A/T: Questions for Aaron Timmons
Aaron Timmons
One of the few active coaches on the national circuit who has led students to victory in both Lincoln-Douglas and policy debate, Aaron Timmons is one of the debate community’s most well-known figures. That’s no surprise: he is the only coach in the history of the National Forensic League to have multiple national champions in both LD and policy debate. He has coached LD debaters to victories at the Glenbrooks, the St. Mark’s Heart of Texas Invitational, Stanford, the MBA Round Robin, the Greenhill Round Robin, the Barkley Forum, TFA State, Isidore Newman, and, most recently, the TOC. Policy debaters from Greenhill were top speakers at the TOC and Nationals the same year and have won the Tournament of Champions, the MBA Southern Bell Forum, St. Mark’s the Glenbrooks, the Barkley Forum at Emory University, Big Bronx, Isidore Newman, the Harvard Round Robin, tournaments at Stanford, Wake Forest, and Northwestern Universities, and TFA State. Having most recently coached Greenhill’s David Wolfish to the TOC title–the first time in history a Texan has claimed the championship–Timmons joins Jon Cruz for an exclusive VBD
interview.
JC: Thank you so much for joining me today! You’ve been one of our most requested interviews for some time, and that’s not surprising, given how long you’ve been involved in the activity. Rather than focus on all the achievements of this year and of previous seasons, I think, to start, it makes the most sense to ask about how you got involved in our activity. Did you debate in high school? In college? Or did you start coaching without previous experience in debate?
AT: Thank you for having me! I appreciate the opportunity. Actually, a little know fact about me–before this interview [laughs]–is that I used to do IE’s in high school. I actually started debating my junior year and then debated in college. I then started teaching right after college and have been doing it ever sense.
JC: I have to ask: which IE’s? What pieces? And for what schools did you compete?
AT: I did DI, HI, poetry, prose and oratory. My favorite prose piece was “Santa Claus was a White Man” by John Henrik Clark. It was a real tearjerker.
JC: [laughs]
AT: I actually grew up in the Houston/Galveston area of Texas. Dickinson, Texas, to be precise. I then competed at the University of Texas at Arlington and Lamar University. Dickinson was a SMALL town…well, 15,000 or so. It wasn’t a hamlet or anything!
JC: Did you know you wanted to go into coaching as a college student?
AT: Yes. Actually, I knew after sixth grade. I really enjoyed competitive speech and I thought I could be an effective teacher. It was–and is–a passion I continue today. I certainly had–and continue to have–other opportunities but as long as I fell like I am effective and still enjoy this game I will keep playing!
JC: That is awesome. Was your first coaching position at Newman Smith?
AT: NO!
JC: [laughs]
AT: [laughs] First coaching position was in Hardin, Texas. School population: 255. Rural area. It was a great experience for me; I was there for three years. Those days are very special to me. The things that debate did for those kids were (real life benefits) important. I may have even saved a few kids from making really bad choices…opened up college debate as a way for some of them to go to a university.
I then moved on up to the East Side.
JC: [laughs]
Aaron Timmons
So, I moved to big D. Found out about the job very late in the summer. Interviewed, got approval to leave Hardin Jefferson, accepted the offer, and moved in about six days. It was hard to get a hold of me. No cell phones, you know. [laughs] That was 1987.
JC: That had to be a pretty sudden shift for you.
AT: It was, but it was time. We did do really well at my two smaller schools, though.
JC: While your accomplishments at all of your programs are impressive, your experiences at your first school are a real testament to the “real world” benefit to debate. It must also be a testament to your abilities as a program director: did you find it difficult to manage a program with what must have been a very limited budget? How did you do it?
AT: We had a decent budget for the time given that the person before me [E. Harvey Craig] was a big supporter and had infrastructure set up. We did do fundraising: bake sales, candy sales, a tournament, car washes, and so on. They were team-building exercises, though. We were very close. It was also difficult since we competed mainly in Houston and we were two hours away from the schools. We did all sorts of cost-saving things, such as asking banks and law firms for money. We decided to not let money, or the reputation of big schools, be an obstacle to our success. I loved the “where the hell is Hardin? Where the hell is Hardin Jefferson?” comments when postings went up.
JC: [chuckles]
AT: They soon figured it out. Unfortunately I don’t get that much anymore.
JC: I was about to say…has it been hard to make that adjustment?
AT: Nope. Students can be motivated to do well for a number of reasons, it just depends on your circumstances. Bottom line: the focus is set a goal–a realistic one, based on what you are willing to do to achieve it–and then strap in.
JC: When did you first get involved in LD?
AT: 1983, really. Dabbled a bit before then. I didn’t like what it started out as…then more rules and structure was developed. Much more reliance on evidence, expectations of clash, etc.
JC: A lot of people talk about how how LD “used to be,” but without an actual frame of reference. Can you describe those earliest years from your perspective?
AT: The very early years were dueling oratories. No practical examples, no real evidence, little focus on a burden of rejoinder and clash. After the 1979 NFL final round in policy, people just didn’t want debate to be that. So naturally, people went to the opposite extreme.
I have to specify the date when most of your posters speak of “back in the day” as in 1998. I kind of have a different perspective!
JC: What happened in that final round? Was it more a display of “fast” policy than some more recent final policy rounds? Or what?
AT: The final round was TOC fast. In fact, the 1998 final round on a similar topic, with a similar case and negative arguments was MUCH slower. The debate was between Firestone High School and Bellaire High School, I think. Ford used to sponsor NFL, and the execs walked in and asked, “what is that?” The NFL execs said, “the final round of policy debate.” Ford soon withdrew funding. LD was created as a distinct alternative to policy debate.
JC: Have you been happy with the evolution of LD since then?
AT: Yes and no.
JC: It might be helpful to break down that evolution into distinct phases, from your perspective.
AT: Sure. The period of dueling oratory–no evidence of an empirical nature, or current examples, and so on–I kind of think of this era as dominated and influenced by Dale McCall. My understanding is that she thought empirical evidence was bad. It then went to “policy lite with plans,” and so on. After that, the transition was a more moderate form, influenced by the likes of Marilee Dukes and Pat Bailey. The policy lite period only lasted a couple of years; the Dukes/Bailey style was a response.
JC: That’s interesting, as Dale McCall is a name a lot of current debaters throw around or have heard of but about which they probably know very little, and generally conflate with later coaches, such as Marilee Dukes.
AT: The Dukes/Bailey style had a reliance on evidence, a basic value premise, moderate delivery, a focus on clash and infusing some philosophy in their cases. That said, the delivery style was not slow in the mid-nineties, even the early nineties. Some of my fastest debaters ever, in LD, were from that era.
JC: Really?
AT: Perhaps my experience was based on my area, but these were people doing the style I just described, just really fast if need be. Not as many people spoke quickly. But several debaters did it and did it very well.
JC: This earlier “policy lite” period–the one that came after Dale McCall, but before Marilee Dukes–how would you characterize that period? When did it last? Was the style promoted by Pat Bailey and Marilee Dukes a response to that?
AT: It lasted only a couple of years. The Dukes/Bailey style was a response.
JC: So people who comment on speed today as a modern aspect of some corners in LD–for better or worse–are mistaken? Or is there a fundamental difference?
AT: Nothing people are doing now is new, in my humble opinion. Well, I guess the postmodern lit is…. Many current debaters sacrifice speed for clarity and and poor word economy, which is a bad combination. Speed is a tool. If the only strategy you have is to out spread someone that is troubling.
I am not saying speed is bad. I am saying loss of clarity is not a good thing.
And…word economy is a lost art!
JC: What about people who think that speed is “not what LD is about”?
AT: Well…my word of thumb is that you adapt the message to fit the audience. If judges accept it (speed) do what you need to do. I do think a debater needs to be able to adapt to different audiences. When you don’t have MPJ or a strike card you have to be at least able to engage a broader audience
Sam Duby and Aaron Timmons
AT: I don’t know if they are that unique really. I have always tried to just have my students make arguments that we thought were good regardless as to the division they were competing in. I mean, it’s all about making good arguments and packaging in a way that judges are most likely to accept.
JC: You mentioned postmodern argumentation in LD as something that wasn’t present in earlier periods. What’s your feeling on that?
AT: I have no problem with it. I do think it needs to make sense when I hear it the first time. As we know, some “critical” writers aren’t know for being the most understandable or accessible writers. I also think that whatever the literature base is, it needs to have been contextualized in the specific resolution. I don’t think postmodern lit read at 300 wpm is that fair particularly when debaters have limited prep and judges read evidence after the round with no time limit.
JC: What about those who complain that anything read 300 wpm is unfair to students who are inexperienced with speed?
AT: You have to learn how to deal.
I mean several things are unfair, and these things that are not equitable in our activity must be addressed. I don’t think you should spread an inexperienced person. I mean, really…if you are that much better, you have some obligation to serve in a teaching role. You will win anyway if you are that good. Why upset younger students?
Now, if juniors and seniors are inexperienced handling a spread that is their problem.
JC: What is your own preferred style of debate?
AT: A style that wins with the judge or judges in the back. Seriously. The debate happens in the mind of the judge. The best debaters think like judges, in my opinion. I have had debaters that can go slow in one round and out-spread the opponent in the next round.
JC: What does it mean to think like a judge? Many remark that so many judges have wildly different views on debate and on the rounds themselves.
AT: Good question. I think it is incumbent on debaters and coaches to find out as much as possible about judges and frame arguments in a way they are likely to buy. Having a judge notebook, looking at sites that have a philosophies, asking people at tournaments, looking at previous pairings to ask debaters that were judged earlier by that person, and so on. It also means watching if they flow, how they flow, nonverbals–to both your arguments and your opponents’–and adapting accordingly.
Debates are not just won on the flow. They are won in the mind of the judge. How they are thinking about you and your arguments the second or two before they sign the ballot. Too many debaters think that big debates are all about “lines and arrows.” While partially true, judges don’t and can’t use reason only to decide debates. That is not how persuasion and communication works, in my opinion.
JC: I think that’s very good and practical advice, particularly given what you mentioned before: the hesitation on the part of some debaters to adapt.
AT: Some coaches say adapting is bad. I respectfully disagree. If we go to a tournament–especially majors–we are in it to win it. Moral victories aren’t as cool as winning the ring. I am not saying do things unethical, such as going new in the 2AR. I am saying that moral highground about judges “being too dumb to get it” won’t advance your competitive win/loss rate.
JC: Have these strong feelings against adaptation, in your experience, arisen only recently? Or is this nothing new?
AT: Nothing new. If you are a student of the game you give students the skills to put themselves in a position to win.
JC: Some worry that a large emphasis on winning is incompatible with the educational aspects of debate. Is it possible to be “in it to win it,” as you noted, while still balancing the educational ends? If so, how?
AT: I do think it is possible to balance the two goals. They are not “mutually exclusive.” I mean, you can do ethically questionable stuff to win–and I think people do in contemporary debate–but why, when you can combine scholarship with winning.
In addition, you don’t have to “win” for the activity to be incredibly beneficial. Some of my students who you have never heard of were not incredibly successful but gained immeasurable benefits out of the activity.
JC: What types of ethically questionable activity has been troubling you? You’ve been vocal about some of it, I suspect, on LDDebate.org. Are there other things that you’ve observed?
AT: Is this one of the hardball question you have promised? [laughs] Never one to be afraid to voice an opinion, AT jumps in….
JC: [laughs]
AT: In no specific order of frequency…first, debaters are intentionally changing the text of evidence. That is unacceptable in my opinion. I am not talking about clearing up a pronoun, or whatever, but inserting words to make the evidence seem more related to the topic. There is no good defense of this in my mind. I won’t rehash those arguments, but it seemed like a clear debate in my mind. [laughs]
Second, debaters–many, not all–are using incomplete citation that makes it impossible to check out an opponent’s evidence once you return home. Prominent coaches have said, “we need to trust each other.” In a perfect world, I agree, but when debaters and schools have been caught fabricating cards entirely or altering evidence given the stakes at hand, it is hard to have that trust.
Third, debaters who run dense cases but refuse to answer cross-ex questions or refuse to let the opponent see the case and then have no problem letting the judge see it…although that is decreasing year by year.
Finally, JUDGES WHO JUDGES DEBATERS WHO THEY ARE TOO CLOSE TOO OR ARE FRIENDS WITH. (Yes, I am yelling!) I found this to be really troubling this year.
People think they can have objectivity and it creates an uncomfortable situation for one of the debaters. My deal is this…I can accept a loss without a problem. I should not have to wonder if the fact that there a) was a previous hook-up, b) folks who used to travel and work on cases together judging, c) FOLKS WHO HAVE HAD ONE ON ONE PRIVATE WORK SESSIONS with students and then judge them in a final round–not an institute setup but a private workshop–or d) judges and coaches who are so close that they hug after your student loses on a 2-1.
Perhaps that objectivity can occur, but questions should NOT have to come up in the coaches’ or debaters’ minds about inappropriate situations and if that made the difference. I am just saying judges need to ask debaters and more importantly coaches if they are aware of a potential conflict and it they are comfortable with them judging.
JC: How should one solve this problem, then? A voluntary basis? Open the door to more judges, even at more “elite” competitions?
AT: Good question.
AT: Part is a recognition that judges need to see that objectivity is perceptual, not reality-based. I may not have an answer, but I do know this…when I married my wife–outgoing director at Colleyville Heritage–I decided I would not judge her teams. If they lost a close debate, life was weird at home for a while. If then won a close debate, I was clearly influenced by my relationship with her. It was best not to put myself in that position.
JC: I think that’s well put.
AT: Well, thank you, sir.
AT: I have a question for you. (AT flips the script.)
JC: [laughs] The tables are turned! Shoot.
AT: You are loved in the debate community by most who know you. We need people like you to teach full time. Are you going to be a “lifer”?
JC: I am definitely a lifer.
AT: Sweet. “Readers all cheer.”
JC: [laughs]
AT: Okay, back to me.
JC: [laughs] I appreciate the question, as a side note. But, yes, back to you.
Speed, then, when well executed, is not an issue, in your mind. Speed and jargon are probably two of the biggest complaints that have arisen in some corners of the LD world. What, then, in your mind, are the problems with how “policy”-style debate aspects are being applied to LD?
AT: Speed, if well executed, is not an issue with me. Again, I see it as a tool. No great debater I have ever see goes full bore in every speech. I think too many debaters have picked the style that works for them and then have a disdain for other styles. Jargon is fine if the judge gets it. Some jargon is inevitable and may not be bad. It is important for debaters to be able to not use jargon if the judge is opposed to it.
JC: What do you think makes for a good coach?
JC: A desire to be a advocate for your students, never thinking you know it all and learn more every day in exchanges with students and other coaches. You must be willing to continually strive to improve yourself and create an infrastructure that allows your students to do as well as they possibly can. Having a mean competitive streak doesn’t hurt either. [laughs]
JC: [laughs] Given that you just asked me about my own long-term commitment to debate, and you mentioned your interest in coaching as a middle schooler, which continued into college, do you think interested coaches should begin their careers in college?
AT: Delicate question.
JC: Well, some people have told me that I should ask “hardballs” sometimes, too. [laughs]
JC: I like hardball questions!
Well, I do think students in college have things to offer. That said I don’t the current practice of the hired guns that fly under the radar of many schools are good for the long-term health of debate. A nineteen-year-old is not a “director” of a program.
Someone, like yourself, needs to be on the inside to get school support, recruitment, etc. I also think lots of the college connections I see as a liability nightmare. One major accident while people are going “independent” will not be good for the future of debate in that school. We talk a lot about “micro-politics,” but debaters need to walk the walk more to get more support in their schools. I know budgets are tight, but working through the system is better for the long-term health of debate.
JC: Do you think independent travel and building long-term teams are compatible?
AT: It depends on whether the school–and, more importantly, the coach–is aware of the traveling.
I mean, I do have a confession…
JC: Uh-oh! [laughs]
AT: Certain folks–who may or may not be me!–have taken students long ago to tournaments without the school knowing it. It was a bad choice, in retrospect. I did work hard for that internal support, which was very difficult but needed to happen. Had that push for school support not happened, we would have spent years flying under the radar. I have a ton of stories about such trips–to the degree they happened–but readers will have get those from my memoirs.
JC: [chuckles]
AT: The thing that some folks don’t get is that schools with lots of debate support and “rep” started somewhere. It is a growth process that is ongoing.
JC: Do you think the commitment to team-building has changed on the national circuit?
AT: Yes. At least, in many circumstances. I respect what [Mission San Jose] seems to do I and I had nothing but love for that. That said, more people seem to be in it for them without consideration of the future. The idea of larger teams led by a big time director seems to be on the wane. The model of Vestavia Hills is no as longer prominent as it once was.
JC: Some students would contend that this marks a “democratization” of debate. Your thoughts?
AT: What is democratic about it? It’s not like the mega teams won every event. My issue is that full time coaches will be more concerned about the long-term health of debate. In reality, what is democratic about it? Seriously. I missed the vote, if one happened. People need to pay some dues before expecting an equal voice. I am not saying that younger coaches have to be silent for a two-year waiting period, I am saying the disrespect of certain young need to be put in check. In addition, one big problem I see is a general lack of respect of those that have put in time in this game. Part of that is the Internet, how people can sit at home, be on their computer, and say disrespectful things without having to confront the person. At least that has been my recent experience.
This democratization issue intrigues me.
As a community–and I am not the attorney here–we need to understand that as students use the school’s name, the school is liable for harm to them or damage they may cause. Huge liability issues. I know many TOC events will not be accepting “independent” entries.”
JC: To play devil’s advocate, some students feel that such a policy prevents students whose teams absolutely refuse to travel–but who allow students to travel under an independent name with the support of the school administration, given the team’s policy–or whose schools refuse to sponsor a debate team, because of funding or different priorities or the like, from ever having the chance to compete at TOC. Is it wise to create such a blanket policy?
AT: Yes. The deal is that schools can’t let people travel with their name without being liable. They can turn a blind eye but still be sued in the end. In addition, what motivation does the school have to fund a program or hire a full-time teacher if students can continually brunt the financial burden? I definitely don’t think students can go around the wishes of coaches. Meaning, if we don’t travel as part of my coaching pedagogy, you can work to get it changed but you certainly can’t do your own thing.
JC: So, if a student feels she is being denied the opportunity to attend TOC or tournaments that allow her to leave a closed circuit in the short-term, she ought to work towards creating a team or a school policy that would allow her to do so?
AT: Yes. If that is not done, the same battles are fought with new generations of debaters at the same school.
JC: This is unrelated, admittedly, but a question that comes up a lot at times with great legacies: is there a pressure to live up to past successes, as a coach, and among your students?
AT: Sure. This is the difficult part of being in a program that has had some successes. As a coach, you would like to win certain events again–well, at least, I do!–so goals are always higher. Also, it is imposing for younger students to hear about all the “greats” before them, and then trying to live up to that. It is also really imposing for recruiting when people walk in and see several trophies in the room from this year and years past. We also encounter the “debate sucks away your life” line from “supportive” teachers, advisors, non-debate students, and so on.
It is a struggle.
Competitively, it can be hard as well. There are those that say that “rep” plays a big part of debate victories. Maybe, maybe not. I do know that for every “rep” vote, you are combating those who want to vote against “rep” if possible. Again, just my opinion.
JC: It sounds like you’ve been on both sides of the “rep” battle, so you have perspective on the matter.
AT: I feel like I do, yes. “Rep” can work for you or against you.
JC: And, also, you’ve worked at “rep” programs and “non-rep” programs.
AT: Indeed.
JC: Where do you see local tournaments headed? Greenhill has had a lot of success both in and out of Texas, where local competition is particularly fierce.
AT: Another good question. This is one reason why Texas debate is very strong: solid local competition. I don’t think people should abandon their local circuits. It is a phenomenon I am seeing more and more these days. Debating locally helps improve the quality of that circuit. In addition, if you are really a debate dynamo, you can win on the local circuit. Let people who can’t travel have a chance at you. It is one reason I really love our state tournament. Winning, say, Glenbrooks, is sweet, but a lot of people can’t travel out of state. You are the best in your state or area if you give them a chance to beat you and you win.
JC: Some have said that local circuits, more than ever, are feeling the pressure of a “schism” with national circuit practice. I’m not sure if that’s true, given the historical overview you provided of LD. Is the local/national split going the “way of policy”? Or is that split an exaggeration?
AT: The split is not an exaggeration unfortunately. Part of this relating to our earlier discussion of disdain existing (in both camps) to each other’s style. The silliness I hear from both camps at Nationals is crazed. I mean, when I hear so called “circuit debaters” say, “only four ‘legit’ debaters are left in the tournament,” as I did last year, we have some real issues. Although I am not impressed with the maturity of the individuals who spoke those words, I do think that it is a feeling that often goes unspoken.
I will state it again: some of the best debaters I have ever seen could not, or did not, travel.
It also goes both ways, to be fair. Many non-circuit debaters have a certain distrust and sense that their approach to the activity is correct. I see value in all approaches to debate and we need to stop these competing ideological camps and accept and appreciate all styles and competitive choices that other coaches and students make.
Travel opportunities sometimes are related to inflated egos and a misplaced sense of self-righteousness.
JC: I think that’s a fair assessment in many situations.
AT: Not all, but many.
JC: Hardball?
AT: Ask what you will. Hardball.
JC: In terms of rep, some debaters and coaches have sometimes accused you, and other “rep” coaches, of going beyond the implied pressure to vote one way or the other in a round by directly pressuring judges.
AT: [sighs] The angry black man syndrome again. “Dude, I heard AT throws chairs if his kids lose,” or “AT knows martial arts and put this woman in a bloodsport death grip and she convulsed like a fish out of water.” The year before I actually started debating. [laughs]
Okay, here we go.
I think coaches should be advocates for their students. I think judges have an obligation to be careful, responsible, reflective, and unbiased as possible in making a decision. Judges should not have a problem with answering respectful questions about what should have been done better or how certain arguments were evaluated. I do think that feedback is essential to knowing that judges’ quirks better and making necessary changes so the debater can adapt. No judge should have to sit through personal attacks.
I do think coaches have an obligation and a right to ask a few questions based on the experience of the judge. Have I gotten into it with a few judges? Guilty. I do not think have ever–directly in conversation with a judge–made an ad hom attack. Well, that is not totally true. There was the judge at Nationals one year that intervened on some education topic to not give funding to predominately minority schools because, quote, “those black kids are too dumb and lazy to succeed. Why waste the money?”
Then…it was on…. It then became personal.
JC: Wow, are you serious? That’s terrible.
AT: As sickle cell. That is serious for a black person. [laughs] I mean, that was uncalled for.
Here is a tip to younger judges. Do your best to make and explain your decision. In the post-round discussion, if it is clear you missed something, you can’t be faulted if you say, “I didn’t hear (or internalize) the argument that way the first time. Perhaps if you word it this way in the future its all good.” To try to debate an experienced coach after the round is typically not a great choice. Even as a judge, if you are right, you can’t “win”. Try to diffuse the situation if possible. If you made a mistake, that is okay. We all do. The worst thing is to try to roll hard against someone who has a lot more experience, in my opinion.
I do have to say this. I guess I could lose weight to not be so physically imposing. I can’t change the fact that I am black, and wouldn’t want to. (”Say it loud!”) I can’t change that my students have had some success over the years. For someone to say that I should not be able to watch a student debate because a judge might be “intimidated” seems ridiculous to me. One of three things would be true: the judge/s might have concerns about judging that round. If they know me, or other “rep” coaches, they know I am outside the room or down the hall pacing. [laughs] So the intimidation argument is not really unique. If a judge has issues because of someone’s physical presence, they shouldn’t be judging.
Or they are not intimidated at all. Or they want to “rage against the machine” and vote down the “rep” coach or debater. Frankly, if we are being honest, the buddy system I see with lots of judges concerns me much more as way of influencing a decision. Most of these folks are in the activity not for a long time and have a short-term, self-serving agenda.
JC: To play devil’s advocate, might not one accuse coaches of having a self-serving agenda?
Meet the Timmonses
I mean, I have a three-year-old son–Hi Joshua! I had to mention him somewhere in the interview! [laughs]–who graduates in 2020. I have to teach and work until then. If I do shady and unethical stuff, my professional career, and the school’s “rep,” is ruined. Not so with hired guns and independent debaters. They could win the ring and then be out…. Those in the game for a while have much more of an incentive to be “legit.” This is what I wanted to say on an earlier issue. I find it curious that other “rep” coaches watch as many or more debates than me and ask more questions but aren’t accused of “intimidation.” One of those things that makes you go, “hmmmm”!
I hear you like war stories. We should talk some time. Got a few.
JC: Good to share for the interview, or is that something for another time? [laughs]
AT: Hardball. You’re the interviewer. What do your readers want to know? I am serious.
JC: Well, it’s a good lead-in. Let’s hear a war story.
AT: Ten judges in an LD final round at Nationals. 1993. Yes, I said ten.
In 1993, I had perhaps the best policy debater in the country, whose partner decided he did want to do NFL Districts. He had dabbled a few time in LD on the local level and decided that he would try to qualify in LD. This guy was a great speaker, way smooth, really bright, and was just a great debater regardless of the division. Well, he qualifies and news spreads that this guys is doing LD.. People thought he was going to try to outspread people at Nationals. Not the game plan.
It got so bad at one point in the tournament, some stole his briefcase and hid it on the other side of campus under bleachers. All of his policy friends sent out search teams to find the briefcase. It was a battle of the wills. They want their boy to win.
JC: [laughs]
AT: He gets to finals. Gives an intro that people misunderstood and are offended by, and he lost the debate. They announce it as a 6-3. I was “concerned” that he lost, because I thought the debate went really well, and had written down the names of the eleven judges. Well, one didn’t show up. We will never now what would of happened had it been a 5-5.
Most people didn’t know until Emory. Not even Jim Copeland. Certain council members didn’t tell him. I just wanted recognition that they screwed up. Jim was professional and apologetic after finding out the truth. Tips to coaches who have kids in finals: review the intro if they are going to read one. [laughs]
JC: Dare I ask what it said?
AT: Sure. I am over that…finally…I think…. He said something like, “My name is Brandon Fletcher, my coach is Aaron Timmons, and I love cross-examination debate. By recently jumping into LD, I have found that there is no difference in scholarship, difficulty between this activity and policy, and I have enjoyed it immensely. This resolution, though I hate it….” Not word for word. Kinda close. They heard, “I love CX.” Few wanted a policy dude to come in and win LD.
JC: I can imagine.
Aaron Timmons and David Wolfish
AT: Good question. More equals good. [laughs] I am very competitive and can get fired up at big tournaments. I was very motivated for TOC by the way. Hadn’t cut that many cards in a while.
JC: [laughs]
AT: The deal is, while I have had some coaching successes due to great students, each new win is a different kid and I am happy I get to experience those successes with them. I still haven’t really tried public forum yet. [laughs] We shall see.
JC: You are, I think it’s safe to say, one of the most powerful and influential coaches in this activity, both in terms of the “national circuit” but also in terms of the national organization of local circuits. Did you ever think, when you began coaching, that you would rise to such a position of prominence? Are you generally conscious of it? That prominence certainly contributes to the issues we discussed earlier with judges.
AT: I am reminded daily of what little power and influence I have when I tell my three-year-old boy its time to take a bath and he runs and says “no, daddy, I don’t wanted to take a bath now.” Again, this is micro-political resistance.
JC: [laughs]
AT: But seriously, I guess I am conscious of how I am perceived in the community. I try not to be removed from what is going on, and I try to be friendly to those that talk to me. I even start some conversations with debaters I don’t know. I just try to be myself and do what is in the best interest of my students and the community as a whole.
JC: You said it yourself: LD was created as an alternative to policy. Some would say that your attitude that there are few distinctions between policy and LD destroys LD as a unique event. What about values debate, for example? Some might ask, shouldn’t there be some sort of consistent standard that differentiates the two?
AT: I don’t know if we need a consistent standard to differentiate between the two events. I coach and judge “philosophy” arguments in CX all the time. The issue, again, is adapting your message to fit the audience. A good, well-warranted, well-researched argument is good no matter what the format. I do like some of the formality inherent to LD, though, I must admit. I will say that coaches have an obligation to teach students all argument styles to enhance that increase students’ chances of success on all circuits.
JC: I think we’re nearing the end.
AT: I wanted say congratulations to my wife Cindi Timmons, who is retiring from coaching this year to spend more time with Michael and Joshua, and just get out of this grind. She is co-chairing next years Nationals and I will say that next year’s Nationals will be quite a show! I will venture to say it will be the best ever. Congrats on an amazingly successful and complete career. Love me….
JC: Awww!
Popularity: 2%
test
Posted from: 204.210.37.132
May 25th, 2005 19:07
not to seem like the geeky kid who has to comment first, but this was a fantastic interview–probably the best so far. good job.
Posted from: 70.241.102.95
May 25th, 2005 19:13
This was a great interview and I have only read half of it.
I think this year at Greenhill Mr. Timmons should preform a poetry or prose reading during awards.
Posted from: 209.23.211.47
May 25th, 2005 19:23
hah, had alex not said it, i would have. great interview.
Posted from: 66.189.95.29
May 25th, 2005 19:51
This was a really, really awesome interview. Thanks to Jon and Mr. Timmons, because I learned a lot from this!
Posted from: 66.14.234.65
May 25th, 2005 20:33
at the 1998 national tournament in st. louis, aaron timmons walked up to me and asked, “are you michelin massey?” that blew me away. the all-powerful coach from the greenhill school talked to me. ever since then, a.t. has been a mentor and a great friend of mine in this activity. after many conversations over dinner, late lunches, or just on the phone, it’s always great to talk to mr. timmons.
to all of the young people reading this interview: read it again. there is so much knowledge that mr. timmons is giving away for free! though i won’t divulge the rest of his secrets to success that i have learned, i can tell you that his candor is unrivaled in this format. there’s a great worth to finding out and respecting the views of those who’ve come before. there’s something very powerful in thinking about what’s come, what’s now, and what’s ahead. this holistic perspective is what we ought to start embracing as we continue to evolve.
michelin massey.
Posted from: 24.180.185.21
May 25th, 2005 20:56
is there really a ring? or is this just a metaphor?
and if so, do you wear it like a superbowl ring, only to talkshows/jon cruz interviews or does this sit in a safe deposit box some where under fort knox?
Posted from: 128.12.53.89
May 25th, 2005 21:07
I think the most interesting part of this interview is the discussion of the role of college age judges/coaches. While I completely agree with Mr. Timmons that every school should, ideally, have a full time debate coach who can gain funding, teach students, hire assistants, etc., I remain entirely skeptical to the potential for this to exist. I feel like I can count on my fingers the number of “lifers” like Mr. Timmons who develop both local and national circuit oriented teams. I know that’s mostly perception, and there are probably several dozen individuals who meet this mold, but is that really even *close* to the number necessary? There are 27,468 public high schools in the U.S., and that’s not even considering private schools (like Greenhill). I understand the argument AT is making that college aged coaches serving as directors stifles progress in many ways because it provides a band aid solution in which schools can ignore the long term prospects of hiring full time coaches, but do we really know *that* many coaches who want to dedicate their lives to forensics and put in the massive amounts of work it takes to build a program, but are denied that opportunity because schools prefer the college student? Also, how many “lifers” do we know ended up building programs and doing an extremely large amount of work because the school happened to have an opening I “debate coach” and without any prior knowledge/desire to become a coach, they took the job. Honestly, I don’t know that many qualified teachers who are unemployed and unable to start forensics teams. It seems to me that even if every school with a college student serving as a director were to fire that student and offer a full time teaching/coaching position at the school, those spots would not fill up quickly at all. From personal experience, at Menlo-Atherton, we’ve had 3 different official school representatives over the past 6 years, and we’ve consistently had to scour our 2,000+ student high school just to find people who would be willing to let us *use* their rooms (not at all including things like extensive coaching, fundraising, recruitment, traveling, going to tournaments, etc.). So, to be honest, and maybe M-A isn’t indicative of the overall situation, but if I were to leave that school, then at best they might be able to find another college student. Most schools in California, and I imagine many other states, are cutting programs left and right, and are not at all about to add a new salaried position. The demand is much higher than the supply for qualified and dedicated debate coaches, and the idea that college students aiding in fulfilling that void (even if they are admittedly not the ideal) is harming debate in the long term is ridiculous.
Posted from: 68.88.202.12
May 25th, 2005 21:10
Mr. Timmons is a phenomenal coach. I could not have gotten any luckier.
Posted from: 68.226.137.67
May 25th, 2005 22:48
That’s a cute kid
Posted from: 67.43.26.236
May 26th, 2005 09:06
I really enjoyed this interview as well as your debate David. Congrats….although it’s a little late.
Posted from: 70.185.196.201
May 26th, 2005 09:54
I never thought I would see Sam Duby’s picture on VB again…
Definitely a fantastic interview! So good to see it finally happen. I think everyone will appreciate Mr. Timmons’ honest and well-explained answers, as well as Jon asking some questions that I doubt many people expected to see in the interview. Great job.
Posted from: 66.218.240.111
May 26th, 2005 12:34
I could have gone without seeing Sam Duby’s picture, Chris ;)
Very interesting read from a very interesting guy. One of the nice things about him from talking to him a bit was that he’s very nice and very approachable - obviously, there are right and wrong times to talk to people - but he’s not as intimidating as his deep voice and solid reputation make him seem.
Good interview - but I also agree with John McKay that I can honestly count in two hands the number of high school debate coaches who are “lifers” so to speak in that they keep up to date with the activity and work hard - especially if you look primarily at LD and not policy (although some like Mr. Timmons work in both, that number is even smaller; off hand I can only think of Lynne Coyne (sp?)).
Posted from: 24.1.187.146
May 26th, 2005 13:06
wow, that was great. and interesting about debaters going independent.
Posted from: 68.12.160.175
May 26th, 2005 13:24
I loved how there was something for everyone in this enterview (students, coaches, assistants, or anyone with time to kill that likes to read something interesting.) I especially enjoyed the LD Debate “history lesson” and war stories are always fun to listen to. With so many students wanting to travel these days, it was also nice that such a large portion of the interview discussed the proper channels to go through to do so.
Posted from: 66.218.240.111
May 26th, 2005 14:48
By the way, I’ll make one thing clear - I do disagree with his perspective on independent entries. That having been said, I respect his opinion in the sense that he has a more then valid background to hold the opinion. I agree that what happens too often is that if we disagree with the thought, we attack the person, and that’s the last thing I’m going to do - I’m not expressing any sort of lack of respect for Mr. Timmons, and I hope no one takes it as such.
That said, students are powerless in creating and/or running programs at schools. I’m not going to rehash an entire saga that everyone knows who needs to know; but from first hand experience, many times a coach with an ego can become the de-facto “law” that both students and parents are powerless to stop. I think independent traveling is a good idea in showing that ultimately you don’t need to be from Greenhill or GBN (more in the case of policy) to still do well at debate - I’m perfectly satisfied with how I did.
Everyone advocates openness, and then we say there are only certain “proper channels”, love them or leave them? I’d look at that as a ridiculous proposition. Ultimately, if a student travels independently, then it’s all bankrolled by the parent (theoretically), then the parent bears a 100% burden for any actions taken by said student because they have enabled them to reach said destination. I’d be more than happy to give Mr. Timmons the email addresses of a few attornies who’ll give him some free advice on the matter, but ultimately the school isn’t liable in cases if the person traveling with the student is employed by the family via proxy of the student rather than the school itself.
If that is the biggest worry, there is also the Wake Forest policy, which I’m surprised isn’t used by more schools, of just having a signed liability/responsibilty waiver by the parents. These, again, wind up being the legally binding document as to who is responsible.
So independent travelling circumvents traditional power structures - so what? Isn’t debate about competition, not about formality? What do we find more importan, a strong debate round or the use of an opening quote?
Now I hope Mr. Timmons doesn’t classify this as me being outspoken or denouncing him. But I do think it’s fair to throw out an opposing opinon from someone whose dealt with such a problem before; the Greenhill tournament is proverbially “his party” and he can do as he wishes; the fact he doesn’t allow independent entries simply meant I never went there, not that I doubt that the tournment is one of the strongest in the country from what I’ve heard. Nor do I doubt Mr Timmons to be a great coach and asset to the debate community - but since I saw a lot of “me too”-ism on his view of independent debaters, I felt someone should write an answer. My disagreement with the idea doesn’t however parlay into a lack of respect for the person with the idea - I’m not trying to change the world and claiming the old guard is in my way, which is what some first year out coaches basically state either in private or public ld boards.
Posted from: 69.23.246.38
May 26th, 2005 15:16
the Stanford tournament also uses liability waivers. My principal had to write and sign a letter saying that my parents were the ones responsible and that the school was simply aware that I was going. My parents had to sign a letter saying that they were the ones responsible.
Posted from: 66.218.240.111
May 26th, 2005 15:21
Let me also clarify that in November I left Brophy, thereby ending the issue. Let me also clarify that before there are any misunderstandings, the coach with the ego is not Chris Krygier but rather the Director of Forensics at Brophy.
Posted from: 24.46.123.119
May 26th, 2005 15:36
I realize I didn’t pursue this more in the interview, but I didn’t want to editorialize too much, and I think AT gave a pretty good summary of the viewpoint of those that drafted the new rule at the TOC.
Like I hinted, though, I’m not so sure a blanket policy is the wisest course of action. Now that I am a school employee, I’ve been able to get a much better understanding of why schools restrict independent travel in some cases, so I’m not looking for a “fight,” I’m just sharing my concerns. My own opinions on all of this have evolved quite a bit, in fact.
While the blanket policy is intended to protect the interests of schools, I worry that there are cases where it overrides the intentions of schools. There are cases in which principals at schools (Edina, apparently, and my former school) have endorsed students competing independently on certain occasions. Why deny the student the bid they earn, if they have earned one with their school’s blessing? In these cases, the fact that students compete under an independent name is to *sever* school liability, after all.
There are already many complaints that TOC is limited to an elite few. It seems to me that this kind of a uniform policy might limit competition even more.
Posted from: 152.163.100.203
May 26th, 2005 16:23
great interview but, on the subject of independant travel, I have actually been contemplating independent travel because my team does not go to many national tournaments and also does not allow you to go independantly unless you want off the team. I agree with JC about how there are already obstacles when it comes to trying to debate the national circuit why add more?
Posted from: 66.14.234.65
May 26th, 2005 17:09
The TOC and National Circuit debating, in general, was spawned to be an elite form of debating. The idea was that you had to create some barriers to participation in order to weed out a number of schools. That is one philosophy when it comes to debate. There are schools who emphasize this system do so because they believe in its purpose: to have smaller, specialized competitions. While you may take issue with that as an access issue, and those claims are entirely valid, the truth is that there’s no obligation on the part of the TOC, its advisory board, or any “national circuit” tournament to make itself more open. It’s their party and they can invite or exclude whomever they please.
We can debate the merits of exclusion until the cows come home. And, from my experience, those debates have been conducted many times. Liability issues are a big deal. School districts could be bankrupted if a student died, while unsupervised, competing under their name. Thankfully that has not happened!
The TOC has been fairly moderate on the general issue of access by creating more regionally diverse qualifying tournaments, instituting the at-large system, and the like. Will a tournament that bills itself the Tournament of *Champions* ever let everyone in who wants to show up in the door? Plainly, no.
To preempt: I am not saying that I agree with the excluding more kids. I do think we ought to be really careful about precedents we allow ourselves to set. But, no matter what we say here, the rule is still in place — students cannot get credit for a bid if they don’t compete under their school’s name. Will that make the TOC smaller? Maybe. But, I don’t think so… in the end, people will find a way to get sponsored by their school because they want to be at the TOC.
Michelin Massey
Posted from: 24.9.103.208
May 26th, 2005 17:38
I really don’t want this to sound confontational, but it’s very, very, very easy for Mr. Timmons to tell students to try to get a big team going at their own school instead of traveling independently, because the fact is that Mr. Timmons is a coach at a private school with resources that absolutely dwarf the resources of other schools. I wish with all my heart that I went to a school that could afford to send me to debate, but I don’t. I just can’t argue with the fact that my school district is $12 million in debt, so I have to travel with my parents. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t begrudge the kids that go to well-endowed private schools, but it seems highly exclusionary to tell me to work within the system when all efforts are doomed to failure through no fault of my own.
Posted from: 69.249.50.38
May 26th, 2005 17:44
This was a great interview, but, for me, the definition of an “independent entry” is a bit unclear. My school pays for registration to tournaments that aren’t officially a part of the team’s regular schedule, but my teammates and I attend these tournaments without a coach or chaperone. We still compete under our school’s name (maybe because they have no idea what’s going on)…
So…what exactly qualifies a debater as an “independent entry?”
just the name they compete under??
thanks
Posted from: 66.41.125.193
May 26th, 2005 17:54
There are a few times that I disagree with Aaron. This is not one of those times. In addition to the points echoed here, I’d add that it allows students to subvert disciplinary action. For example, if I as the school coach decide that a student doesn’t deserve to go to Tournament X over her teammates or that she doesn’t display behaviors that I think should be demonstrative of the team name, a policy of independent entry allows that student to circumvent those and any number of other decisions. What disciplinary enforcement can a coach have absent these decisions being respected and similarly enforced by others in the community?
This is also why I agree with Aaron on the aspect of college coaches. I don’t have a per se problem with them generally and was one at time long, long ago. As a college coach, I never had to enforce rules. I did but I was never required to as a matter of my job. I always had a head coach to do that for me. As a matter of course, I think people that just have college coaches have a very different experience in debate. It’s a bit of personal concern that there are some debaters who operate without any kind of rules while some students do. As a coach, it was exasperating to need to worry about the kind of trouble my students could get into because of these influences.
In any case, I think as a matter of professionalism and integrity in the activity, we should consider these issues as a community and develop solutions that are not only acceptable but appropriate.
Finally, I know that this comment is directed at Jon in this setting but also to a large number of posts I’ve seen over the year. I’m not suggesting that there is per se advocacy behind your words, Jon, but I don’t understand why people think that the TOC should be like church where everyone can come. The big dance is elitist–that’s why people want to win it. It’s like the Masters in golf or the US Open in tennis. While geographic diversity is nice, we have a tournament for that–it is the NFL. I’d like to see the TOC be limited even more (e.g. no at larges) but that’s neither here nor there. At the end of the day, it’s not my party.
As a parting note, I’ve never been intimidated by Aaron’s stature or the fact that he has more pigment than me–I’m going tanning before Greenhill. I am, however, intimidated by Grace VanVoorhies and Noah Grabowitz. Tiny teenage blondes from West are scary especially the one that hit my Jeep as are five foot New York Jews half a world away. And they’re WHITE!
Posted from: 162.84.232.247
May 26th, 2005 18:07
I agree this was a really interesting interview both in terms of debate history and
And to say something that’s prolly in the back of a lot of peoples’ minds, I’m glad that two figureheads from two ‘opposing’ camps can have a civil discourse that never dipped into the petty camp arguments seen far too often on debate websites. I think that VBD as a too ought to be delineated from VBI in that though run by the same institution, even those who disagree with VBI’s pedagogy can contribute to and participate in VBD discussions.
Also, Yes +1 to Brandon’s question, too. I’ve wondered all year what my status would qualify as.
Dealing with independent entries…First, the liability issues. If a debater is not under his school name, what liability does the school have? I dont have a law degree, but it seems like that liability concerns for the school would be on par with a family vacation–that is, not at all. So allowing independent entries de-links the school from liability. Similarly, a parent signature presented to the tournament placing all responsibility in the parents seems to similarly solve liability issues. But more importantly, I don’t see why this is the tournament’s responsibility as supposed to the specific school’s issue. If I want to travel indepedently to Greenhill, somehow I get lost in Texas and run over by a truck or something, Greenhill wouldn’t be responsible or liable(would they?). If I’m right and only my school, Berkeley Carroll, is liable for suit from my parents then I don’t see why there ought to be a blanket policy to do anything for every school. In that case, it ought to be between my parents and my school. If I’m wrong and Greenhill would be liable, I think it would be a better idea to simply sign a waiver that says Greenhill is not liable for anything at their tournament before the tournament for everyone. Not only would that get Greenhill out of just about any possible lawsuit but also it would allow independent entries into the field.
Indepedent entries are good for a multitude of reasons: some schools simply refuse to support debate. Schools whose names will not be mentioned have outright sabotaged their debaters’ efforts to attend national circuit tournaments-not out of a liability concern, but because their coaches ‘disapprove’ of the circuit. So independent entries allow those people to be exposed to a type of debate they would otherwise be denied access to. For others, there is no debate team-or a non-traveling one-so the only way to travel is alone. This has been the case for many debaters(including many successful ones). Lastly, this may constitute a small number of people but it is a meaningful minority at that: people who simply do not attend a high school be it because they go to college at 17 like John Schultz or because they are homeschooled, like many kids nationwide are. Indepedent entries are their only plausible way of competing and I see no reason why they should be shut out of the activity.
Posted from: 24.46.123.119
May 26th, 2005 18:14
To clarify, Cherian, I think the TOC itself ought to be limited to those who qualify, but I think that it’s unfortunate that people think that kids ought to be excluded from *attempting* to qualify. I don’t see the point in that, and I don’t see how that benefits any sort of educational end to debate, and I don’t see how allowing more kids to *attempt* to qualify hurts the elite qualification process. The best will still rise to the top.
Generally, it’s safe to say, those excluded from competition are those whose schools do not travel, or cannot travel. While AT is right to note that most kids who travel independently are very wealthy–and, as he knows, I’m firmly against the elitism that sometimes comes with wealth and independent travel–there are sometimes (note that I said sometimes) those who travel independently for other reasons, with school support. I can think of at least ten students in the past eight years who fall under this category. In other cases, kids are homeschooled and travel independently. I can think of at least two cases of this. I was simply questioning the wisdom of a hard-set, blanket rule. (To be clear, I certainly don’t think any coaches were attempting to exclude poor kids who travel independently with school support. It’s pretty clear from this interview that AT is not looking to exclude people from debate. I think, as Aaron indicates, that they are understandably concerned about liability issues. Like I said, as a school employee–as of this past January–I have come to understand the rationale behind such concern much more.)
So do I have a “per se advocacy”? I do think more kids should have the chance to qualify to TOC. That doesn’t mean there should be more qualifiers, or more bids, or whatever. It am not trying to hurt the “elite” status of the TOC. It just means that I think it’s good when kids compete at debate tournaments, because debate tournaments are really educational, and I think the type of debate on the national circuit is really educational.
That doesn’t mean the TOC is a church where everyone can come, but it does mean that I think it’s a tournament to which I think everyone should have a shot at qualifying if they want to. The bigger issue, I think, is that many people treat TOC as the end-all, be-all. It’s not, of course. As Ted Belch noted in my interview with him last year, many coaches “would argue that the TOC is the be-all and end-all of our activity. I couldn’t disagree more. And, I think if you talked to J.W. Patterson, he’d agree. We need to debate in all forums and excel in each.” But national circuit debate does generally have a level of argumentation and of skill that’s worth being exposed to, and if people are interested, and want to go, I hope they can. Sometimes, the best way to to do this is school-approved independent travel (that is, of course, not the majority of independent travel), and since the motivation behind the policy was liability, I was simply noting that liability might not always be an issue, and that the policy might be damaging in those specific cases.
Besides which, like I said, I’m talking about specific cases of independent travel, so I’m certainly not opening the “floodgates” with this, for those who are concerned.
Ultimately, I do NOT think independent travel is a good idea when it’s used to totally circumvent the school’s rules, so that’s why I had made the original comment about “blanket policies,” not the policy in general. As a school employee and the coach of a program, I think that issues of overriding school-supported coaches are pretty serious. (I’ve already had to preempt this specific problem through intervention with one of my own students.) That’s a major problem. I just wanted to clarify that, as Casey pointed out, not all independent travel is the same, even if I agree with AT’s characterization of it in many cases.
As a side note, I’m really happy so many of you enjoyed this piece; I’ve received a ton of positive feedback through e-mails from many students who have never contacted me before. I want to thank Aaron again for joining us in what was a really amazing and comprehensive interview. I think it’s the best we’ve had thus far.
Posted from: 67.83.96.79
May 26th, 2005 18:16
Very insightful interview. I highly respect Mr. Timmons and the work he has done for the debate community. Despite what seems to be a perception of his overbearing intimidation, I can personally attest to the fact that he was very approachable at Emory and Greenhill this year (the former was plagued by a freak ice storm, and I had an issue at Greenhill when an opponent failed to show up for a preliminary round).
In response to some of the comments that have been made, I’m getting a little tired of the whole “its their party, not yours” excuse (Michelin: this is not directed at you personally, similar comments have been made throughout the year). The community would be better off if the TOC, or a prominent Round Robin, or w.e., simply admitted that blemishes exist in what ought to be a merit-based activity; rather, the TOC and other RRs/tournaments avoid criticism by claiming the status of a private enterprise, a private “party” if you will where invitations are limited. Rather than claiming that the MBA Round Robin was intended to select the top debaters in the nation, it (or at least those who expressed the view that it shouldn’t be criticized) took the stance of an exclusionary, private club that could “invite” whoever it wanted. The TOC SHOULD boast its intention to showcase the top 74 debaters in the nation, not the top 74 wealthy suburban debaters who come from supportive programs and are part of an in-group that is able to qualify for the tournament. Of course that isn’t reality, but the explanation should emphasize the presence of logistical barriers that have not yet been overcome; conversely, I perceive desperate measures to create a definition of the TOC that simply mirrors the status quo, thereby freeing selection and qualification processes from blame. Rather than being a Tournament of Champions or a Round Robin of the Best, such activities are defended as being Tournaments and Round Robins for the fortunate. Similarly, I would like to see a Round Robin CLAIM to showcase the top debaters in the nation and be willing to face criticism for their selections in recognition of the possibility that people who run the debate world are fallible.
Posted from: 24.9.103.208
May 26th, 2005 18:19
How apropos that you choose the Masters as an example of a cherished, competitive activity to show how elitism is actually good. Of course, not allowing African-Americans or women to join Augusta makes rich white men want to win that much more! Obviously, it’s ludicrous for me to say that me competing as an independent next year is equivalent to civil rights or women’s liberation, but elitism is elitism is elitism.
Posted from: 162.84.232.247
May 26th, 2005 18:20
didnt finish the first sentence I wrote…
“I agree this was a really interesting interview both in terms of debate history and…”
and…in terms of Mr. Timmons’ unique pedagogical views and his persepectives on some of the more ‘controversial’ issues in debate today, ie indepedent entries etc.
Lastly, on what Cherian said…
I think that if that is an issue, it is outweighed by the reasons indepedent entries are good explained above because Cherian’s issue doesn’t occur as often as do the would-be benefits of indepedent entries. But secondly I dont think that problem would occur all that often because I think the limit on indepedent entries occurs at the point where the same team is competing with the school at the tournament, if that makes sense. So if I want to go independently to a tournament where Berkeley Carroll is competing, I probably can’t because I’d have to either go Berkeley Carroll or not at all. That makes sense because someone who has the option of going with the team isn’t actually going to be harmed by not having indepedent entries at tounrament and therefore shouldn’t qualify for independent status at that tournament.
Posted from: 162.84.232.247
May 26th, 2005 18:25
didnt finish the first sentence I wrote…
“I agree this was a really interesting interview both in terms of debate history and…”
and…in terms of Mr. Timmons’ unique pedagogical views and his persepectives on some of the more ‘controversial’ issues in debate today, ie indepedent entries etc.
Posted from: 216.70.54.130
May 26th, 2005 18:49
“In addition to the points echoed here, I’d add that it allows students to subvert disciplinary action. For example, if I as the school coach decide that a student doesn’t deserve to go to Tournament X over her teammates or that she doesn’t display behaviors that I think should be demonstrative of the team name, a policy of independent entry allows that student to circumvent those and any number of other decisions. What disciplinary enforcement can a coach have absent these decisions being respected and similarly enforced by others in the community?”
This is all purely hypothetical, of course ;)
Seriously, though, I have to disagree with this particular argument. Obviously, coaches will always, and should, have more power than students within the activity, but even with the ability to enter tournaments independently coaches have the ability to make participation in debate tremendously more difficult for someone they decide shouldn’t be part of the activity (by withholding funding, access to coaching and the work of teamates, etc.). That gives them quite a bit of power to enforce disciplinary action, but giving them the ability to run somebody they don’t like out of the activity entirely seems a bit much. First, it has the potential to be abused; second, even if coaches act with the best of intentions, they may make misjedgements, and its wrong to assume that the student is always in the wrong in any dispute; third, letting the student participate out of their own resources doesn’t harm anyone in the debate community or out of it.
Posted from: 68.198.144.175
May 26th, 2005 19:44
Many of the above posts have criticized the new system as allowing large and established teams more power within various circuits. Despite being a member of a large, nationally competitive school, I agree with those statements, for a multitude of reasons, but the so called harms go beyond just small schools.
Christian Tarnsey comes closest to this, but no one has really mentioned the fact that precisely because it is a large team, many (especially younger) debaters lose out.
As an example, each year two or three qualified individuals (and by qualified I’m not referring to the TOC, but rather general skill and compentancy) are not allowed to go to some of the best “national circuit” tournaments in the country- not greenhill, not Stanford, but the Glenbrooks and Emory (<6 hours flying), because of the high cost, and the fact that our school is only given a few slots to these tournaments. A few members, myself included, had considered applying independently, but under new TOC rules, we cannot get a bid, rendering applying indep. worthless. Maybe this maintains the so called quality of these tournaments, but for good sophomores and in some cases, juniors, it’s a catch-22; stay with your team and don’t go, or go independently and get no recognition from the TOC for your achievements.
Basically, it hurts a lot of people- but let’s not forget the #3 or #4 debater on the large teams either, who now must stay home due to the decisions of an infallible few.
Posted from: 68.199.19.199
May 26th, 2005 20:15
What exactly constitutes an independent debater???
Posted from: 68.199.19.199
May 26th, 2005 20:17
What exactly constitutes an independent debater???
Posted from: 68.199.19.199
May 26th, 2005 20:22
Never mind that last question since it has been asked already. Could someone just clarify whether or not I would be allowed at Greenhill(i.e. does AT consider me independent)? So next year I am switching schools to a private school with no team. I am debating under their name and will have permission from them. I am traveling and training with Hen Hud but technically speaking I am my own team in the sense that no one else from Horace Mann debates and much less travels. So, am I an independent?
Posted from: 66.218.240.111
May 26th, 2005 20:45
Craig: Most likely, no, you would not be considered independent, so AFAIK you could go to Greenhill, Marks, and the like. About the only exception I can think of is Glenbrooks, which is one of the few invitationals that actually makes use of limited invitations. Feel free to email me at MBoyle@cableaz.com if you want more info.
If Horace Mann supports you going and you go with a responsible chaperone, my impression is that even if there isn’t a program you can go. However, I’m not the end-all be-all, so keep in mind that’s just my quick impression. If I remember correctly, didn’t Horace Mann advertise at one point looking for a coach? Did that not work out? Or I may be thinking of someone else all together. But if you’re registered as Horace Mann Craig Gilbert, Horace Mann supports you but can’t afford to be the one sending you (or simply allocates it’s resources differently), then you should be fine with a chaperone.
You know, one of the things that’s interesting is just how quickly this civil debate turned into people venting their anger. If anything, it’s given me more sympathy towards Mr Timmons; it’s like the proverbial Howard Dean scream of the left or the Fred Phelps protests of the right, and it is annoying as all else to the original interview, not to mention borderline offensive with what Matt Levinson says in regards to a statement used by Michelin and implied by Aaron Timmons.
Let me just make one final post on the matter, and this speaks specifically to liability.
If liability was such a dangerous issue and schools were really liable, would a tournament run by attornies allow independent entries? Because, AFAIK, the two tournaments with attornies involved in their running (Blake and VBT) allow independent entries.
If any tournament director wants legal information on the matter (not advice - that’s a fine line), I can hook them up with an attorney who works specifically in contract law in Stanford or a pro-bono defense attorney who’d be willing to explain to them that they’re not liable, and even what kinds of things to say in a liability waiver if they were still worried. Everyone has my email, my blog address, etc… so if liability is the worry, then I can try to assuage that worry.
But I don’t know that liability really is the worry, but rather the maintenence of traditional power structures. I may disagree with this sort of sentiment; but there’s a reason the people in power have power - there’s a reason the TOC advisory committee is made up of people like Minh Luong and not of people like Larry McGrath (just an example). And that reason is they’re trying to look out for the long term health of the activity - on that I commend them; and I, for one, apologize to Mr. Timmons about how much the debate about independent entries seemed to degrade here - I guess he was right about what people will post on the internet in terms of insults. He spends time to talk to VBI, and people respond by saying they’re “sick and tired” of euphamisms used by long time coaches. That’s actually a sad state of opposition that only gives into their arguments that people who argue for independent entries are immature.
Posted from: 69.231.58.113
May 26th, 2005 20:46
From my experience in both public and private education from more than one state…
(1) Depending upon your state, if you travel under the school’s name, the government views that label as support for your travel (even if you pay for the trip in its entirety). When you go on a vacation bungee jumping in Hawaii, your parents take you and there’s no endorsement by the school. The bungee jumping you do isn’t rendered under the moniker of the Berkeley Carroll School.
(2) Depending upon your state and the quality of your lawyer, if you do die/get seriously injured as an independent entry at a school that allows you to attend their tournament, they could be liable as well. Why? Because their invitation and acceptance of your registration constitutes their willingness to take custody of you during that period. There’s an expectation that you will come to the tournament and compete safely. The school is negligent if it allows you to die.
I mean, seriously, if one of you were my kid and you died as an “independent” at some tournament… and soon thereafter when I retain Victor Jih (who coaches at two private schools with minimal budgets for free) as my lawyer, their attorneys cannot win. The Greenhill School would soon be renamed “The Michelin Massey School.” The only saving grace is that AT doesn’t let indie entries into his tournament. Your school’s got to sign off.
(3) Independent entry barriers do not hurt larger teams. It just means that you have to attend *different* TOC qualifying tournaments. Simple as that. Last time I checked, Valley, Hen Hud, the VBT, UT, and many other TOC tournaments lets you bring a boat load of folks.
(4) No one is explaining the impact to “elitism.” The event to which you are attempting qualification is called The Tournament of CHAMPIONS. The existence of the tournament is elitist. You are identifying a certain group and are asking a pool of elite critics to select the elite strata of an already elite group of kids. That makes the tournament even more elitist. If you don’t like being a part of elitism, express that by not attending TOC qualifying tournaments. Only attend local tournaments wherein elitism is rebuked on a weekly basis. Why is one form of elitism acceptable and another form unacceptable?
(5) Find a way to get the school to sponsor you even if that means getting them to agree to let you travel under their name. Kids do it all of the time. If they’re worried about liability, find a pro-bono lawyer or 3L law student who can help you draft waiver language that will get approved by the school board. It is not easy — even for big teams with huge levels of support — to get to the top of the heap. With the right organizational culture, it is possible for you to attend tournaments. The only thing the current rule states is that you cannot attend a tournament under a pseudonym. You have to get endorsed by your school.
This is why I am trying to be practical. Get your ducks in a row now so that you have the opportunity to attend these tournaments if you are so inclined!
Michelin Massey
Posted from: 66.218.240.111
May 26th, 2005 20:57
From my experiences with schools and attornies;
Well, looking at 2, even if you travel with a school, the exact same thing is true. The rule of thumb is injury on a property = lawsuit against the holder of that property. That’s why tournaments require a chaperone, and ordinarily are held in places that have some liability insurance or policy - for example, even if you travel with a school, if an overhead flourescent like were to break and fall on your head, that still could wind up being the Michelin Massey school. Interestingly enough, there are ways schools get around being sued - specifically, creating charitable organizations that own the assets from parental donations with the school itself solely being responsible for the paying of employees. To collect on anything other than possibly a lien, one would need to show the left hand (charitable organization with money it gives to school - sometimes called a Community Foundation with the name of the school before it) knew what the right hand was doing (in this case, the school). And the Victor Jih rule, afaik, would only apply to California, because he only passed the bar in California - jurisdiction would be where the incident took place unless the group had a presence in CA. Michelin….. if you want your school, you gotta get some contacts in other states ;)
On 1, that’s true - the school supports the activity even if school employees are not the ones doing the actual directorship of said travel.
Posted from: 162.84.232.247
May 26th, 2005 21:08
I guess I’ll be doing my bungee jumping indepedently from now on :(
Posted from: 204.210.37.132
May 26th, 2005 21:50
i know that many school districts have vastly different policies about letting kids travel under their name: for instance, mission san jose has to fill out tons of paperwork and then either take a district employee or go as an independent team (OHSODEF), while my school district let me draft my own releases, let me appoint some interesting people as legal guardians (i doubt anyone thinks navot tidhar and ashan peiris should be legally responsible for me, let alone themselves) so long as i told them they were an assistant coach for the school, and let me travel under the school’s name. The point is that some schools will always let their kids travel independently just because they don’t have the wherewithal to do careful background checks; why should we deny some kids the opportunity to debate simply because their school is a bit more scrupulous about checking the paper trail?
Moreover, I know that many tournaments (such as Lexington, CPS, and VBT) have allowed kids to appear by their independent name on the pairings and have reported their bid by their real school’s name. What’s going to stop tournament directors from doing this? Are we going to require tournaments to submit photocopies of the pairings in order to award bids? Even more importantly, what does it say about the gap between the Advisory Committee and the debate community when some of the most well-respected coaches and tournament directors out there are willing to circumvent the rule because they don’t believe in it and think that the Committee is out of touch?
Posted from: 68.12.160.175
May 26th, 2005 21:51
Michael (and others who might agree with him on the issue of independent traveling): I agree with Michelin completely concerning what channels one should go through to obtain his or her school’s approval. All to often people are lazy and don’t want to do the work…for some reason many people expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter. Sadly, that is not the case. If you are truly serious about traveling, don’t be lazy, go through the proper channels. Who cares if it takes a lot of work, many others across the nation have worked just as hard to be able to travel. Plus, victory, getting your first bid, or even breaking to outrounds is much, much more sweeter as a result. Even if it doesn’t pay off and your school remains stubborn during your time there, the pressure you exert is, at worst, a great starting point for those following after you.
Posted from: 68.0.92.191
May 26th, 2005 22:59
“Much, much more sweeter”? Come on Fleharty, didn’t I teach you anything?
Posted from: 66.218.240.111
May 26th, 2005 23:06
There are times when all the proper channels quite simply don’t exist - the accountability level at a private school is nearly zero; so you take what action you can. Ironically, Michelin was the one who worked with me while I travelled independently - those who know the situation in depth know I basically did it because the school did everything it could to prevent me from debating out of state. I mean what it finally took was me telling them they had no legal authority to prohibit me doing this (despite them emailing Jon Cruz claiming they would suspend me if I participated in his round robin), and that they couldn’t take direct action against me if I did. This situation was tenous at best; they took actions that bordered on illegal in retaliation; and I left Brophy satisfied with private outcomes after consulting my legal alternatives.
So what I advocate is quite far from a gung ho travel mentality - on the other hand, I do agree that proper channels are the first step. The problem is there is no response to proper channels even if parents get involved at times, and that’s the time when you step in with your rights in tow.
My situation was an overbearing school that thought it could control my life; not the traditional background of an independent debater. The tension levels after this at the school were ridiculously high; but at some point telling people to address the proper channels is like telling North Korean political prisoners to address the proper channels; asking Mexican immigrants to fix their own economy instead of coming here; asking the people of Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban regime on their own. It’s not always a practical or possible solution.
Now, the other ironic part - this post is coming from the most anti-ACLU Pro-GOP debater out there since Ryan Hamilton.
Posted from: 66.218.240.111
May 26th, 2005 23:10
Oh, to add to the “fighting will create a starting point” statement of Matt…
After I settled my dispute with Brophy with them meeting my requests, the Dean of Students actually publically told people I left Brophy to go to a Northeast Boarding school. This was seconded by the teacher who took borderline illegal actions, which is why they met my requests for leaving quite quickly. They actually created a story in order to prevent people from finding out why I left the school, and any progress was definitely minimal and will not last.
Sometimes fact is stranger than fiction; especially when a Jesuit school is an asylum run by the wardens who themselves should be inmates.
Posted from: 68.97.12.22
May 27th, 2005 01:25
Aaron Timmons is one of the most professional, respectful and intelligent coaches I have ever met in this activity. He took time to congratulate me when I first “burst” onto the national scene with some surprising success at his tournament my junior year.
He has also always treated me (and all other judges I know) with great respect. The first tournament I judged at was Greenhill my freshman year of college. I was (wisely) given a 5-0 match for round six and after watching an excellent debate I spent a great deal of time deliberating. I probably held up outrounds, but mr. Timmons smiled as he took my ballot (after waiting several minutes outside our room) and thanked me for taking enough time to make my decision carefully.
Whenever I’ve finished judging for his tournament Mr. Timmons asks me if I was well taken care of in the judges lounge and if I find my compensation to be reasonable.
I also had the pleasure to watch him lecture on debate theory in dallas a couple of years ago and was, as always, impressed by the care and intellect behind his opinions on debate. Although there is room for intelligent disagreement as to what our activity should look like, Mr. Timmons always seems to have put a lot of thought into his vision of LD and has always been willing to discuss and explain his beliefs with anyone.
The debate community needs more coaches like him.
Posted from: 204.117.117.162
May 27th, 2005 06:34
“Now, the other ironic part - this post is coming from the most anti-ACLU Pro-GOP debater out there since Ryan Hamilton.”
What Michael Boyle doesn’t want you to know is that he was a proud member of my Michel Foucault book group. So much for extreme right wing views!
Posted from: 68.12.160.175
May 27th, 2005 07:27
Chris: I posted that close to 12 o clock that night. Since my regular bedtime is 9, my coherency level at that point is nil.
Michael: I have had no dealings with a private school so I do not know how to respond to your situation. I think it is horrible that educators find reason to restrain individuals from furthering themselves academically; however, while Michael’s situation was unfortunate there are others (like myself) that fight to travel and win. This is not an attempt to belittle Michael’s situation but a message for students who are concerned with traveling there is hope. The media, your peers, and your community can play a huge role in “convincing” your school administration to change its policy. I do not now how this would function on a private school level, but for individuals in public schools I know from my own experiences that it is possible to create change if you work hard enough. Call them, write letters, and even meet with them personally! But make sure to do all of this in a professional manner because you will be respresenting them and your school once you travel…if you seem unprofessional they may not feel comfortable with allowing you to represent their school nationally.
Posted from: 69.231.58.113
May 27th, 2005 09:42
michael — your case was exceptional. as i mentioned to you privately, if i were not sympathetic to the numerous ways in which your former school literally tried to control your life, then i definitely would not have worked with you.
no matter what, though, there was the bottom line reality that if you would’ve earned bids while “east mesa” was not a legally registered home school, that you may not have been eligible for the toc.
matt — thanks for sharing your story. it is very inspirational. i tend to think that in almost every school — public and private — parents and other influential parties can be of great assistance. it may not work in *every* case. however, if you are able to get your message out to the community, the school will find a way to make it happen.
michelin massey.
Posted from: 69.23.246.38
May 27th, 2005 09:49
I think that Cherian and Michelin aren’t answering two things:
1. where are we going to get all these lifer coaches? How will the community possibly work without college students? Are we really going to cut down the national circuit to the Greenhill School, Apple Valley, etc.?
2. no one’s arguing that we should open the TOC to everyone. People are arguing that there’s NO reason why Greenhill debaters are more worthy of ATTEMPTING TO QUALIFY than Mountain View debaters.
And in response to what Cherian said about the TOC committee not having the obligation to open the circuit:
1. simply because the debate has been had many times about whether or not exclusion is wrong doesn’t mean that A. it’s not an incredibly important debate and B. the debate doesn’t have a correct side. I say continue this debate on this thread rather than skirting the issue:
EXCLUSION FROM THE NATIONAL CIRCUIT OF SMALLER AND/OR UNCOACHED SCHOOLS BY BIGGER, MORE ESTABLISHED TEAMS IS WRONG. Pointing out that the TOC is elitist and therefore elitism isn’t 100% wrong doesn’t answer the fact that this elitism IS wrong.
I’m sure others have given more in-depth answers to liability issues, I second Christian’s answer to Cherian’s issue with punishment, and other issues have been raised separately in support of independent entries… I may have missed something in there because I didn’t read all the posts that came up over night.
Posted from: 69.23.246.38
May 27th, 2005 09:53
disclaimers:
1. I do support going through the correct avenues to get school support
2. if you want me to honestly go through why keeping people out of the circuit is bad elitist whereas the TOC is good elitist, then I will
Posted from: 151.198.226.2
May 27th, 2005 10:33
To clarify, the TOC is “good elitist” (to use CTS’s phrase) in that it showcases the top debaters (as Michelin stated), but it can be “bad elitist” in that certain people are excluded from the POSSIBILITY of qualifying into the elite group.
Posted from: 66.218.240.111
May 27th, 2005 11:38
First of all, I apologize to Michelin for taking a private conversation public. I also apologize if I offended any of the posters in my 3AM tirades.
I think the debate about independent entries is important; I don’t know that this is the place to have it (that was not the main point of AT’s interview). I want to reiterate that my situation was unique; that while I do support independent travel, I also have a tremendous amount of respect for Aaron Timmons; and that while I may disagree