-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.

To make a claim like you are making, show the figures.

Ernie

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.”

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.

:-)