Why We Exist: A Response to Jason Baldwin’s “The Commodification of LD”
WHY WE EXIST
by Victor Jih
A Response to
“The Commodification of LD”
by Jason Baldwin
Rostrum (October 2005)
It is open season on Victory Briefs. The October Rostrum recently featured an article by Jason Baldwin entitled “The Commodification of LD” purporting to critically examine recent trends in the so-called commercialization of debate. Though thinly veiled, there is no question the primary target of the Rostrum article is Victory Briefs LLC. Lest there be any doubt, Victory Briefs is the only “company” that simultaneously publishes handbooks, runs summer camps, holds “weekend workshops,” publishes the DVDs of demonstration debates that Mr. Baldwin critiques, hosts a free website with tournament results and pictures (thanks to Jon Cruz), operates a tournament in Southern California, has staff and students who sometimes like to walk around in their camp T-shirts, had a staff member dress up in an animal costume (not my idea), and had a banner ad on LDDebate.org with the phrase “Fight the paparazzi” (a joke). Mr. Baldwin clearly had Victory Briefs at least partially in mind when writing the article, and apparently finds very little redeeming with what we try to do for the forensics community.
Sadly, the assumptions and accusations that underlie Mr. Baldwin’s article are nothing new to Victory Briefs. There is a distinct segment of the community that is predictably distrustful of any form of “corporate” or new influence, and that distrust typically arises out of a lack of familiarity with what we do. The October Rostrum article, however, represents one of the first times Mr. Baldwin and those who share his views about Victory Briefs have taken their back-room complaints to a public forum. While I wish there had been more fact-checking and an opportunity to respond before the article was published, I do appreciate this opportunity now to finally and formally put to rest many of the misconceptions and rumors. It is far more difficult to address these concerns when they are relegated to private whispering. This is also an important discussion–one that should be more solidly grounded in fact.
That said, I would like to provide the following response. It is admittedly personal in tone, because–at some level–I am responding to what I honestly take as a personal attack. The article questions the propriety of Victory Briefs’ reason for existence as a “for profit” influence in the community. It is therefore important for people to understand why Victory Briefs exists. In the process, I hope to provide a counter to Mr. Baldwin’s thesis decrying “the influence of money on high school debate.”
* * * * *
First, some personal history. I am a product of old school debate. I went to Leigh High School in San Jose, California in the late 1980s, and was coached by Ms. Kim Jones, who now is the director of forensics at Bellarmine. Everything I learned about LD debate started with her. (By the way, Ms. Jones does not receive anything close to the credit or reputation she deserves. What other coach had two different students in back-to-back LD finals at the NFL National Championships in 2003 and 2004?)
I debated in the pre-Baldwin days of David Kennedy (Regis), Adam Anderson (Chesterton), Anoop Mishra (Homewood), Gwen Cooper (Miami Palmetto), and Rob Berry (Battle Ground Academy). We did not travel the national circuit and knew nothing about the Tournament of Champions. Our circuit consisted of the Loyola Marymount tournament, Berkeley, Stanford, and University of Pacific. I did decently at Nationals, and there, while waiting in the hall for the next round, met a guy from Ohio who would ultimately become the co-founder of Victory Briefs–Bob Hohman (who, by the way, is now the President and CEO of Hotwire.com). After graduating high school in 1989, I went to Stanford (with Bob Hohman) and began coaching at Palo Alto High.
In our freshman year at Stanford, Bob Hohman (the more entrepreneurial one) convinced me it would be “fun” to start our own company. Since both of us knew LD debate, that was the natural home for our efforts. We quickly created a national company (out of our dorm-rooms) publishing LD handbooks and, after two years, started a modest LD summer camp at UC Santa Cruz (1992, 1993). These were the days Mr. Baldwin fondly recalls when he himself debated for Vestavia Hills in Alabama. (I know this, because my debaters would often watch him and other times had the honor of losing to him.)
According to Mr. Baldwin, in those days the “only LD ‘product’ to exert anything like a national influence was the University of Iowa’s summer workshop.” I take issue with that statement. That may have been true for those exclusively immersed in the “national circuit” of TOC-aspiring debaters. But the LD community back then extended far beyond the “national circuit.” Victory Briefs was a large part of that non-circuit community. We took a lot of pride in the fact that we were able to help many new schools learn about LD debate, and that a different national community was forming as a result of our efforts. The internet was not a phenomenon back then, but we did our own version of news with our “community reports” in the front of each handbook. I still have the many letters of support we received from students and coaches from Wenatchee Washington to Coronado Texas to Baton Rouge Louisiana. Attending Nationals was a joy–all we had to do was sit back as coaches would come up to the table with their friends and proceed to explain why they chose our products for their students.
In terms of national influence, then, we held our own. The Victory Briefs of the old days consisted of national champion Thomas Marlowe (from Indiana), national champion Jay Steed (from North Carolina), James Mallios of Bronx and stand-up comedy fame, Priya Aiyar (who later clerked for the Supreme Court), extemp diva Cristina Rodriguez from San Antonio Texas (who also clerked for the Supreme Court), Mark Price and Ron Anafi (of Dale McCall tutelage), Jason Ciarochi (from Duncanville High in Texas), Eric Beerbohm (of Bellarmine, Stanford, and Oxford fame), and many many others. Frankly, we were both flattered and mortified when Thomas Marlowe quoted me and Ron Anafi in the national championship round! Victory Briefs is built on a strong legacy.
Victory Briefs closed its doors in 1993. I went to Harvard Law School and decided that it was time to focus on real life. After law school, I started at my current law firm and practiced law for several years. Then, in 1998, I was convinced by some other friends to resurrect Victory Briefs and bring it to the internet age. After years of absence, I missed the debate community and the reward of working with some of the most talented students and teachers in the nation. The challenge of bringing Victory Briefs back to its glory days was also exciting. Victory Briefs was reborn–better than ever.
I am very proud of Victory Briefs. I think we have assembled some of the nicest, most talented, and most dedicated staff members from every part of the country. I am proud that our handbooks are the “must have” books for LD debate. I am proud that many schools use our instructional texts for their novices and classrooms. I am proud of our website. And I am proud that last summer our two institute sessions combined had over 400 students in the Lincoln-Douglas divisions. That’s larger than any other camp in history. Thus, it really saddens me when people–and there are some–who would rather us disappear altogether. It is frustrating to have to defend our (albeit imperfect) efforts to provide an educational service and to build an inclusive, constructive community.
* * * * *
Mr. Baldwin’s thesis is that because we are not officially associated with a college or university, we must be evil profiteers. (I exaggerate slightly.) As an initial matter, the fact that an enterprise is affiliated with a university does not mean it does not seek to make money. That enterprise does seek to make money–for the school, the team, or the staff. More importantly, the notion that Victory Briefs is nothing more than profiteering and corporate exploitation is insulting in light of the true facts.
I don’t know of any other institution or camp that discloses its financial status. And I don’t feel it particularly fair that we must do so to answer baseless charges of greed. But for the record, I wish Victory Briefs made me money. I really do. It doesn’t–yet.
For the skeptics out there, we can use the Victory Briefs camp (last summer) as an example. We received tuition from students (minus discounts) of $600,000. Since we are located at the nicest and thus most expensive camp location in the country–the University of California at Los Angeles–we paid $500,000 to the university. Out of that, we paid another $98,000 to staff (which does not include me). Once other elements of the budget are added to the profit/loss statement, one can immediately see that there is no profit. As if that was not enough, we also gave an additional $60,000 in financial aid because we hate to deny anyone the opportunity to attend for financial reasons. I personally took home nothing–despite the financial commitment and the time and love to make Victory Briefs Institute the most successful LD camp nationally.
That’s only one aspect of our operations. Running a publishing company, operating a news website, covering the NFL national tournament, producing DVD demonstration debates, and our pursuing our many other endeavors all take time and resources. For those of you who do not know me, Victory Briefs is not my job. I work full-time as a partner at a law firm billing over 2200 hours a year. Thus, I pay other people (two full-time employees and many other contractors) to run the operations of the company and to do the things that I think should be done. That’s expensive. Thus, net operating deficits for Victory Briefs of $70,000 in 2002; $100,000 in 2003; $185,000 in 2004; and $120,000 so far in 2005. I doubt there is any other “company” or person in the LD community (other than Lincoln Life or Schwann’s) that has invested nearly half a million dollars in the last few years to provide a service to the forensics world. The assumption, then, that Victory Briefs is a huge corporate money-making empire is just false. Our primary focus has always been on creating a top-notch service–even if that means it’s more difficult to make money. We have not cut corners, even though a purely financially driven enterprise would have. We have not stopped giving financial aid, even though that would have been an easy way to dramatically reduce our deficits.
To be clear though: Victory Briefs is trying desperately to make money. And we will eventually (somehow). We’re trying to think of ways to expand the product line, of adding advertising to the website, of soliciting contributions, etc. that will allow us to generate revenue without compromising the service that we’re providing. But I have no personal capacity–and no desire–to become a perpetual donation machine to debate. And I think I have the right to try to recoup some of the half million dollars I’ve already poured into the enterprise. But I have never compromised and will never compromise the quality and integrity of the Victory Briefs vision in the meantime.
So why does Victory Briefs continue? Because I’m proud to have created a company that is contributing positively to the LD community. The company (at least in my mind) is built on three guiding principles. First, not everyone is part of an established juggernaut program, with experienced coaches, top-notch varsity debaters to emulate, extensive back-files to draw from, and the ability to go to the top tournaments. Second, it is important to democratize debate, to empower those who know less about the activity, to give access to those who are not in the loop, and to create a dynamic, constructive community bridging local, regional and national participants. Third, it is important to provide a way for our graduating debaters to give back to the activity. There are many who graduate from high school and want a chance to give back whether for a year, all of their college years, or the rest of their lives. Victory Briefs provides a way to keep people involved and invested in the activity. For example, both Michelin Massey and Mike Bietz (the two full-time employees of Victory Briefs) have a tremendous desire to focus their energies on improving debate. I pay them to do that on a full-time basis.
* * * * *
Some specific points:
About the Handbooks
Mr. Baldwin criticizes the publication of handbooks because students “substitute purchased products for educationally valuable work.” I agree that handbooks could be used in a way that undermines education; but I also believe that handbooks, when properly used, can enhance education–particularly for those who are not part of established programs and traditions.
First, anyone who regularly reads our handbooks knows that they are not designed to be a “substitute” for “educationally valuable work.” There are no pre-written cases or case outlines. Much of the “evidence” is not meant to be read in a debate round, but is intended to introduce debaters to a background idea or an author. The “evidence” is not “blocked” in a way that enables debaters to shortcut reading. The book is designed to be read from front to back, and provides an introduction for beginning and advanced debaters to different ways to think about the topic and a survey of some of the available literature. We do not, as Mr. Baldwin puts it, “thrive on substituting ease for effort.” We thrive instead on providing access to resources, information, and new ideas.
Our readers know this. Some teachers tell us they use the handbook for the novice debaters, to be used as an introduction to the breadth of the topic. Some teachers tell us they use it for the team to identify potential sources, and then the team finds those sources for themselves. Other teachers tell us they give the book to their advanced debaters, because they do not have the LD expertise to take their debaters to the next level or to anticipate what other more advanced debaters might be thinking about the topic. Still others tell us they use it to learn about the topic themselves as teachers, so they can then better critique their students’ cases and practice debates. Even some parents tell us they use the book to learn about the topic before going to a local tournament to judge. Some familiarity with the topic helps them better understand and better evaluate the arguments. Most debaters tell us they use the book as a starting point, or to find out what other people might be thinking about in order to better prepare for tournaments. Are there some debaters who turn to the books at the last second when they have not prepared for a tournament? Of course. But they also know they can’t just rip three pages out of the book and read it. Our product requires them to read long passages, to analyze the evidence and the ideas, and to then piece it together for themselves.
In the ideal world, every student would have an established, experienced, and savvy coach (who also runs a debate camp during the summer), have successful varsity debater teammates to look up to and to get help from, have a tradition of excellence to draw upon, and have an extensive collection of philosophy books or a nearby university library as a resource. We don’t live in an ideal world. Some students have no coach. Some coaches are learning LD debate themselves. Some schools are not near a university. There is a reason why coaches continue to purchase our products. And it is not because these coaches are abdicating their commitment to education, as the article implies.
About the Victory Briefs DVD Series
Victory Briefs also offers a DVD series of demonstration debates on the current topics. Why Mr. Baldwin finds these demonstration debates un-educational is a mystery to me. Every established debate program will have its more experienced debaters conduct a demonstration debate for the newer debaters. Every team that is trying to introduce interested students to the activity will show a sample debate. Every camp in the country includes numerous demonstration debates for the students to learn from (including both Iowa and Kentucky). And even tournaments recognize the educational value of the “demonstration” tutorials that the elimination rounds can provide (e.g. Emory).
For teams of one, students without a coach, teams that cannot go to the prestigious tournaments like Emory, or teams that cannot send any debaters to an institute, how else are students supposed to learn debate at the highest levels? For many teams, their only exposure to debate at the highest level is to qualify for nationals. And for the few that do qualify, competing at nationals is not exactly the fairest battle if that competition is their first chance to see other schools and judges from other states. (I’m always impressed by the debaters who come from states or schools that never compete nationally, and then make it to the late elimination rounds at Nationals.)
Like the handbooks, then, I submit that our DVD product is a net benefit to education. I was particularly amused by a recent post by a student, Jon Gordon, on the Victory Briefs website. Apparently, he used the DVD product to train his mother how to flow. According to Jon, “Speaking from personal experience, I know that my own mother learned to flow by watching a DVD from VB many times and practicing flowing before she attended and judged at her first tournament. While I laughed at her for watching the DVD so many times, she ultimately learned to flow better than I could at the time.” Jon’s experience is not unique. I know that we often send our own novices home with the DVDs so they can practice flowing. Our latest DVD product provides yet another pro-education benefit. Because we now produce demonstration debates for every one of the 10 potential NFL topics before the nationwide ballots are cast, we enable coaches to actually see how these topics might be debated before deciding which topics to vote for.
About the Victory Briefs Institute
According to Mr. Baldwin, “Education aims to instill some combination of skills, knowledge, and virtues in students.” Mr. Baldwin further argues that students cannot differentiate for themselves between what they need educationally and what they want. He concludes, “[B]usinesses appeal only to wants.” As a businessman, I beg to differ.
The students who attend the Victory Briefs Institute during the summer come here because they want to improve their debating. They may not know what they need specifically to improve, but they know they want to improve. Catering to that desire does not in any way mean that Victory Briefs, as a business, compromises its educational mission or ignores what students need. Our mission–for every experience level–is clear: we emphasize reading and thinking (i.e., being smart); learning how to debate strategically (i.e., learning that the quantity of arguments is not as important as quality of arguments and that committing to one logical, well-developed argument is often the best option); the importance of rhetoric (i.e., that how you explain something is frequently just as important as what you say); the role of debate as communication (i.e., that instead of complaining about judges, the excellent debater needs to learn how to reach every type of judge; the “great” debaters should be obvious to everyone); and the virtue of humility (i.e., every debater must learn to be coachable; there is something to learn from your coach even if they don’t know how to flow or don’t know what a value is).
Mr. Baldwin’s point seems to be that profit-driven institutes are more likely to cater to the “winds of LD fashion”–namely “jargon, speed, debate theory, and so-called postmodern so-called philosophy in LD.” Let me be clear, any student who wants to learn how to debate with more jargon, more speed, more policy-lite arguments, and “postmodern so-called philosophy” for the sake of being confusing probably should not attend the Victory Briefs Institute. There are other more suitable options. Despite being “for profit,” Victory Briefs has not catered to the “winds of LD fashion.” In fact, most of our instructors are opponents of the latest trends of avoiding the core conflicts of the resolution in favor of a barrage of topicality and theory arguments. That said, unlike other camps, Victory Briefs does not ignore the “winds of LD fashion” either. The best way to combat the prevailing winds is to equip students to beat the new trends. While we do not teach students to go faster, we teach them how to handle speed. While we do not advocate confusing positions, we teach students how to debate them. While we do not prefer silly theory arguments, we teach students how to dismantle them.
There is one facet of our “profit”-driven camp that Mr. Baldwin neglects. One of the aspects of the Victory Briefs Institute I am most proud of is the fact that both beginning and advanced debaters, both students from established and newer programs, both students and coaches, both graduating debaters and rising freshmen, can come together in a true community of intellectualism, comraderie, and fun. I love the fact that my debaters can go to camp and get to know the top returning national circuit debaters for the next year. Then, when I take them to a big tournament like Stanford or Berkeley or Apple Valley, they have no reason to be intimidated by the people they see–because they are people they’ve already met. My freshmen can go up to an Adwait Parker, or a Tara Tedrow, or even some of their judges, and not be intimidated. One important aspect of our vision is to break down unintended barriers of exclusion, and to empower all students to be active participants in the larger community. In short, it’s not just about money.
Ultimately, Mr. Baldwin tells coaches to “Find workshops with staff members you trust to serve as academic and personal role models. Compare costs and ask what motives drive various institutes.” Coaches have done that. And increasing numbers of coaches send their entire squads (novices and advanced debaters) to the Victory Briefs camps. Each year, the number of schools who send more than 10 debaters to our camp grows.
About the Victory Briefs Institute Staff
According to Mr. Baldwin, “private workshops are now hiring as many successful ex-debaters as possible” as part of a grand marketing scheme. “These workshops,” according to Mr. Baldwin, “are not hiring on the basis of character at all. They are indifferent to character, because character does not improve their bottom line.” It is hard not to take this argument personally, because the argument is personal. It is also false.
First of all, Mr. Baldwin’s article perpetuates a common misconception about the Victory Briefs Institute that many of our competitors and detractors like to foster–that Victory Briefs only hires the latest graduating “ex-debaters” because they are “cheap” and “can get by with saying almost anything when they talk to their friends.” The facts are otherwise. Last summer, we greatly expanded the number of veteran coaches who teach at the institute. We hired Tim Case (the coach of Celebration High School, Florida who coached the 2005 NCFL and NFL national champion). We hired Wes Craven (the coach from South Eugene High School, Oregon who coached the 2005 NFL national runner-up). We hired Kristen Ray (one of the up and coming coaches in Texas and one of the nicest people I know). We hired Murvin Auzenne (one of the established debate coaches at Strake Jesuit in Texas). We hired Chris Castillo (another up and coming coach who has worked with students at Mayde Creek and Cinco Ranch in Texas). We hired Jessica Huynh (an assistant coach for the Harker School in California). We hired Jake Gelfand (who coached one of the most successful debaters last year, Adwait Parker). We also hired Joe Vaughan (the coach of Scarsdale and one of the top teachers in the nation).
That said, we also hire many of the top graduating debaters each year. Why? Two reasons. First, it is important to stay current. Debaters who have succeeded recently (at the local, regional, and national levels) have a lot to contribute to the educational environment. Second, as an activity, it is critical that we keep each new generation of debaters involved and invested in the activity when the graduate. It is important that we identify and train the next generation of coaches. Categorically dismissing the contributions of the “young” coach is both unfair and unwise.
Mr. Baldwin’s suggestion that these “young” hires are made without any regard to character is insulting to Victory Briefs and the staff members we hired. Last year, Victory Briefs hired Andi Barsan (CA), Gagan Biyani (CA), Bryan Cory (TX), Petey Gil (NY), Justin Hinojoza (CA), Hirsh Jain (CA), Sam Kleiner (AZ), Amanda Liverzani (NV), Landon Manjikian (CA), Belinda Navi (CA), Adwait Parker (NY), Daniel Sheehan (CA), Tye Tavaras (GA), Tara Tedrow (FL and the 2005 National Champion), and Tisha Vaidya (TX). Unless Mr. Baldwin knows something I do not, I do not see how anyone can look at this list of “young” hires and conclude that Victory Briefs, as a business, is “indifferent to character.” This group of hires does not represent, as Mr. Baldwin puts it, people “who would have been deliberately not hired in earlier years.” Rather, this group of hires represents an amazing diversity of debate knowledge, an early and genuine dedication to teaching debate, and some of the “best people” I know.
About the Victory Briefs Tour
Mr. Baldwin’s article also makes a passing derogatory reference to “weekend workshops on current NFL topics,” but never really articulates the problem with such camps. In addition to the summer camps, Victory Briefs also offers a two-day workshop in late December or early January (depending on the location) on the January/February LD topic. Last winter, the Victory Briefs staff visited 10 different cities across the nation, conducting mini-camps that both students and their coaches attended. We started the tour because we recognized that not every student can afford to come to Los Angeles for two weeks during the summer. So we decided to bring the institute experience to them. At $50 a student for a two-day workshop, I can assure skeptics that the venture was not a financial juggernaut. It was, however, an educational success. Students of every level (including students from many schools that are not known as debate powerhouses) and many new coaches (or speech coaches seeking to make the transition) attended to learn more about debate in the context of the new resolution.
About the Victory Briefs Tournament
Mr. Baldwin also criticizes “one tournament operated by an LD business.” Since the only tournament that fits that description is the Victory Briefs Tournament, I will address that as well. First, Mr. Baldwin’s assumption that we hold that tournament because it is “lucrative” is demonstrably false. The Victory Briefs Tournament has only one division of one event–open Lincoln-Douglas debate. At approximately 100-120 competitors and $50 per entry, the tournament only generates approximately $5000 in revenue. The tournament is not designed to make money, because we then proceed to spend thousands of dollars to fly in, house, and feed the best judges in the country and even gave nearly $2000 in cash scholarships to the winning students. In fact, the tournament loses so much money that next year we likely will be unable to offer cash scholarships anymore.
The real reason the Victory Briefs Tournament was created is, as we tell every school that attends, to improve the quality of debate opportunities in Southern California. When Victory Briefs began its operations in Los Angeles, we recognized that LD debate was stagnating and very few schools had the interest in or resources to travel to compete against some of the smartest students in the country. To remedy that situation, and to improve the interest in debate in Southern California, we decided to create a tournament that would bring the best debaters to California. Victory Briefs draws upon its broader “corporate” presence in the LD debate world in order to attract those top debaters and, more importantly, the top judges. Last year, one coach–who is typically wary of oral critiques–commented on how much fun her debaters were having because they were learning so much from the judge critiques after each round. That’s why we continue to run the tournament. And that’s why people keep coming.
About the Victory Briefs Daily Website
Mr. Baldwin also takes aim at the Victory Briefs website. According to Mr. Baldwin, the website is rife with “campy gossip” and “insider only” jokes–all designed to “aggressively promote their staffs, their success stories.” If you have not visited the website, I urge you to read it for yourself and decide whether Mr. Baldwin’s description is accurate.
Mr. Baldwin does not fairly describe the website that Jon Cruz and many other contributors have worked so hard to build. The website provides an educational resource to debaters, coaches, and parents. As I write this article, the website features a column on the importance of “intuition while responding to confusing arguments” by Larry McGrath, a lesson plan by Stacy Thomas for debate “icebreakers,” and an introduction to the “narrative” form of argumentation. In the process of providing information, tips, news, and pictures, the website has also created a true national community. Many debaters, coaches, parents, and debate alumni visit and comment on the site. According to the latest statistics, nearly 700 different people visit the site each day. The number of visitors is exponentially greater when Victory Briefs covers the National Tournament. We get inundated with correspondence from well-wishing parents and teammates who are glued to the coverage as they see what happens to their friends and loved ones.
Jon Cruz, the LD debate coach at the Bronx High School of Science in New York, is one of the prime movers for the website. Mr. Baldwin’s claim that the website exists to “aggressively promote their staffs, their success stories” ignores all of the effort by Jon Cruz to make sure the website is fully inclusive. We have gone out of our way to feature successful debaters regardless of their affiliation and have featured interviews with the directors and instructors of competing camps. Mr. Baldwin’s further claim that the purpose and effect of the website is to promote an unhealthy “celebrity” culture is also unfair. Jon Cruz goes out of his way to feature both the successful and the less successful debater, to give equal prominence to the local and national circuits, and to combat elitism. By the way, Jon Cruz does not get paid for anything he does for the Victory Briefs website. Like many others, he volunteers his time and efforts because he believes in the website, he believes in the community, and he believes in Victory Briefs.
About Conflicts of Interest
Finally, a brief word on conflicts of interest. Mr. Baldwin points out the growing problem of judges who are biased because they may have taught a student at summer camp. First of all, this is a problem that tends to be unique to the national circuit–and not a growing problem for LD community as a whole. Second, in terms of the national circuit, this is a legitimate and self-created problem because the students who choose to attend the “national circuit” tournaments tend to want as judges many of the people who teach at camps during the summer. According to Mr. Baldwin, “this last concern about conflicts of interest is as much a problem with tournament administration as it is with money in LD.” I agree that this is a problem that should be addressed with more effective tournament administration–through better disclosure of affiliations and opportunities to strike biased judges. I disagree that this is a problem with ‘money in LD.’” The real problem is that coaches and students on the “national circuit” want a particular type of judge.
Ultimately, according to Mr. Baldwin, “People who produce or sell topic-specific LD products should not judge LD rounds at all.” If this is an indirect way of saying I should never judge again, I’m fine with that. This prophylaxis, however, is just silly.
* * * * *
Victory Briefs is not a perfect organization, but we do try to positively contribute to the LD and the larger NFL community. In his concluding recommendations, Mr. Baldwin urges coaches to limit the “influence of money” in LD debate. I argue, however, that the “influence of money” in LD debate can be positive, and I strongly believe that Victory Briefs is an example of that. Our success as an enterprise has enabled us to democratize LD debate, by making information, ideas, and resources available to greater and greater numbers of people. Our success has enabled us to create an unparalleled educational and inspiring environment every summer–with a collection of the most talented debate minds and teachers in one location. Our success has enabled us to give financial aid to numerous students, giving them opportunities that they otherwise would not have. Our success has enabled us to offer free resources on the Internet, and to help build a strong, inclusive, and diverse forensics community. That’s why Victory Briefs exists.
Popularity: 3%
test
Posted from: 68.237.226.68
October 12th, 2005 13:31
i thought it was funny how underneath the original Baldwin article there’s an ad for a much more useful way for debater to spend money: buying pins for their seventh ruby-diamond!!!
Posted from: 198.174.17.254
October 12th, 2005 13:58
I also came to the conclusion (before seeing this) that Jason’s article was VERY clearly directed at Victory Briefs. I think it’s strange that the Rostrum decided to publich (and on some level give the sanction of the NFl to) an article by a leader of one summer institute directly attacking a competitor.
Posted from: 68.198.146.94
October 12th, 2005 13:59
“If you have every built a bookcase or baked a cake or changed a tire, you know how empowering it feels to be able to do for yourself what other people must pay to have done.”
-i would need some sort of instruction to build a bookcase, preferably from someone who is trained in the field. building a bookcase from scratch requires legitimate craftsmanship, the same way writing a strong LD case or delivering a complex extemp speech requires high-level academic skills. between my own beneficial experience at FFI and seeing first-hand how LDers on my time have improved after going to camps such as VBI and NDF, the importance of correct instruction is clear to me…i don’t know of any free debate camp…and i certainly wouldn’t want to sit in a chair built by a self-taught/poorly-taught craftsman.
Posted from: 66.14.234.65
October 12th, 2005 14:03
I think “charlie a” makes a good point. I think very few of us - whether NDF, NSD, FFI, Paradigm, etc - do this for the money. I always say, “if i did debate for money, i wouldn’t do debate.”
Posted from: 66.14.234.65
October 12th, 2005 14:06
meaning - charlie a is correct that while this article is clearly directed at just VB, the thesis effects many other institutions.
Posted from: 12.226.91.74
October 12th, 2005 14:15
I would like to see the books of “college emdorsed camps” like iowa and kndi and see if they are really non-profit. (I suppose KNDI, moreso, bc Mr. Bellus isn’t making the non-profit claim, but Baldwin makes it for him.) There’s an awful lot of “recruiting” that goes on for a non-profit camp. Likewise, I’ve been told by more than one person that J.W. has offered to “double what the other camp pays” Just because a camp isn’t making a profit doesn’t mean it is non-profit. I’ve also heard from members of certain college debate teams talking of how summer camps help fund their programs. hmmm…
To make a claim like you are making, show the figures.
Ernie
Posted from: 66.92.163.42
October 12th, 2005 14:20
Well, I don’t know that Jason was specifically angry at Victory Briefs (I think the same could be said about Dallas Debate and NSD in his mind), but the article was specific to actions taken by VB, and make no mistake about it, that’s who he attacked.
I think it’s interesting that in the first column he says the only successful non-profit institute was the “old” Iowa institute. Now, while I have nothing against Iowa, and in fact almost wound up going to school there, I think anyone associated with the institute (I’m specifically refrencing RJ here just because he’s someone I’ve talked to recently) would be the first to admit that the institute didn’t hold any sort of secret recipe for sucess, and that by virtue of being there one wasn’t going to leave an improved debater. I’m also sure Jason Baldwin’s old coach, who still runs the institute in some capacity, would say the same thing, as would anyone from pretty much any major non-profit institute in the country, or for that matter, any for profit institute in the country - no single institute holds a monopoly on “successful teaching”, and no single institute can transform a student. A student at an institute, whether it be something more traditional and structured as Iowa or more flexible (I’m not talking about debate styles here, I’m talking specifically about the layout of getting to choose classes, etc) like VBI will only learn and progress as much as they WANT TO learn and progress and put in the WORK TO learn and progress. Frankly, in making that one statement, I don’t think there’s anyone who would agree with him - there’s nothing unique about any one institute that makes it the monopoly of creating great students - it’s like saying that Harvard is the only university to produce smart students - it not only ignores competitive schools with similar academic distinctions (sorry, Victor, but I’m going to mention Yale) and it also doesn’t look at who goes there (I don’t know Harvard that well, but given the graduates I’ve met, they were go-getters - going to Harvard doesn’t equal success just because many graduates are successful).
Annyone who thinks that the Victory Briefs institute is paying for Mr. Jih’s Lamborghini is sadly mistaken. The issue in choosing staff is not one of cost - there isn’t a calculus of who can we hire for the least amount of money that perpetuates itself in any institute that I’ve attended (and I’ve been to VBI, Iowa, and Kentucky). Based on the raw staff numbers and facilities at VBI@UCLA, I’d be surprised to hear that they did much more than break even if that.
That said, I’m not going to attack Mr. Baldwin for having an opinion (or, if I remember correctly, soon to be Dr. Baldwin with a PhD in Philosophy from Notre Dame). I think people can respectfully disagree, I just don’t think he has his facts straight. I think Victor’s response makes this clear - but I’ll take it a step further on solely a personal level. As someone who cuts cards for VB, Mr. Baldwin doesn’t think that I should judge any rounds. That’s fine, he’s open to his opinion. I’m not sure if he currently coaches any students, but if he did, I wouldn’t even think about that in terms of making a decision in the round. Similarly, if I see him at a tournament this year, I will simply say hello, should the situation arise (I don’t know if he remembers me from Kentucky), and I have no problem with his writings as long as they aren’t based on flawed assumptions. To the extent he doesn’t like corporatization, that’s his opinion that he’s entitled to have - but I wish he wouldn’t perpetuate incorrect myths about VB while writing in the Rostrum. Either way, he is someone who not only had great accomplishments as a debater, but has continued to contribute in some way to academic discourse about debate - in that sense, his contributions are admirable. I just wish he’d done a bit more research and made his bias more clear at the beginning of the article (that he does work for KNDI, and he admits it in the beginning without mentioning KNDI by name), but otherwise he’s free to send in what he wants to the Rostrum, and, as the old Fox News adage goes, “We report, you decide.”
Posted from: 12.45.167.28
October 12th, 2005 14:21
I was shocked that the NFL would post an article with such a clear bias against an organization that provides such a positive service to the debate community. Mr. Baldwin obviously knows very little about VBI; otherwise, he would not have written such a hostile article. During the summer of 2002 and again in the summer of 2005, I had ten or more students attend VBI. Many of those students would not have been able to attend, but for the generosity of Victor and others associated with running the camp. Each of the above years, Strake Jesuit received literally thousands of dollars in financial aid making it possible for several students to attend that wouldn’t have otherwise been able. Since taking over the SJ program in 2000, I have sent SJ students to numerous debate camps, none of those camps has ever come close to the generosity shown by VBI. Thanks for the generosity and high quality instruction. Keep up the good work.
Jerry Crist
Head Debate Coach
Strake Jesuit College Preparatory
Houston, Texas
Posted from: 68.181.4.65
October 12th, 2005 14:31
I graduated from a very anti-VB program recently and always found one thing funny — we spent as much time with VB material as anyone else. Though we were directed away from (READ: yelled at for even considering) the Victory Briefs Institute and told to ignore VB culture, our school still purchased and relied on VB handbooks, making the topic analysis and selections from evidence required reading for the entire team. Though we were forbidden from posting/contributing to Victorybriefs.com (even for something as innocent as checking on results or congratulating a teammate), nearly everyone i knew on the team left anonymous (but constructive) comments and checked Victory Briefs daily at practice.
The biggest problem I have with this whole “VB vs. Iowa vs. NSD vs. DD, old-school vs. new-school, whatever you want to call it” debate is that adults who are supposed to be educating their students about debate skills and etiquette have been using their personal debate skills for nothing more than posturing. It seems like many coaches and program directors use official channels to forward their interpretations of debate (however antiquated they may be) and promote their friends and allies programs/methods.
To clarify, I have no affiliation with Victory Briefs. I’ve never been to their camp and only read the evidence I was told to from their handbook. What’s really important and wholly underemphasized is that they are the only people providing a unique service to LD Debate today. Let’s face it–Victory Briefs IS the modern LD community. Where else do you go for TOC updates, National Qualifiers, Topic Announcements, or Tournament Results? This is the place and Victor, Jon, and crew should be thanked for that service at the very least.
I wish I could actually come out and identify myself, but hate and blood run deep in high school debate, as this whole incident has shown us yet again. Victory Briefs — you guys do good work. Victor — as long as other coaches and programs keep up this thinly veiled civil war, I urge you to keep fighting the good fight. Hopefully some day, everyone in the activity over the age of 18 will put down their arms and get back to doing something useful: teaching debate.
Posted from: 24.16.112.123
October 12th, 2005 14:44
Sam Kleiner (CA)
*AZ
:-)
Posted from: 128.135.173.63
October 12th, 2005 14:46
With all this talk about commodification and private enterprise, I am beginning to think Jason Baldwin is working for thr Soviets.
Posted from: 128.135.173.63
October 12th, 2005 14:46
With all this talk about commodification and private enterprise, I am beginning to think Jason Baldwin is working for the Soviets.
Posted from: 71.139.181.133
October 12th, 2005 14:48
well said, victor.
well said.
Posted from: 4.130.201.148
October 12th, 2005 15:22
most of all, i think that mr. baldwin’s article is flawed in its analysis of the skills VBI aims to teach. while there certainly are “policyesque argument” lectures and “zizek and badiou” lectures which aim to address current trends in debate, i don’t recall the people giving these lectures saying “run these arguments so you can be cool and a celebrity and win lots of debate rounds.” that isn’t to say that winning was not a goal for anyone at VBI, but rather, these lectures aimed to have an intellectual discussion of the issues at hand - how arguments should be structured, the academic value of certain arguments (if you don’t think theorists engage in some kind of “topicality”/interpretational debate, you’re crazy), and the relevance of theories outside of the debate round.
moreover, in no way were kids coerced into going to these lectures — there were always lectures on persuasion/presentation, more traditional philosophy, and basic casewriting skills. all of these give VBI the ability to teach to a wide array of students, which probably fosters intellectual development better than throwing out things people already know. it’s hard to picture VBI as an institute that just shifts with the winds of LD theory or whatever metaphor mr. baldwin used.
finally, with regards to the value of debaters learning “virtues” and “skills for the real world,” some of the most popular lectures at camp dealt with those very skills. mr. jih’s lectures in particular - “advanced cross-examination” and “advanced legal reasoning” - were not solely aimed at teaching kids how to win. the former had a broader purpose in teaching reasoning and analysis skills, and the latter was extremely valuable in terms of teaching students how to look at legal cases and understand how the system works. as an aside, it also seemed to teach the value of hard work — we all had to read a 30 page article the night before, because victor would drill us with questions the next day. while this seems intimidating, this form of teaching - the socratic discussion - was both engaging and educational. to my knowledge, no other camp, “non-profit” or “for-profit” has utilized it.
that’s just my two cents on mr. baldwin’s article, i had a great time at vbi both summers i attended
john lewis
memorial high school
Posted from: 64.12.116.203
October 12th, 2005 15:33
I usually post two line “congratulations you rock etc etc” posts, but this article really upset me. As someone who is very close to a lot of VBI staff members, I’m stunned that someone could have objections to the hiring process. My ex-coach, Mike Bietz, certainly did not join the activity to become a multimillionaire. I personally learned more from him than I have any teacher, not only about debate, but how to be a good person. The staff in general encourages a relaxed approach to debate, and certainly does not advocate any sleazy tactics or an excessive use of jargon. There isn’t any evil profit motive. These people care about debate and the values it teaches kids. Bietz didn’t care if I won or lost as long as I had a good time, and took something valuable away from the activity. There are most definitely people who are overly obsessed with the win, and fetishize debaters (which is sad), but calling out Victory Briefs for causing this problem is just wrong.
As someone who is currently coached by Jake Gelfand (another coach who CLEARLY is only about the money….), I also have objections to the shots at “so called postmodern so called philosophy”. If people misrun the theories, that’s not the philosopher’s fault. VBI encourages people to read the evidence they use, and to understand it. Just because the thoughts aren’t mainstream like social contract theory doesn’t mean they aren’t interesting or educational.
Just my two cents,
Liz Scoggin
Posted from: 71.36.129.161
October 12th, 2005 15:46
I mirror everything Liz said. Of all the places someone could attack for money making, of all the businesses, one that loses money in the debate community? Bietz is right. “if i did debate for money, i wouldn’t do debate.”
Besides, of all the companies to attack, VB? From being coached by both Bietz and Jake I’ve learned so much not only about debate and philosphy in general (which makes shots about philosophy a little frustrating), but anything about destroying education so flawed I can’t believe it. From the people this “evil” company employs I’ve learned about life, and been educated beyond what most other high schoolers seem to get.
Posted from: 172.190.94.197
October 12th, 2005 15:47
Before I continue to read, I must say:
YAY VICTOR JIH!
YAY KIMMY! (Kim Jones to all ya’ll non-Bellarmine/Ex-students of the awesome nazi-type lady-person ^_^)
Posted from: 138.16.19.146
October 12th, 2005 16:19
i’m going to do something uncharacteristic and defend baldwin, at least to some extent
also to apologize ahead of time: this will be incoherent, ungrammatical, etc. - sorry bout that
i agree with people who’ve made it infinitely clear that it was unfair of him to target VB the way he has; and i’m not going to claim that other institutes out there are any more or less complicit etc. etc. | i’ve no desire to point fingers at anyone nor get into petty squabbles about guilt and innocence
similarly, i won’t say that i find parts of the rostrum article problematic (ie: the not-too-subtle criticism of “current debate trends” implicit in it) however, i think there are two VERY important issues that baldwin brings up that NEED to be addressed
the first is debate celebrity culture: i don’t think we can deny that debate has its celebrities; i dont know if its fair to attribute this to corporate influences nor do i know if its fair to say that we didn’t have debate-celebrities in the 90’s (i didnt debate then - i dont know); this doesn’t change the fact that REP is real and rampant
i have nothing against Jeb of the NDR, i honestly don’t know anythign about him; similarly I think Jon Cruz is one of the nicest people I know - but this doesnt change the fact that things like the NDR and exclusive interviews with kids who are STILL IN HIGHSCHOOL do in-fact elevate those people to some sort of celebrity status; sure - i had my interview (though it wasn’t till the end of my “career”), i had my spot on the NDR - but whatever, ya know? it doesn’t change the fact that we create a situation where highschool kids fear and worship…other highschool kids; we track the NDR to figure out who is and isn’t “good” (makes me wonder how many judges are influenced by a name on a “top X” list when trying to make the tough decision etc.)
i’m fine with post-graduation interviews; i think there’s a lot that people can share | but i think that while kids are competing/trying to get round robin invites/etc. things which SO SIGNIFICANTLY increase their ‘celebrity status’ puts some people at an unfair advantage
and even if one can’t agree with the argument for competitive advantage; there are definitly “social” problems that result from activities (even if theyre intent is entirely harmless) which make it very very clear who’s ’succesful’; we’ve heard of Good Debater Syndrome, we know how “the Good debaters” all hang out, how people who don’t ‘get it’ are ridiculed, how we tend to privelege the testimony of the succesful over those of the unsuccesful as far as a number of debate-related things go (in round events in particular); Rep-out DOES happen; kids who don’t have rep DO get discouraged and intimidated by nothng more than names; these are realities
as long as tournament results are posted this will happen to some degree, but i think if we at least try to deemphasize the ‘culture of success’; we don’t create more celebrities than results postings already will create, that perhaps it’ll at least help to some degree (sure, i don’t have an alternative - that shouldn’t be a shocker)
PROBLEM 2: purchasing success/ the “easy way out”
i’m less concerned with evidence packs here - though i think its true that people buy them and some use them exclusively, there are also a lot of folks who don’t - and i agree that most institutes try to stress teh value of doing research
what i’m more concerned about (and this is somethign that i think baldwin doesn’t really address) is how much the “kids work”/”coaches work” ratio seems to have been DRAMATICALLY altered — i agree with jason to some degree about the value of…uh…growing tomatoes or something…ok, all kidding aside though - i think things like case writing/blocking/researching ARE where so much of the educational value of debate lies
so what’s the problem? it seems like more and more often the trend now is to have individual students “hire out” an individual coach who does the brunt of case writing/research/blocking with them - the students role in this situation obviously not being phased out (they still have to “learn” and debate the round etc.), but becoming much more passive; this isnt to say coaches cant do work, nor that college kids shouldnt be hired — i think that assistant coachship and situations where students who have no coaching at all hire someone are all good and well | but this isnt the current trend; programs with established coaching staffs are hiring first/2nd year outs to do the dirty work; the “coached by” lists in the tournament results are getting LONGER an longer
this isnt to say that kids who hire coaches are evil — its an understandable pressure, and it seems more and more like if you dont have someone writing for you your doomed to failure (everyone else is doing it!); similarly its not to say that everyone who hires a coach doesn’t work (many students put in tremoundous amounts of effort) - what it IS to say is that there are many going down a dangerous path which really isn’t all that rewarding
its also inegalitarian - i think this is one major factor where “corporatism” DOES come into play; it costs to hire a coaching staff, fly people out, rent out war rooms, etc. — not everyone has the resources to get college students to turn their assignments into ACs, to get the prep out, etc.
whatever…im rambling; just my 2 cents (though its prolly worth closer to 1)
-josh
Posted from: 68.198.158.134
October 12th, 2005 16:40
I think his analysis of the celebrity LD culture was intruiging, though I disagree with most of his arguments.
Posted from: 68.198.146.94
October 12th, 2005 16:45
in response to the “celebrity” argument:
in the documentary “spellbound” (you know, the one about the scripps howard spelling be that brilliantly follows a small group of kids), an 11 year old prodigy named georgie is singled-out as the celebrity-type. michelle wie is a teen and about to become the world’s most famous female golfer, and child tv stars have long been a fixture in our pop culture. so, when im walking around a tournament with shields (i’m a scarsdaleian extemper), it doesn’t surprise me when scores of people say “hi” to him. i’m not calling matt a child, but the concept of a child prodigy-type being fascinating to the general public isn’t anything new, and, living in a country that elevates(whether you believe it or not, many do) the mythical hero/american dream story, it’s not surprising that people are interested in greatness. although its somewhat more socially awkward than the rest of the world(awkward enough for dorktastic me to fit in), the debating community’s so-called celebrity culture mirrors larger, national trends.
even if victory briefs does promote this trend, no website is the root cause–it’s our society, for better or worse–, and the potential harms done aren’t unique to debate or more powerful than the good of spreading knowledge, the net result of technology in all intellectual matters.
Posted from: 69.249.50.38
October 12th, 2005 16:55
I think Josh’s second point addresses an important issue, but a completely irrelevant one. Victory Briefs probably has nothing unique to do with the hiring of recent graduates as coaches. I also don’t think buying a $10 evidence packet every two months should really be considered “buying wins,” especially because people who use the pre-cut evidence exclusively probably aren’t winning that much.
To the first point about celebrity culture: If someone has attracted the kind of attention to be interviewed, they probably don’t need a lot of help getting round robin invites. Also, people who may be construed as “elitist” probably aren’t friendly because they’ve shared the experience of being interviewed or photographed by Jon Cruz - “elitist” circles are most likely a product of camps and tournaments, rather than VBD. I guess we could do away with camps and tournaments though…
As far as rep-outs, yeah, the NDR is very problematic in that it quantifies success over a period of time, which means that instead of thinking as Debaters A and B as both very good, we see Debater A as # 1 and Debater B as # 15.
Posted from: 138.16.19.146
October 12th, 2005 16:58
sure - im not trying to attack VB, the NDR, etc. specifically - i think it is to some degree inevitable and i think that most of us do it in some capacity or another (those are just two of the most clear examples i could think of)
im not 100% sure what to do about it - and i agree its also a problem with american & capitalist culture; but that doesn’t make contributing to it OK nor does it mean we shouldnt a) try to figure out what we can do and b) try to make efforts to stop it
Posted from: 136.167.228.198
October 12th, 2005 17:11
Charlie-
Whether or not we live in a culture that is interested in and idolizes greatness doesn’t affect the fact that interviewing current debaters adds to the perception of greatness. Not everyone gets a VBD interview. The kids that get VBD interviews while in high school are selected. They are the ‘great ones.’ Someone else has waded through the results and figured out what accomplishments are important enough to earn an interview. Maybe your name shows up a couple of times on results pages, and maybe a few people notice. That seems like an inevitable result of posting results (which I think is a good thing, because it’s nice to know how your friends / campers are doing without calling them up individually). However, it’s a lot harder to overlook a front page interview than it is to overlook “School Name AB.” Whether or not celebrity would exist without interviews doesn’t refute the idea that interviews contribute to celebrity.
I don’t have time to elaborate any more right now, so I guess my point is: VB does a lot of good things. Interviewing people who haven’t graduated yet isn’t one of those things. (And on a completely unrelated note: “React to” was definitely one of those things, even if it was just a free article that no one talked about. I hope it will come back someday.)
Posted from: 216.165.43.243
October 12th, 2005 17:21
Let the angry comment war begin!
Talk about offensive. The next time someone has the audacity to suggest that the LD community is flawed, I say we just throw Cyndy Woodhouse and Jon Cruz into the ring to settle this in a real-world manner. After all, we’re always tagging those discursive real-world impacts to the bottom of every case, right?
I in no way desire to be labeled a victory-briefs-hater, Baldwin-nik, or old-school-debate-sympathizer, so I’ll save my responses to the response until discussions that I’m sure will ensue at Big Bronx (and other nat circuit tournaments throughout the year).
And Jon, if you’re really planning to democratize debate, how about putting me on one of those banners?
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
October 12th, 2005 17:24
I think Josh makes a couple of fairly good points, but I don’t really think he’s defending Baldwin, at least not against the criticisms being directed at him here (portraying VB unfairly).
There is some possibility that when one kids gets interviewed and another doesn’t the first kid could get a rep advantage. Maybe there should be some sort of consistent criteria for who gets interviewed (e.g. Greenhill/Glenbrooks champions) so that an interview doesn’t seem like VB’s institutional endorsement of a debater.
At the same time, I would defend the interviews simply on the grounds that they’re fun to read and I don’t think anybody takes them that seriously. I agree that that there is a celebrity culture of sorts on the circuit, but I’m not sure that it’s entirely bad. “Debate celebrities” often act as role models for up-and-coming debaters, and there’s nothing wrong with thinking “X is a good debater; I would like to be more like him/her/it.” Because debaters all value the ability to debate well, there will always be a lot of respect bordering on a little bid of fear and awe for the best debaters.
As far as “hired gun coaches” go, I agree that it’s bad to have a coach do all your work for you, but the fact appears to be that those debaters have never done particularly well. It’s true that kids with the money to hire coaches will have an advantage, but that’s true in any activity–the cost of hiring an ex-nationally-succesful debater to cut cards, write cases and fly to tournaments is way lower than, say, the cost of regular lessons with a private tennis instructor.
Posted from: 70.107.171.142
October 12th, 2005 17:29
To claim that Victory Briefs is all about making money is not only demostratively untrue (the numbers don’t like: Victor loses money!), but it also shows a downright ignorance of the Victory Briefs website, staff and products. Victor is a high powered attorney who spends a lot of time working on high school debate. I mean, it doesn’t take an expert to prove that there must be something other than money keeping these people in the activity. Victor, Bietz, Michelin, Jon and the rest of the staff have a love of learning, teaching, debate as well as the relevant subjects that debate involves. All of the products could cost more, they could be of lower quality, they could be more profitable–but they aren’t. Victory Briefs is what it is because it cares about kids learning about debate. How dare anyone attack that.
Concerning the ‘celebrity culture,’ that debate fosters, I think that there is something ridiculous about all that and I agree with Josh that maybe 17 year old debaters should not be treated like sports stars. They aren’t. However, that is NOT in ANY WAY the fault of Victory Briefs, which I think does indeed try to ‘democratize’ debate: Jon tries to take photos of everyone–not just the circuit stars, the interviewees are usually chosen according to ‘who has an interseting story to tell’ and not just ‘who is the best debate in America,” the camp has no application process so anyone can go, even if they aren’t a star, and the camp staff is HUGE, making individualized attention availible for EVERYONE, not just the top lab. So, celebrity culture may be an issue, but it’s not a VB issue, or at the very least, VB tries to avoid it. Also, I think that its pretty essential to recognize that Jason Baldwin identifies himself as the “most successful debater in LD history.” This article was not written as an altruistic warning to the debate community because in its heyday, Kentucky did the same thing (and, with their scholars program, the elitism was significantly worse!), Mr. Baldwin was that celebrity culture, and his camp tried to made profit just like the rest of them. This was nothing more than a partisan attack.
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
October 12th, 2005 17:30
“I say we just throw Cyndy Woodhouse and Jon Cruz into the ring to settle this in a real-world manner”
I second the motion.
Posted from: 136.167.228.198
October 12th, 2005 17:55
Jacob-
a) Interviews based exclusively on interesting stories don’t need to include a list of debate accomplishments
b) What non-debate student has been interviewed that wasn’t TOC qualled? If there are a few, can we at least acknowledge that
1. The student interview pool is almost / entirely comprised of people who qualled for the TOC and
2. People who don’t qual for the TOC can have interesting stories?
Not that any of this affects the *effect* of interviewing…
-Matt
P.S. - I just want to make clear that I do not in any way think that Jon Cruz (the interviewer) is elitist or anything like that. I think he does an awesome job with the site, a particularly spectacular job not just photographing circuit kids, but I don’t think any of that (or the fact that he’s a really nice guy) should prevent criticism of one specific aspect of VBD: interviewing current students.
Posted from: 70.114.9.107
October 12th, 2005 18:16
i think that jason’s article had alot of problems and i think victor dealt with them extremely well.
as i read the article when the rostrum came out, i was bit taken aback at mr baldwin’s article.
i didnt attend victory briefs ever but i value every contribution they make to the debate community and i think that no matter what mr baldwin says, mr jih’s idea of democratizing debate is probably one of the most rewarding features he has devoted the last few years (and dollars) of his life to.
props to mr jih for his work and support of vb.
also props to all the camps out there they hold similar visions for debate
Posted from: 66.26.40.201
October 12th, 2005 18:23
Just wondering, but does anyone outspokenly and fully support jason baldwin?
I havent taken a side on the issue, and I dont plan to but it does kind of seem like you’re all proving jason’s point, right? He is saying that debate is becoming commercialized but I dont think that he draws negative impacts from that. I think he draws the negativity of commercialism from his claim that debaters will be unduly influenced by money, advertising, and pressure in the debate world. It just seems to me that when all of you are posting in support of the so-called LD conglomerate that he claims influences debaters too much, that you are actually proving the assertion that he makes; that the the commodification of LD will influence debaters to an extreme level. His point is proven in that everyone posting supports the hegemon (VBD), just like he says debaters will do because of this influence and commodification. I just found that interesting.
but again, does anyone support baldwin and more importantly, did anyone actually read his full article?
Posted from: 71.139.185.66
October 12th, 2005 18:53
not openly on the victory briefs own page
Posted from: 66.92.163.42
October 12th, 2005 19:10
Maybe I have a short memory, but I don’t remember anyones comments being deleted on the basis of attacking Victory Briefs, especially when the debate is about two different articles that directly contradict one another.
People can come out randomly if they wish, but I doubt if Cyndy Woodhouse, RJ Pelliciota, Paul Bellus, Eric Palmer, Steve Schappaugh, Sam Duby, Aaron Timmons, Chase Martyn, Lee Solomon, Dan Meyers, or anyone else involved in another program were to come out an publiclly comment that their posts would be deleted.
Posted from: 68.196.115.120
October 12th, 2005 19:22
I had the same response to Baldwin’s article as Josh Marshall’s “Problem 2.” I think Jason very articulately defines the problem of “passive consumption.” The passive consumption of other people’s arguments is a) anti-thetical to education and critical thought, b) an “easy way out” (which explains why it happens), and c) inegalitarian (see Josh’s argument).
Baldwin’s article, however, incorrectly assumes that the most prominent form of passive consumption is buying and using victorybriefs. This may be speculative, but I think Jason (after attending last year’s TOC and watching rounds) sees a paradigm in today’s LD that is both distinct and drastically different from the LD he participated in. Since most rounds at the TOC conform to a paradigm that is RELATIVELY progressive (or at least uniformly more “progressive” than Baldwin-era debate), and because VB is the unifying mechanism of modern LD, this connection was the easiest for him to discern.
However, as Brandon said, students who passively consume VB are NOT successful because their arguments are public knowledge. This means that VB is more often a tool for giving novices “somewhere to start.”
The problem of “passive consumption,” however, still exists. There is still an incentive to consume the work of others because consumption requires less work, patience, or aptitude than individual production. Thus, students provide hired-coaches with a financial incentive to take ownership of that individual’s success (which entails unique, non-public research and cases). Passive consumption is obviously most atrocious when debaters are completely divorced from the case-writing/preparation process.
My claim is not that ALL coaching operates in this fashion, but there are debaters who completely rely on coaches for cases, blocks, and sometimes scripted rebuttals. As Mr. Baldwin explained, what is the point of the activity if the learning process is omitted? Winning a trophy? Having one’s name imprinted on a website?
The fact that the desire to win trumps education indicates to me that debate-celebrity IS indeed an issue; if a student wants to be debate celebrity but cannot cannot compose adequate cases and blocks (or, more likely, does not have the time or patience to grapple with debate and develop these skills), he/she will hire someone else to do the work.
So, the fact that Jason incorrectly identifies VB as the source of an issue does not deny the existence of the issue itself. Also the entirety of the blame can’t be put on students who hire coaches. Debate has holistically become an expensive (and therefore exclusive) activity, and people naturally are dissatisfied if they do not see short-term returns from their investments.
Posted from: 24.6.139.100
October 12th, 2005 19:39
random:
The problem with your argument is that it assumes Baldwin’s premises to be true and views peoples’ defense of VB in the light of its conclusion. We don’t rally around VB because of advertising pressure (especially since most of the ads for VB stuff appear on this site) or money (since, unless I’m the only one missing out, jcruz is not hooking us up with bribes), but because it does a lot of good stuff for the debate community and LOSES money doing so. Jih-unit could make a huge amount more if he just spent the time on his real job, but he’s nice enough to give is time to coach debaters, run a fun camp, give baller lectures, and even offer to pay out of pocket for vandalism done to people’s rooms. Does school pride count as “rallying around an evil capitalist hegemon”? After all, we all pay to go to school in one way or another.
re: interviews:
Am I the only one who remembers the deluge of “meet X” posts during VBI where people who weren’t even on the TOC radar were given the spotlight?
On that note, I am personally convinced that Jon Cruz knows more of the debate community (especially young’uns and non-stars) than anybody else. It’s hard to accuse the man of elitism.
Posted from: 138.16.19.146
October 12th, 2005 19:57
i dont think anyone is accusing jon of elitism; nor are we (and by “we” i mean an elite cult of genius post-communist revolutionaries) claiming that VB is the locus of capitalist pig-doggarie | but im going to agree with matt (Scarola - though i also agree with levinson lol) that interviewing highschool kids is not one of the positive contributions VB makes to the debate community | there certainly were the “meet x” posts, but i dont think they mitigate the heightened sense of importance we attach to the interview; we “meet x” when they participate on a gameshow; we give indepth interviews to van halen, hillary swank, and ghandi’s ghost
remember, i’m not trying to say that Jon Cruz is an elitist jerk - i think quite the opposite; i have a lot of respect and admiration for him | my claim is that the interviews just ought to be restricted to graduates and beyond, that one of the AFTEREFFECTS (or impacts in debate terminology) is the inegalitarian set of consequences which have been previously outlined
here’s my question:
why (with the exception of a few posters) has the overwhelming response been to focus on jason’s characterization of vb? there’ve been 20something posts going on critically assessing the example set he’s used which are doing little but chiming in with defenses already made by victor; that horse is dead, and your all preaching to the choir | how about we critically assess the PROBLEMS b/c regardless of what their source is and/or isnt, some of them are VERY real
Posted from: 71.36.129.161
October 12th, 2005 20:22
I think it’s really simple.
Jason lists four problems.
1. Desire for profit means the education is responsive to what students want, now what they need.
2. Purchased products replace real work.
3. Celebrity culture is created.
4. Conflict of interests, people vote for who they know.
I don’t know if any of this is actually true. I mean, I think it takes problems in the community and then finds things that may or may not be the cause and shows a correlation. It takes a conclusion then finds facts to support it, not finding facts that lead to a conclusion.
Anyway, some intuitive answers to these…
1. It all relies on debate being more than a game. I think debate in high school is exactly like football in high school. It is first a game and second an educational experience. That being said, it throws a lot of what Jason says off a bit. More importantly, every camp I have been to teaches me a lot about philosophy and all of that, so it’s just not true. Most importantly, it teaches me to win rounds. I learn more debating rounds, which forces me to think on my feet, than anything else. The more I debate, the more I learn. Debate camp just empowers me to help myself learn more.
2. The kids who do the for hire stuff wouldn’t work anyway. It’s not like it replaces work that would have existed. Students do not believe that the work put out to everyone is all inclusive of every argument, so they know the best are left out, so there are of course ones they can think of.
3. Celebrity culture exists throughout our society. When I was a freshman at Edina and I didn’t know what VBI was I still knew who was good on the national circuit from hearing about who won tournaments. Interviews reflect who has done well, they don’t make people do well. If there is celebrity culture it is from winning, not from the interviews. If Jason hates this the only solution is hide who does well at tournaments from everyone. If it’s about selling products more, OF COURSE! You want to buy something written by someone who knows more or is good at something. You don’t buy books on international politics written by someone who has never left a farm. Buying things from debate stars MAKES SENSE in this context. Jason assumes it’s like buying shoes from a basketball star.
4. It is inevitable when you know people. The only way to solve this would be don’t allow anyone to talk at tournaments because then you are friends with judges, and if you are friends with the judge they will more likely pick you up. However this is anti-educational because some of the smartest people in debate are the judges.
These are just ramblings, please, add to the arguments. There are a lot of things wrong with Jason’s analysis in the first place.
Posted from: 205.188.117.11
October 12th, 2005 20:25
scarola,
i agree with you on principle that the perpetuation of celebrity-making is a net negative. but, those who determine competitive ability by the receiving of an interview probably wouldn’t have a much better paradigm if the interviews weren’t around. i sincerely hope that readers understand that, although the interviewed debaters are massively accomplished, it’s a subjective standard. learning to digest interviews properly, like all of pop culture, has self-explanatory intrinsic importance. theyre not inherently bad–they’re just misinterpreted and overblown. as long as they make for fifteen minutes of enjoyable reading every several weeks, if we all keep our heads clear, i dont see any major harms.
u going back to FFI?
Posted from: 68.196.129.16
October 12th, 2005 20:26
I think Josh’s (and both Matts’) posts are the ones that raise issues worth discussing. I just want to echo Josh and ask where everyone stands on the issues of interviewing/debate-celebrity status and consumption-coaching. So please, I think VBD has won the battle as to its legitimate existence, so lets focus on the substantive issues Jason raised, becuase they definitely merit that consideration.
Posted from: 64.12.116.203
October 12th, 2005 20:34
I agree with Charlie- we seem to be doing that recently. Doesn’t happen often ;).
On the celebrity culture…aiming the problem of elitism at the “good debaters” doesn’t seem accurate. No question there is elitism in the community, but putting Tripti and Katie P. in that category by virtue of their debate ability just isn’t fair. Interviewing good debaters doesn’t seem to be much of a crime either. You don’t see ESPN interviewing the bench warmers… Although high school debate is by no means a pro sport, I think the logic behind the interviewing process still applies. Kids are more likely to learn stuff from people who do well in the activity. The “cult following” that seems to form is not because of vbd’s advertising or interviewing, but rather because debate takes itself way too seriously. People link good debating to being a good person, create rivalries etc… The community is straight out of a bad teen movie, except the homecoming king is the one with the biggest expandos. I think a solution is taking the activity for what it is- a high school competition. Nothing more, nothing less.
Posted from: 169.229.118.148
October 12th, 2005 20:51
at the risk of not taking this whole debacle seriously, where’s the prashant rai interview? i tried to subsist on the jeremy/wes interview, but one interview can only provide me (and legions of impressionable young debaters) with so much vicarious living.
Posted from: 207.28.203.228
October 12th, 2005 20:57
On Liz’s comment…Can people stop carrying their damn expandos around? Put them in your bag or something. Have the pissing contest in round. It doesn’t look cool.
Random rant of the day.
Ernie
Posted from: 71.36.129.161
October 12th, 2005 21:03
I agree with Ernie. Tubs away.
People say policy debaters use tubs because they have too many expandos to carry when in reality policy debaters realized expandos don’t look cool and so they feel the need to hide them in tubs.
Posted from: 136.167.228.198
October 12th, 2005 21:40
Charlie A -
“those who determine competitive ability by the receiving of an interview probably wouldn’t have a much better paradigm if the interviews weren’t around”
I think it would be “much better” because there isn’t a spotlight. I’m not saying that people wouldn’t figure out who is successful from watching outrounds all the time, but I do think the spotlight draws attention to people and confirms attention that may have already been there. Is a lot of the celebrity stuff non-unique? Of course. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to chip away at it. If “celebrity-making is a net negative” then limiting celebrity-making is a good thing.
+ Yes to the FFI question. You?
Liz S -
Is there any unique advantage to interviewing people while they are in high school? Can’t you get all of the benefits of interviewing “people who do well in the activity” after they aren’t competing in the activity (provided you change the “do” to “did.”)
I know my position (and I think Josh’s as well) is this:
Interviews can do good. We can learn from successful debaters, and we can learn from successful coaches. However, there is no unique benefit to interviewing kids while they are still competing that can outweigh the disadvantages of celebrity-making.
Interviews = ok.
Interviews of kids in high school = not ok.
Posted from: 67.161.33.235
October 12th, 2005 21:55
So let’s interview great sports stars once they retire. Someone in the prime of their career deserves to be recognized for success, giving credit where credit is due. Interviewing the debate greats and granting them the “celebrity status” should even weed out the amazing from the really good, specifically in terms of the character that Mr. Baldwin defines. Like Einstein, great debaters should be humbled by those before them, and all that they have yet to accomplish. Do you really expect certain people to do well at tournament after tournament, and have people be indifferent or disregard their success. Acknowledgements through things such as interviews and reports on other’s success does nothing more than give credit where and WHEN credit is due. It wouldnt make sense to give someone a trophy for anything once their prime or participation in the activity has passed
Posted from: 70.251.78.205
October 12th, 2005 22:14
I feel compelled to comment as a coach who cares deeply about education in LD and who has personal knowledge of VBI having worked there in the past. There seems to be a misperception that VBI is just a cool place kids want to go and not an educational project that adults support. Although I now direct a different institute, I send the large majority of my debaters to VBI and have been doing so since it opened its doors at UCLA. It is my camp of choice as a teacher. I often have private conversations with coaches who ask me why I send my students to VBI. It has been my experience that many people have misconceptions about the camp, which isn’t surprising given that it does seem to be a target at which it has become trendy to take aim.
No program is perfect, obviously, but I have found VBI to be a workshop “with staff members [I] trust to serve as academic and personal role models.” One of the main things I like about VBI is that it doesn’t teach that there is only one way to think about LD. Debate is a dynamic, living thing at VBI with a past, present, and future. VBI is also not just about being trendy. That has to be the biggest misconception I come across. I judge all the time, and I have often heard people complain about certain trends they associate with VBI that are actually being promoted in rounds by debaters who have never attended VBI. For example, most of the debaters I have judged in the past 3 years who are really big fans of topicality aren’t associated with VBI in any way.
In terms of VBI being some big, greedy machine, I’m sure this is silly to anybody who knows the people behind the company. Of course people want to make a living off the work they do. That said, I had a student a few years ago who attended debate camp solely because Victor let him come for free. No other camp was offering him enough money to attend. I told Victor about his situation, and without even thinking about it, Victor told me I could send him to VBI without cost. This was a disadvantaged student who struggled with school and who had a losing debate record for 2 years, not some star. His lab leader spent a lot of time just teaching him how to be a better writer. If that isn’t educational, I’m not sure what is. I also find it interesting that even though VBI has published and advertised information for some of its biggest detractors, the organization’s willingness to even be inclusive of its critics never seems to give people pause in questioning what they think they know about VBI. It efforts to include all people and all views is what makes VBI for me an educational and inclusive organization that I trust to help my students grow as debaters and members of our community.
I agree that it is important to choose institutes not just for the knowledge they possess but for what they model and the methods they use. There are certain attitudes I certainly don’t want coming home to my team. Anybody who knows me knows that I have very strong opinions on the particular issue of character. This is another reason I often choose VBI. The vast majority of people on the staff are people I respect, not just for their debate talent but for their respectful manners in interacting with other people in the debate community and for their integrity and honesty in approaching intellectual work. It is also important to not let the politics of camps pressure you into sending kids certain places but to do what is best for each student based on his/her needs. I think kids choosing camps without a coach also need to keep that in mind. Students shouldn’t go to VBI or any camp just because it is the cool place to be. No camp is right for every kid, and no camp does it all. Students need to go to the camp that will most advance their abilities, understanding, and perspectives on debate. I have found VBI to be that place for most of my students, even if not all of them. If anybody would find my experiences valuable as somebody who has had kids attend almost every major national camp in the country and who interacts regularly with a lot of the younger staff members that work at the different camps, feel free to approach me at any tournament or to email me.
Posted from: 128.12.58.90
October 12th, 2005 22:48
Liz, I think there’s two problems with your latest post that Josh pointed out earlier in his responses.
Two quotes…
“I think a solution is taking the activity for what it is- a high school competition. Nothing more, nothing less.”
“Interviewing good debaters doesn’t seem to be much of a crime either. You don’t see ESPN interviewing the bench warmers… Although high school debate is by no means a pro sport, I think the logic behind the interviewing process still applies. Kids are more likely to learn stuff from people who do well in the activity”
I have issues with both stances, but I think the 2nd one is built upon the first. Unlike any “other” high school competition, debate is centered around something other than physical talent. Specifically, debate is about a contrast of ideas, and while this may sound idealistic, debate is about finding greater truths, both academic and ethical, not just picking up a ballot.
So if your first quote is wrong, the second one is also wrong, because there’s no reason that those who are successful in the activity have anything more (or less) to contribute to the public forum than the rest of the some 5000+ that compete every year in this activity. As such, I agree with Josh that more effort should be put forth to interviewing more “random” debaters around the country, surely they have something unique to contribute. I make that comment keeping in mind that I in no way think Jon is elitist. In fact, I think it’s in fact quite the contrary. I just think that sometimes the emphasis from this site is too much on success, much as Liz advocated, and less on ideas (even though the columnists links is most definitely centered on that goal).
Yeah, this message was too apologetic to be effective, but essentially Liz I take issue with your comments both because they engender elitism and because they place too much focus on ballot count, rather than sharing of ideas.
Posted from: 136.167.228.198
October 12th, 2005 23:08
Aaron-
1. An interview is not an entitlement. Just because “credit is due” doesn’t mean having your face plastered on a website is.
2. Your conception of the interview as a reward for success is *exactly* the problem. If interviews are seen as rewards, then the interviewed are publicly heralded, and the celebrity-making process is furthered.
3. Of the advantages to interviews that you define (highlight good character, humble people, giving credit when it’s due), only one (the third) has any advantage specific to time (and that was taken out in point #1). You can highlight the good character of the nice debater that graduates and then gives back to the community. People can be in awe of the successes of a particular debater *after* their career is complete. In fact, one of the reasons celebrity-making is so bad is because it doesn’t just humble people, it makes them afraid to debate the VB-selected superstar. I personally got nervous all the time when I would hit “names,” and know I debated much worse when I was in those situations. I’ve also seen other debaters flip out and assume they are going to lose, which amongst other things, makes it harder to concentrate on preparation for the round. In other words, I’m still waiting for the unique advantage that outweighs all of the harms outlined in Josh’s post.
And for the record, people DO interview great sports stars AFTER they retire.
Posted from: 70.112.45.222
October 12th, 2005 23:10
Every activity is going to have someone really good at it, and anytime there is a brilliant person there are always fans cheering for his/her sucess. In other words celebrities will always exist. So we shouldn’t try to get rid of them, all we have to do is make sure people are treated equally. For the most part, I think they are. Lets keep the following in mind:
1. usually those who know about the celebrity are deeply exposed to debate.
2. those who are exposed to debate often have debated in highschool and understand the activity quite well.
3. tournaments are increasingly offering the ability to strike biased judging.
4. Debate is an open activity, anyone can watch any round that is going on.
My argument would be something along these lines :
Those understand the nature of debate are less likely to make biased decisions based simply on how a ‘person looks’ or the ’status’ of that person. In fact, most likely they won’t even look at the speaker choosing instead to compare ideas on the flow. They try to be as objective as they can! Because debate is so very transparent, it is also easy to weed out the imposters. Just as competitors have reps, so do judges as a result, a judge who increasingly makes decisions based on biases can be eaisly taken out of the judging pool by tournaments (or can be striked by the competitors).
There are plenty of spelling and grammer errors in the above, but i hope i was some-what coherent.
Posted from: 70.251.78.205
October 12th, 2005 23:14
I just finished reading over Josh’s posts, and as I usually do, I agree with a lot of the things he says. The celebrity culture is a problem in debate. It is true that this would happen without the internet. In the 1980s, there was still GDS. But, figuring out how to compensate for what is already a problem in the activity in the technology age is worth thinking about. There has to be a middle ground because while the interviews and internet creates celebrities it also creates community. I know that I particularly enjoyed reading Amanda Liverzani’s interview after she conceeded rounds at the Greenhill Round Robin to discuss the sexual assault of women. I had heard about it and would have enjoyed having a chance to talk to Amanda about it. The interview provided an opportunity to know her perspective on what she did, and I think it provided a voice often not herad in debate in terms of the subject matter being discussed even if the debater was becoming well-known herself. Not interviewing kids in high school would make taking advantage of moments like this impossible. In terms of the costs outweighing the benefits, maybe that is true. I’m not sure. There are also many interesting stories out there that aren’t derived from the TOC circuit. That is certainly true.
Where I disgaree with Josh is when he wrote: “why (with the exception of a few posters) has the overwhelming response been to focus on jason’s characterization of vb? there’ve been 20something posts going on critically assessing the example set he’s used which are doing little but chiming in with defenses already made by victor; that horse is dead. and your all preaching to the choir | how about we critically assess the PROBLEMS b/c regardless of what their source is and/or isnt, some of them are VERY real.”
I think the use of public forums for posturing and politics under the guise of discussing real issues has become as much of a problem, if not more of a problem, than the celebrity issue. I think this problem is perhaps even worse because the political nature of it makes it very difficult to openly and honestly discuss. To just gloss over public posturing as a mischaracterization that had some real substance behind it, is to ignore a very real problem, in my opinion. I also think the politics behind the “real issues” people raise taint any honest discussion of those issues. I can’t tell you how many threads I’ve read on different debate websites in the past year that had the pretense of discussing issues but realy were just masks for people attacking/hating each other. It makes the community either openly hostile, or even worse, silently hostile. It makes debate less fun and less friendly, both of which I think are important in and of themselves and both of which nurture education by make this academic world more inviting and comfortable. I think some coaches choose to leave debate or avoid the national circuit because of these politics more than other reasons. And, without a question, the personal relationships in debate are suffering because of this problem, and I think our relationships with each other should matter more than anything else.
Posted from: 136.167.228.198
October 12th, 2005 23:38
no one important -
Aside from commenting on the name you chose to post under: even if celebrities will always exist, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t limit the *extent* to which they exist. Just because you can’t solve a problem doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to mitigate it.
“Just as competitors have reps, so do judges as a result, a judge who increasingly makes decisions based on biases can be eaisly taken out of the judging pool by tournaments (or can be striked by the competitors).”
a. The first major problem is one of accountability. For everything other than outrounds (prelim decisions + speaker points) the single judge is the ultimate authority. Indeed, the only significant thing people know about a round that only you saw is the competitors that you saw. No one makes a fuss when debaters with rep win rounds that they didn’t see, because they have no basis for criticizing the decision. However, judges who want to be seen as “good” (so that they can judge the all-up rounds at tournaments, or just for their own personal enjoyment) have an incentive to pick up people with rep. At the Yale tournament, I dropped a debater who ve