking shit behind people’s backs hilarious?
Posted from: 207.172.150.102
May 15th, 2005 21:10
“am i the only one who finds the idea of daniel sheehan complaining about talking shit behind people’s backs hilarious?”
Am I the only one who finds the idea of posting anonymous attacks on other people disturbing?
Posted from: 67.124.49.254
May 15th, 2005 21:33
Am I the only person who finds Alex Imas disturbing?
Posted from: 204.210.37.132
May 15th, 2005 21:35
no.
Posted from: 24.6.37.58
May 15th, 2005 22:13
“am i the only one who finds the idea of daniel sheehan complaining about talking shit behind people’s backs hilarious?”
The thing about anonymous attacks that really upsets me is that the lack of accountability for statements made, the ability to be totally immune to criticism, facilitates attempts to unjustifiably tarnish people’s images. So I’m gonna say it straight up - Daniel Sheehan is not some shit-talking, gossip-obsessed jerk.
Now, I’m sure “anon” will reply back with another anonymous comment, indicting my credibility as well, or something along those lines, but I mean, there isn’t much that can be done about that. Ultimately, it’s one person’s word against another, which makes this “argument” or “discussion”, etc somewhat pointless. Nevertheless, you implicitly suggested that DC was a sinister, duplicitous shit-talker, which is far from true; on the contrary, I think most people find him to be one of the chillest guys in the activity.
As I write, I’m kinda wondering why I’m posting, considering this post won’t solve or do anything; regardless, I feel obligated to stand up for a friend when he is being wrongly maligned. Maybe it’s a waste of time, but whatever.
So for the record - Shut up, Sheehan is chill.
Posted from: 67.124.49.254
May 15th, 2005 22:15
hirsh jain eats babies
Posted from: 128.12.53.89
May 15th, 2005 22:28
I think “dopplepalmer” or whatever is kinda a self fulfilling fantasy. I mean, I think it started out as something not so existent but more perceived primarily because the so-called “dopplepalmers” happen to be really outspoken people on lddebate.org/vbdaily. CTS/Prashant/Navot/Smitty/Ernie/Hess/etc. are all heavy posters on sites like these, so although they are only 6 people, having these 6 friends might come off as an entire devout cult for those who only gauge such activity based on posts in flame wars or about camps, or whatever the topic at hand is.
Threads like these only fuel the prophecy, as one attacks the so-called cult and has a backlash type response which only seem to prove the existence of the “dopplepalmers”. In reality, I’d like to think if someone posted up on a thread attacking me, that I’d have debate friends defend me as well. In fact, if you look back into the westman history books, almost every time a prominent member of our community has been attacked, there is usually a huge backlash to those attacks (even when the infamous “DubyHata” attacked Duby, he received TONS of love). So, I think it’s natural that a thread like this will bring out a response in the defense of Palmer. Likewise, if 90% of the posts on westman (hyperbole, guys, please don’t yell at me), are made by so-called “Doppplepalmers”, and those 5-8 individuals happen to love Eric Palmer, then it may appear that 90% of the community is in love with Eric Palmer.
Overall, I think the whole thing is silly. Worst case scenario, even for you Duby, is that people love Eric Palmer for no reason at all. They are all dumb and don’t look at objective facts, etc. In that case, who cares? Considering male attraction is based on some of the most arbitrary things on earth, and yet it is the basis of our entire civilization, I don’t see what’s so wrong with liking Eric Palmer and not me, even if it is just because he has pretty eyes or something.
P.S. Casey- although I know it’s probably not your intention, your post, read literally, is kinda harsh. Let me try to explain what I mean: “I don’t see why people are so surprised that there are DoppelPalmers but not DoppelMcKays/Neils….Here’s why people like Eric are different:1. Eric’s not shy… Eric also didn’t have the team to stick to… He helps strugglers… Eric also ran interesting stuff in interesting ways… Eric’s funny to watch debate… Eric coaches.”
So, taken literally your post would imply that I was shy, boring, didn’t “help strugglers”, didn’t run interesting cases, wasn’t funny, and don’t coach. I know at least one of those things is factually untrue, and I hope you/others don’t really think the rest about me.
Posted from: 128.12.53.89
May 15th, 2005 22:30
*self fulfilling prophecy, god knows why i said “fantasy”
Posted from: 64.170.195.58
May 15th, 2005 22:39
I LOVE ERIC PALMER
AND NO ONE ELSE.
oh god MAKE IT STOP MY LOVE ERIC PALMER BURNS ME FROM WITHIN AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
*drinks koolaid*
Posted from: