Facing a “Debate Celebrity”
posted by Jon Cruz on February 7th, 2007
In a post on LDDebate.org, “Namcopo,” a registered member of the site, has asked fellow community members what to do when one is paired against “amazing kids you hear about a lot through the grapevine.” Call the individuals in question “debate celebrities,” or call the issue itself “VBD syndrome,” but this is clearly an issue faced by many.
Indeed, what advice would you have?
Popularity: 1%
no more tag found, sorry
30 Responses to “Facing a “Debate Celebrity””
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Coast2Coast: Mike Spirtos Wins Berkeley; Allison Huberlie Wins Harvard
- New LD, Public Forum Resolutions Announced
- Ben Floreancig is Indiana State LD Champion; Columbia City Claims Policy Title; West Lafayette Closes Out Public Forum
- Jon Kwan Takes Stanford
- Matt Aks Wins the Newark Debates
- Field Report: The Westchester Classic and the Northeast Novice and Second-Year Championships
- Public Dialog in the LD Community: W(h)ither VBDominance?
- The Winningest: The Follow-up
- Tim DeSanta Wins Scarsdale
- Field Report: TFL State Championship
Posted from: 76.173.171.96
February 8th, 2007 01:04
beat ‘em
Posted from: 204.186.151.4
February 8th, 2007 08:37
I agree!
Posted from: 168.221.143.68
February 8th, 2007 10:16
Debate the flow not the debater
Posted from: 216.165.95.5
February 8th, 2007 11:18
I couldn’t agree more. I sometimes hear or watch debaters talk to their opponents before round about how much they admire them or how scared they are to hit them, and from a judge’s perspective, nothing could put you at a bigger perceptual disadvantage. Plus, you’re only giving your ‘celebrity’ opponent a bigger ego boost to get through the round on. I say, treat them like any other opponent. It keeps your head clear, and with any luck, if you’re hitting one of the ‘celebrity’ debaters who’s a ‘celebrity’ in their own mind, treating them like any other debater will mess with their mind. And there’s nothing wrong with that. =P
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
February 8th, 2007 12:13
Isn’t the elephant in the room, however, that a significant amount of decisions are just swayed by out-of-round perception of the debaters or their programs? I mean, I generally feel there is more transparency with outrounds, but when two debaters are sort of talking past each other, and there is no clear winner or loser, my hunch is that judges just give the edge to the debater with the reputation coming in. No way I can prove this, but that was my perception as a competitor and a coach, and I did not just perceive it happening when we dropped ballots…the more wins we accumulated, the sense I got, the more close calls we benefited from…
Posted from: 76.211.240.82
February 8th, 2007 13:45
I have issues with this, but i heard what helps is being in a mindset where you don’t debate to get the bid, but rather you debate to debate better.
Posted from: 24.12.46.190
February 8th, 2007 18:27
I would say, just debate. I wouldn’t say “Debate the flow” because that can be a little dull. But remember that this is your event, your in your element. The arguments do not change based upon who is handling them.
Posted from: 70.153.42.76
February 8th, 2007 19:06
Acknowledge their reputation to yourself–that they must be good, so prepare to fight. But ultimately you have got to be on ur top game. admiration is not a bad thing, but realize the underdog can always win and sometimes does in fact beat the debate celebrity…no1’s perfect
Posted from: 64.233.226.156
February 9th, 2007 19:01
getting freaked out and consequently losing to debaters with a strong reputation is the story of my national circuit debate career in a nutshell.
either that or i just suck at debate.
Posted from: 205.188.116.204
February 9th, 2007 20:59
you rule at life Keenan, because you can do physics!
Posted from: 128.125.52.25
February 10th, 2007 00:07
Prove their rep wrong. I mean, nobody is really that much better than someone else. As long as you have decent arguments know what the hell you are doing, you should do okay. Most great debaters are simply technically sound. Insofar as you are able to be sound technically too, you should have the same shot at winning as they do.
Posted from: 69.115.223.185
February 11th, 2007 08:41
+1 to vaughan. anyone who can do physics rules =)
silly jokes aside, i have definitely had the same problem throughout my debate career. i think the trick is to really just remember that a) a lot of people are overrated as hell, b) you’re hitting them for a good reason (you’re capable of doing equally as well, if not better), c) winning or losing rounds, i think, is all a matter of perception. even the most hardcore flow judges, no matter what they say, are still influenced by your “presence” in the round.
finally, just remember that everyone in this activity is just a high school student that shares some interests with you; they’re not gods or something. plus what’s the worst that can happen? if you get completely pwned (not that you will), nobody’s going to look down on you for it, and if you win the round, people will be more likely to give you props. so just suck it up, recognize that you might have an interesting round ahead of you, and church that mofo.
Posted from: 205.196.218.26
February 11th, 2007 09:17
[…] February 10, 2007Facing Debate Celebrities There is an interesting thread over at Victory Briefs Daily titled Facing A Debate Celebrity. […]
Posted from: 66.43.218.33
February 11th, 2007 09:34
speaking on my experience with hitting notable debaters the best thing you can do is to debate your game. Most debaters who are good get that way because they have found a strategy that works and works a lot. The best way to beat this is to have a good strategy yourself before the round and to stick to it. If that means debating on the flow then do it, if that means taking a big picture approach then do it, if that means debating kritiks or something similar then do that. It just depends on the individual debater.
Posted from: 72.224.50.34
February 11th, 2007 09:40
Just to touch on something naveen said that I think is a problem. Many times, when I’ve been at a tournement and some big name dropped to some no name, the first response that I hear from the community at large is that it must have been illegitimate. I think this is a dangerous and hurtful trend. Just because someone is a good debater does not mean that they are incapable of losing a round on the flow, and to insinuate other wise IS to make them this god in the eyes of the community.
Just my two sense. Naveen, you better win harvard.
Posted from: 72.224.50.34
February 11th, 2007 09:40
cents, obviously. I have six senses.
Posted from: 24.151.83.199
February 11th, 2007 10:53
Haha–I agree, Naveen, you better win Harvard. Bonne Chance!!
Though actually on topic…I kind of sympathize this thread considering my situation. The whole debate celebrity deal makes it much harder, and sometimes even a turn off, for people who want to break into the community from newer teams. I don’t really see how this could be avoided (no matter what, people and teams will get recognition for achievements over time). Though there must be some way to make debate as an activity more inviting to more people.
There’s just so many diverse politics at play which seem to me at least to be more indicative of debate “celebrities” than blaming VBD–though maybe one facilitates the other.
As to advice, as if I’m qualified to give any… I mean, what IS a debate celebrity? Getting scared of someone you’ve never met just seems kind of silly. Work hard, debate well. It pays off eventually.
Posted from: 66.65.14.71
February 11th, 2007 16:57
I think it’s hilarious that we call good debaters debate “celebrities.” Imagine how the rest of the world would react if they knew about this…
Posted from: 74.66.241.163
February 11th, 2007 19:15
I tend to agree with Edward; the title came from the original thread on LDDebate.org.
Posted from: 205.188.116.204
February 11th, 2007 21:03
I think answers like debate your game although somewhat true are not the best advice from my perspective. I’ve been in this situation a couple times over the past few years and I have to say there are definately some benefits to adapting to your opponent as well as to your judge. I’m not advocating that you change your whole style (that’s obviously not something you want to try out in a possibly important round), but there are definatly changes you can make. In the same manner that you might run that “cheap” off case when you don’t think your opponent can handle it, you might also (if you know your opponent is good note: not all debate “celebs” are, but for the ones who are) refrain from arguments that might be easily turned by experienced debaters, or cut your neg a little in order to give yourself more time for the ac (which will probably be good). Also, there are certain cases that gaurantee that the majority of the debate will be done on their side of the flow and that could be advantagous because you get this (most likely well prepared) debater away from a lot of their prepared responses. So you probably won’t want to change your entire strat, but there are adaptations that can put yourself in a better position.
Posted from: 68.109.250.194
February 12th, 2007 11:00
confidence.
confidence.
confidence.
be comfortable. be yourself. and don’t be afraid to talk back.
Posted from: 68.109.250.194
February 12th, 2007 11:01
p.s. i think about 80% of the perceptual battle of a debate against a “celebrity” is in cross-x.
Posted from: 129.116.10.134
February 12th, 2007 11:26
i think that 80% of the battle is the pot-round brawl
Posted from: 129.116.10.134
February 12th, 2007 11:27
i think that 80% of the battle is the post-round brawl
Posted from: 68.109.250.194
February 12th, 2007 13:45
actually, 5% of the battle is the pre-round trash talk, 5% is the post-round brawl, and 90% is extending the first standard of the 1ar theory block that was dropped so the bored dweeks has an easy way out
Posted from: 169.232.243.96
February 12th, 2007 23:12
for a second there i thought michael klinger just posted on vbd.
Posted from: 134.84.75.57
February 13th, 2007 12:43
MAKE THE JUDGE LIKE YOU
in many instances “top debaters” have soo much reputation that their ego grows to big. in these circumstances the debater may not be known for being nice, just be known for being good (and cocky). if you hit one of these debaters then make the judge want to vote for you, and give them an easy way out. in the circumstance that the judge can legitimatly vote for you then they may want to “put the other debater in their place.” This is not true for all judges or all debaters but it is worth a shot in some instances.
ELIMINATE BIAS, CLOSE DOORS
as a judge i do fin it hard not to assume that the debater with more rep will just do better and to give them to benefit of the doubt of whether they extended an impact clearly or not. if you think they did not extend something clearly tell the judge, close window. this increases your chance to win.
LEARN
also a lot of the time top debaters have reputation because they really are good. One of the top debaters (hopefully he doesnt mind me saying this) nick t always got excited when he wasnt as good if he was going to hit a good debater. this was because he learned from the experience of “getting crushed”
so try your best to win, if nothing else LEARN from hitting a good debater and never give the judge the perception that you think you are going to lose.
Posted from: 71.104.140.104
February 23rd, 2007 19:21
Show up, debate, do your best. If you keep doing this, maybe you’ll be a debate celebrity someday, too…:)
Posted from: 71.104.140.104
February 23rd, 2007 19:24
…or maybe not. Anyway, it’s just talking for 38 minutes. If you lose, oh well.
I want some “pot round brawl”, btw.
Posted from: 71.104.140.104
February 23rd, 2007 19:28
Maybe you’ll end up with a situation like me in trips at Berkeley, where for some (strange)fortuitous reason, a judge picked me up.