San Dieguito Closes Out California State Tournament
FULLERTON, Calif. – Congratulations to San Dieguito Academy’s Matt Slemon and Nick Stanert! After battling through a competitive field and weathering the double-elimination process at the California High School Speech Association State Tournament, the two young men were the last debaters standing. Having closed out the final round, Matt and Nick were declared California State Co-Champions!
Matt and Nick are coached by Kerri Leonard. Full results are forthcoming.
Laura Bomes Archer School
Arnold Chuck Arroyo Grande High School
Spencer Ponce Arroyo Grande High School
Jillian Ventura Arroyo Grande High School
Neil Bhambi Bakersfield High School
Arvind Kannan Bellarmine College Preparatory
tim mckenzie Bellarmine College Preparatory
Chip Morton Bellarmine College Preparatory
Candace Won Brea Olinda High School
Elisa McEntee Brentwood School
Kenny Lewis Carondelet and De La Salle HS
Armen Shakoorian Centennial High School
Teja Vepa Claremont High School
Broc Maples Clovis East High School
Sebastian Bauge East Bakersfield High School
Alex Maxwell East Bakersfield High School
Carl Reyes East Bakersfield High School
Hooman Hefzi Esperanza HS
Evan Storms Fairmont Preparatory Academy
Emily Liu Fred C. Beyer High School
Kellie McMurray Fred C. Beyer High School
Laurel Rosenberger Fred C. Beyer High School
Zita Aradi Granada Hills High
Phenia Hovsepyan Granada Hills High
Sana Naeem Granite Bay High School
Greer Feick Harvard Westlake Upper School
Bilal Malik James Logan High School
Rachel McDermott James Logan High School
Ron Sun James Logan High School
Andy Nevis John F. Kennedy High School
Daniel Moerner Los Altos High School
Patrick Elyas Loyola High School
Chris Gronek Loyola High School
Patrick Diehl Lynbrook High School
Jonathan Kwan Lynbrook High School
Katelyn Sills Mira Loma High School
Percia Safar Monte Vista High School
Hinh Tran Monte Vista High School
Anna Ward Monte Vista High School
Tim Yoon Monte Vista High School
Erik Prang Oak Ridge High School
Sungat Grewal Presentation High School
Cameron Baghai Rancho Bernardo High School
Neha Mathew redlands high school
Baldeep Sidhu Rio Americano High School
Sravanthi Puranam Saint Francis High School
Matt Slemon San Dieguito Academy
Nick Stanert San Dieguito Academy
Carl Bescoby San Marino High School
Markus Brazill San Marino High School
Daniel Means San Marino High School
Joseph So San Marino High School
Vikas Srinath San Marino High School
Patrick Tricker San Marino High School
Karen Mesrobian Sanger High School
Tim Kellogg Servite High School
Matt Murray Servite High School
Nicolas Hernandez St. Ignatius College Prep
Alex Rausch St. Mary’s High School
Amin Aalipour Torrey Pines High School
Vivian Feig Torrey Pines High School
Joe Witte Westmont High School
Dustin Coffman Yucaipa High School
Emily Cuyler Yucaipa High School
Popularity: 2% [?]
test
160 Responses to “San Dieguito Closes Out California State Tournament”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Stuyvesant Wins New York State LD, Policy Titles; Cold Spring Harbor Takes Public Forum
- The College Connection
- Hockaday Sweeps the Lone Star Women's Round Robin
- Field Report: TOC (Policy)
- Chris Theis Wins the Iowa Round Robin
- Emory Wins the NDT
- Voices Round Robin Field Announced
- Field Report: TOC (Lincoln-Douglas)
- NFL Announces Public Forum Rules Change
- San Dieguito Closes Out California State Tournament
Posted from: 68.5.182.183
April 19th, 2007 16:06
go CFL :D!
Posted from: 68.175.98.154
April 19th, 2007 17:27
This looks like a very competitive field. Best of luck to all!
Out of curiosity, how does the qualification system to the CHSSA Tournament work? I’m an out-of-stater, so I’m out of the loop. :o)
Posted from: 68.5.182.183
April 19th, 2007 19:09
Everyone competes in rounds 1-3, people with at least two wins advance to the next round
Rounds 4-6 are double elimination (taking into account losses from round 1). So if you are down two at any point of time in these rounds, you are out of the tournament
rounds 7-9 are single elimination, regular “break rounds” ie quarters–> finals. the person with the best record gets a buy in quarters
hope that helped, it’s a little convoluted :)
Posted from: 169.229.77.223
April 19th, 2007 19:26
qualification is done through leagues, determined geographically. the arrangement for how kids will qual from a given league is up to that league – I know GGSA (logan, monte vista, CPS, others) and CFL (leland, bellarmine, lynbrook, others) are different. CFL has a qualifying tournament with 5 prelims that then breaks 4-1s to a bubble round, with undefeated debaters byeing through to state, but I hear it’s rather different in some places…
Posted from: 76.204.78.180
April 19th, 2007 19:35
congrats and good luck to everyone, but especially to sungat, zita, anna, percia, diehl, jkwan, moerner, and gronek =)
Posted from: 70.179.64.74
April 19th, 2007 19:36
the definition of justice is coming your way!!
good luck candace won. :)
Posted from: 70.20.88.31
April 19th, 2007 20:30
gooo candace!
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 19th, 2007 22:03
Good field. Judging sucks, though :(
Posted from: 128.12.68.178
April 19th, 2007 22:08
Woohoo, GO GO GO BELLS!
Posted from: 24.94.6.144
April 19th, 2007 23:23
GO VIVIAN AND AMIN! MAKE US PROUD! :D
Posted from: 216.159.104.202
April 20th, 2007 05:12
Best of luck to the San Marino boys! You know what to do! :c)
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
April 20th, 2007 18:12
good luck diehl jkwan and moerner
Posted from: 209.232.158.20
April 20th, 2007 18:18
Thanks Woodhouse : )
Posted from: 69.231.77.133
April 20th, 2007 18:25
IT IS INCREDIBLY COLD.
Posted from: 76.172.43.131
April 20th, 2007 20:34
Lots of luck to Elisa and Laura. I miss all you guys!
Posted from: 206.59.241.50
April 21st, 2007 07:16
Does anyone know how these rounds are powered?
Posted from: 68.175.98.154
April 21st, 2007 10:05
Tim Case will be sending us a report or three during the tournament, so we’ll have results sooner than later.
Posted from: 209.232.158.20
April 21st, 2007 10:47
Vivian –
Essentially like nat quals. All undefeated debate other undefeated.
-bietz
Posted from: 76.17.144.133
April 21st, 2007 21:08
GO VIVIAN! u rock
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
April 22nd, 2007 09:15
Good luck to my dear friend and teammate, Daniel Moerner.
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
April 22nd, 2007 09:17
Also, good luck to the Bakersfield team.
Posted from: 128.12.68.178
April 22nd, 2007 14:22
I hear Bellarmine’s Tim McKenzie in currently in semis of LD at state. Freaking sweet. Congrats Tim!
Posted from: 68.175.98.154
April 22nd, 2007 14:29
Good job, Tim!
Any other results?
Posted from: 75.80.139.173
April 22nd, 2007 20:20
omggggg results, anyone???
Posted from: 71.139.21.18
April 22nd, 2007 20:33
I like how Khalessi wished me luck 24 hours AFTER I was eliminated.
Posted from: 76.170.37.59
April 22nd, 2007 20:36
I was not allowed to do updates during the tournament. But by this time I’m sure awards is done.
Finals was a closeout:
Matt Slemon San Dieguito Academy
Nick Stanert San Dieguito Academy
Semifinalists were:
Dustin Coffman Yucaipa High School
tim mckenzie Bellarmine College Preparatory
Posted from: 70.231.138.246
April 22nd, 2007 20:44
Wow. Congrats to San Dieguito Academy for closing out state.
You two, my friends, have beaten back the diceroll.
Posted from: 75.80.139.173
April 22nd, 2007 20:52
NICE. Congrats to Matt and Nick!
Posted from: 75.37.17.209
April 22nd, 2007 21:27
at what points were jkwan, diehl, moerner, etc. eliminated? was it just because of some awesome cali debaters, a difference between progressive and local style judging, or “illegit”?
Posted from: 72.130.183.145
April 22nd, 2007 22:06
it’s not so much a difference between progressive and local debate so much as a big difference between the type of local debate that northern california and southern california encourage; it tends to trip up northern californians (especially those in the CFL) more than those from socal.
Posted from: 76.170.112.87
April 22nd, 2007 22:17
It’s not even that, it’s that every round (because of CHSSA rules) needs to be judged by 3 people, one of whom is experienced, one of whom is not, and the last of which is a community member (literally taken off the street in this tournaments’ case…). It really makes the job hard for everyone all around.
Posted from: 67.188.124.57
April 22nd, 2007 22:33
Well deserved congratulations to the two PD winners along with the third place finisher Tim McKenzie whose Bells are the State Champs once again!
Posted from: 67.188.124.57
April 22nd, 2007 22:34
Typo! I meant LD. SRY
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 22nd, 2007 23:03
The three judge rule is fucktardedly stupid.
Diehl/Kwan/Moerner or some other legit TOC person should have won.
congrats to SDA, though :)
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 22nd, 2007 23:05
SoCal debating is more relaxed than NoCal debating, which is why a lot of the less experienced judges at state are attracted to SoCal LDers.
Posted from: 128.135.151.33
April 23rd, 2007 07:19
It is sad how much of an impact the location of the tournament has on the outcome. When the tournament is in NorCal, NorCal debaters tend to perform better and vice versa.
I’d like to just say this is a difference in styles and leave it at that, but I can’t when one style, by the only seemingly objective measure I can come up, is so much more dominant than the other. If we take the other major national tournaments (NFL’s and TOC’s) as a barometer, SoCal simply can’t hold a candle to NorCal. NorCal has produced at least 4 NFL finalists in the last ten years (that I can remember) and at least 5 TOC semifinalists or better. SoCal…not so much. And yet, SoCal rigidly clings to its crappy style and purposefully votes down people who don’t comply. Don’t get me wrong, NorCal does the same, but at least the NorCal style has proven to appeal to a much broader audience.
Posted from: 71.139.21.18
April 23rd, 2007 07:51
I was actually eliminated in the third round by Matt Slemon, the eventual champion. I know that JKwan was eliminated the round after I was, and Diehl made it all the way to pseudo-quarters before dropping to Dustin Coffman (I believe).
Needless to say, there was a fair amount of randomness. However, the biggest issue was that the tournament refused to hire judges. Ryan Lawrence and JJ Rodriguez (I believe) were present throughout the weekend but did not judge as the tournament would not hire them. On Sunday, there were eight circuit judges present who could have judged outrounds. However, the tournament had no interest in this.
Posted from: 76.170.37.59
April 23rd, 2007 07:56
jj was in the tab room.
Posted from: 71.132.134.165
April 23rd, 2007 09:13
Don’t use location as a cop-out reason for “no-name” debaters winning the tournament. Two years ago, the CA state tournament was held at CSU Northridge (Southern California), and James Logan High School (Northern California) closed out the tournament in LD.
I don’t know how “legit” or “illegit” the two champions were because I wasn’t there. But looking at past events, I do know that location isn’t an excuse for losing. Finally, it’s not exactly a secret that TOC-level debaters are not always as successful in lay debate as they are in flow, so adapt.
Posted from: 66.193.5.99
April 23rd, 2007 11:48
Steve says, “Don’t get me wrong, NorCal does the same, but at least the NorCal style has proven to appeal to a much broader audience.”
Steve, I want you to show the most “circuit”/”flow” round to the smartest non-debater you know and see what they say. They’ll laugh, think it is a joke and possibly vomit. I showed my brother, a law student, what I considered a “circuit” round and he laughed for a few minutes, then asked for the real debate. The “broader audience” you are citing is in fact a small, exclusive and elite group of debaters, coaches and wannabe coaches that attempt to make up for their social ineptitude in college by showboating to overly competitive high school debaters. A truly broad audience wouldn’t accept “circuit” debate as having any merits beyond its hyperspeed and verbal masturbation.
Posted from: 128.12.50.69
April 23rd, 2007 12:17
To the whiners – suck it up and adapt. The tournament had no interest in hiring circuit judges because it’s not a circuit tournament – it’s cali state. The tournament emphasizes different skills, so work on them instead of wishing it were something else.
Tim – HUUUUGE congrats on making it to semis. Way to rep bcpld.
Also, massive props to nick and matt from san dieguito. A closeout is definitely impressive.
Posted from: 66.240.48.106
April 23rd, 2007 12:28
kevin–
the fact that your law school brother or anyone else laughs at circuit debate doesn’t mean much, unless he judged it on the substantive content of the round rather than the rate of delivery (which, given that he doesn’t debate and you are averse to speed anyway, I doubt he did.) Very smart people don’t know what the hell is going on during constitutional law proceedings in appellate courts, but that doesn’t change the usefulness, academic rigor, or anything else of those proceedings.
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
April 23rd, 2007 12:30
Why is accessibility/appeal to people who have never watched and probably never will watch a high school debate round a good standard for the “breadth of appeal” of a particular style of debate? Presumably, breadth of appeal is defined relative to range of possible observers, which in the case of debate would be: people who are in some way involved in high school debate. Smart laypersons may be better equipped to understand slower, less jargony debate, but it still doesn’t seem to appeal to them enough that they would ever consider voluntarily going to watch it…
Posted from: 130.49.58.41
April 23rd, 2007 12:47
omgz debate must suck bc someone in law school says it sucks, because no one involved in circuit debate has ever gone to lawschool.
Posted from: 76.193.219.132
April 23rd, 2007 14:09
“fritzpielstick
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 22nd, 2007 23:03
34
The three judge rule is fucktardedly stupid.
Diehl/Kwan/Moerner or some other legit TOC person should have won.”
Is that a bad joke?
“should have won”= that’s a low diss at the kids who did do pretty well at the tournament…just because a school you haven’t heard of on the circuit closed out doesn’t mean someone else “should have won”
lame. [i could take this moment to ramble about adaptation, but i think that's been briefly taken care of by others]
Anyways, i haven’t seen San Dieguito Academy on any field reports for tournaments besides this…so it’s kind of neat to see them shine when they have a chance. It’s cool to see people who don’t get out of their region much to do so well with diverse pools like this
Posted from: 128.135.151.106
April 23rd, 2007 14:35
Kevin Cotter: I’m not arguing for the superiority of circuit debate. Notice, I specifically cited the national tournament as well. I don’t think you could argue with a straight face that nationals is any more or less “circuit” than the California State tournament. Nationals requires equally as much adaptation, if not more, becuase of the far more diverse nature of the judging pool. And yet, at this tournament, SoCal people have simply sucked. And, they get the same number of qualifiers as NorCal. The only place SoCal debaters seem to do well is at the California State tournament, when the tournament is in SoCal. And because that style doesn’t do well in ANY other environment, TOC or otherwise, I think that points to a problem with SoCal’s conception of debate.
I’m really not trying to knock the current champions. To close out California State is a great accomplishment and I wasn’t there this year, so maybe the judging pool was different than my experience in the past. I’m speaking from 15 years of involvement in California debate and siblings who competed before I did. SoCal has been responsible for pushing this incredibly dumb judging policy, for purposefully scheduling the state tournament the same weekends as TOC, and for saying things in the tab room like “this isn’t circuit debate” as though that should be a conclusive statement in any argument. I don’t think this completely close minded view can be justified when it encourages Cali debaters to debate in a way that causes them to get destroyed when they go to every other tournament in the country. Even the one’s where your lay lawyer brother might be judging . I think the real explanation for this diversity in success is that SoCal judges actively vote down anything they associate with circuit debate. I actually don’t think it has anything to do with too many lay judges in the pool. I’ve seen SoCal judges berate students for being “bad” at debate because they didn’t debate in the way that person thought they should.
I also take issue with your assessment that debate can only legitimately be judged only by lay persons with no experience in the activity. That sounds like a ridiculous policy to me, but I’ll leave it for another discussion because I think it obfuscates the real issue here (though I’d ask why we don’t expect lay persons to judge something like competitive diving, or figure skating. Heaven forbid someone who can appreciate the more advanced nuances of an activity be used to judge the activity).
Posted from: 71.70.246.134
April 23rd, 2007 15:22
circuiteer- you’re clearly a tool in that you can’t even post your own name with your ill-supported claims. But I’ll still engage your “substance”. You’ve basically said that my brother hasn’t take the time to try to understand circuit debate. This just goes to show how it requires training and thus doesn’t appeal to a broader audience. In fact, the very argument you are making against mine reveals how exclusive and elite circuit debate is and how it is NOT acceptable on a truly broad scale. Also, your argument about constitutional law proceedings and appelate courts is stupid. I’m not saying that that kind of debate isnt useful or intelligent; that is another argument. I am saying it doesn’t appeal to a “broad audience”. Don’t try to change this into something you have a minute chance at winning.
Christian- We’re defining our terms differently, as you see. I think your definition of “accessibility” is a little too narrow. It’s like saying that appelate courts are accessible because people interested in them and involved understand how they work. No reasonable person would deduce from that fact that appelate courts are “accessible”. That examples just demonstrates how self-referential your definition is and thus useless as an objective standard.
mangus- thanks for another sufficient refutation of an argument. Amazing
Steve- you wasted a ton of your time… again. I’m not saying that circuit debate sucks. I’m refuting your assertion that it “appeals to a broad audience” by say that the broad audience that you reference is in fact exclusive and elite. The implication you are drawing that circuit debate sucks would only follow if I had said that debate is only good if it “appeals to a broad audience”. Work on the logic.
Your second “issue” with me is also void of any substance. You’re not refuting anything I’ve said. I’ve never said that debate should only be judged by laypersons. I said that to consider something appealing to a truly broad audience, laypersons must be at the very least able to understand it.
You’re completely forgetting your original claim along with my argument against it. Thanks for “engaging my substance”, as you put it.
Posted from: 130.49.58.41
April 23rd, 2007 15:27
wait so how is christians argument self-referential but yours isnt? if youre seriously going to collapse to that argument, it at best proves that the original post used the wrong terminology to convey the point. what a useful contribution.
Posted from: 130.49.58.41
April 23rd, 2007 15:30
ps: the thoroughness of my reply corresponds to the intelligence of the argument im answering. think of it as having good time allocation.
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 23rd, 2007 15:39
Dear “Haterarelaaame”:
1. SDA is not a school I’ve never heard of. being a SoCal debater myself, I have debated SDA people on multiple occasions.
2. Saying that a TOC level debater should have won is not a bad joke. Patrick Diehl and Jon Kwan are probably the best debaters in the state and if they closed out TOC I would not be in the least bit surprised. Matt Slemon and Nick Stanert are both decent debaters, and pretty chill people, but if the state tournament had had a more “flow oriented” judging pool, they would not have won the tournament.(Call me an ass, or a “hater”, but it’s true). All I am insinuating is that a tournament designed to feature the best debaters in the state should have a judging pool to match. Here’s an example of state competition: My father (a debate coach and one time dominant LDer in the early 80’s) judged a state semis round of policy, which featured two Bellarmine teams. The neg team (due to the presence of two extremely lay judges who were given ballots) ran an inherency takeout and a solvency takeout. Then, they proceeded to explain what these fundamental stock issues were because two of the judges had not F*cking clue. That is unacceptable. My father began his RFD with “I was insulted by the quality of this round…”
3. SoCal debate is reeeeallly lax. It is very slow and traditional. As a debater with a very aggressive style, I am sometimes unsucessful on my local circuit due to lay judges(which is why, despite the fact that I have beaten both Slemon and Coffman handily before, I didn’t even qualify out of my league). It is also the reason why I had about a .500 W/L record on my local circuit, but I cleared at Berkeley.
4. The “adaptation” argument is bullshit. The state tournament should have flow judges. using the same logic as the ‘adaptation’ argument, I could assert that if a special ed kid is put in a calculus class, it’s the fault of the math teacher that he is failing the class.
Dear “Steve”:
1. SoCal debaters are not stupid or evil, nor are the judges. They are just unqualified to be judging break rounds at state. I’m sure that your grandmother could not understand spreading, but I wouldn’t call her stupid because of it, and I assume you wouldn’t either…
Guys, Slemon and Stanert are very traditional debaters, and so the traditional judges voted for them. If the tournament had featured circuit judges, Patrick Diehl or Jon Kwan would probably be sitting as state champion right now. But they’re not.
i think that the state tourney should have flow judges, so that more technically advanced debaters will win, but Slemon and Stanert still did a great job, even though there are debaters in the state that are better than them.
Sorry for being long.
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 23rd, 2007 15:44
btw, the state tournament doesn’t have speaker points! Random.
Posted from: 71.214.205.43
April 23rd, 2007 16:12
Kevin,
Why do you randomly post on vbd with these ridiculous warrantless tirades? Seriously like you make such absurd generalizations (ironically, the indicts you made on circuit debate, i.e. “the verbal masturbation”, are indicts that circuit kids use on your style of debate).
All of your args are really just plain silly; I think you misconstrued Steve pretty badly. Steve wasn’t just talking about TOC debaters, if you re-read his post (or read, I suppose), he also explicitly refers to NFL and how SoCal struggles compared to NorCal. Thus, NorCal has its own (bad) style that is intensely xenophobic and incompatible with national debate (traditional and progressive).
On top of that, I don’t understand why you think that circuit debaters are incapable of debating in front of a lay judge. Like, do you think people blazed through NC’s with T violations and discourse K’s while at Cal State? You can still debate by the flow and be slow/persuasive.
Posted from: 71.214.205.43
April 23rd, 2007 16:13
er, SoCal* has its own (bad) style
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 23rd, 2007 16:28
SoCal debating is really lax because ppl are trying to appeal to the judges, most of whom are really lax.
If Matt and Nick debated in NoCal, they would spread like crazy and would be running T-violations and discourse K’s.
(And they probably would not have closed out state)
But they don’t.
And they did.
Posted from: 208.120.181.25
April 23rd, 2007 16:34
California debating has nothing to do with me but some of you people need to get down from your ivory tower.
Since when was persuasion uncool?
Posted from: 68.127.36.165
April 23rd, 2007 16:43
to anyone who knows:
what was the winner’s cases like? When i hit Stanert (i was neg) at nat quals it was long and repitive and i was wondering if it was the same thing. when i hit him at quals i had a policy judge in the back and put 5 unique turns, 3 off, and won the standard, and extended both of my subpoints out of my neg. but i never got my ballot back that so i don’t know what happened…
Posted from: 24.25.215.34
April 23rd, 2007 16:47
Persuasion is uncool when it comes at the expense of substance. And that’s pretty much what happens in the slow, traditional debate of SoCal. Debate degenerates into warrantless pretty speeches. Believe me, I’m from the same league as SDA.
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
April 23rd, 2007 17:03
These stylistic debates become even less substantive when every claim is interpreted as a personal insult to some person or group of persons. If I happen to believe that Diehl, JKwan, Byron, Moerner et al. are the best debaters in California (which, whether you agree with it or not, seems like prima facie a pretty reasonable and inoffensive belief), then it makes sense for me to believe that one of them should have won the California state tournament. Of course, I wasn’t there, and one or two of them may have had an off tournament or something, but it seems unlikely that it would happen to all of them on the same weekend (empirically, given the consistency with which they’ve cleaned up at the other major Cali tournaments earlier this year). The most reasonable explanation for the fact that they did not win, then, seems to be the quality/consistency of the judging. Of course, what I take to be good judging will be tied to what I take to be good debating, so if I think a certain group of kids are the best debaters around, the judges I consider the best will probably be the ones who tend to vote for them. But if it’s reasonable for me to think that certain debaters are the best, that means it’s reasonable for me to think that certain judges are the best, so there’s no problem.
Now, none of that is equivalent to saying “Matt Slemon and Nick Stanert are rat bastards who won the state tournament by cheating and bribery and aren’t worthy of licking Jon Kwan’s shoes.” They’re probably nice, smart kids and good debaters, but neither that nor the fact that they won Cali state obligates me to believe that they are, in fact, the best debaters in California. I mean, people complain about “scoreboarding”, but it seems much more silly to claim that someone’s immune from anything short of awed reverence on the basis of their performance at one tournament than on the basis of their performance over the course of a season or two. If we can’t challenge whether a given person really ought to have won a given tournament, I don’t see how anyone can claim to make a distinction between good debate and winning debate (which, I think, most of the people defending the honor of the state champions would like to do).
Now, I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that we should reserve judgment for a while after tournament results go up on VBD, both because really good debaters actually do come out of nowhere from time to time, and because kids should be able to enjoy their success without having it undermined. The first of those points is just a reason to temper the definiteness of of claims somewhat (I suppose it’s remotely possible that I/the people I consider good judges would have made the same decision as every judge/panel at the tournament did in fact make, though it seems unlikely). The second point constitutes a reason to refrain from saying anything at all beyond the totally banal (“OMG, congrats guys!!! :)”), but I think that attitude fairly patronizing. In just about any other competitive high school event, it’s accepted that competitors will be assessed and criticized, sometimes quite harshly, by outsiders (e.g. sports writers), even immediately after they or their team achieved some success. Of course, most athletic events differ from debate in that, aside from an occasional case of bad officiating, it’s hard to contest the actual result of the contest. But the quality of a given player’s performance is still open to debate and criticism. And that’s a prerequisite for saying anything substantive about the event in question. It seems condescending to assume that high school debaters are just too emotionally fragile to handle the same level of criticism that gets dished out at, say, high school football or basketball players (of course, this may well be true on balance, but I still don’t see how you can justify assuming it).
So, the point is, saying that Diehl, JKwan or Moerner should have won the tournament isn’t a “low diss” to the people who actually did win it. It’s exactly the sort of claim that we should be able to make if we want to say anything meaningful about the results of a given tournament (whether or not it happens to be true in this particular case).
“It’s like saying that appelate courts are accessible because people interested in them and involved understand how they work. No reasonable person would deduce from that fact that appelate courts are “accessible”. That examples just demonstrates how self-referential your definition is and thus useless as an objective standard.”
Kevin, I have no idea what this analogy means in the context of my argument. If lawyers and judges were the only people who ever had any desire to be in any way involved in appellate litigation, then yes, the appeals system would be perfectly accessible (since everyone who wanted to access it would know how to). The fact that lots of people without JD’s need to use the appeals system is what presents a problem in terms of accessibility.
Of course, you can use the term “accessibility” however you like, and say that high school debate is inaccessible because it’s hard for people with absolutely no desire to become involved in it to do so. My point is that lack of accessibility to people who don’t want access isn’t a problem we need to be desperately concerned about. The fact that the average man (or womyn or non-gendered pyrsyn) in the street really, truly, genuinely does not case whether high school debate rounds are accessible to him/her/it is attested to by the fact that, even when debate rounds are “accessible”, no one who’s not somehow involved in high school debate actually shows up.
Posted from: 128.135.151.106
April 23rd, 2007 17:16
Kevin: I will again try to re-explain. SoCal debate doesn’t encourage “persuasion” or whatever you want to call it to anyone other than SoCal judges. Hence, this is why SoCal debaters have not traditionally done well at a tournament like NATIONALS. A tournament that is more lay and more diverse than Cali State, and a tournament to which an equal number of SoCal and NorCal debaters qualify. You keep trying to force me into the TOC box. But my argument was that NorCal debaters tend to do better with BOTH styles.
Again, I think the reason for this is that SoCal judges and coaches continue to push their conception of debate on the state. It is SoCal coaches that largely push for the judge rule we have and the timing of the State tournament, which in most years in the past has directly conflicted with the TOC. I think there is a problem when judges actively backlash against debaters because of their style. Admittedly, NorCal judges can be just as guilty of this. They will vote down great speakers sometimes because they lost on the flow. But, between these two evils, my argument is that SoCal is worse because the NorCal style has proven successful with BOTH more lay audiences and circuit audiences. I don’t think you can argue that NorCal is more provincial because of this continued success at NATIONALS (also the TOC, but not what I am stressing here). SF Bay has produced two national chaps since 2000. Bellarmine’s league has also produced at least one finalist during that time. SoCal, an area that has produced state tournament winners, has bombed when it comes to a tournament that requires MORE slow speaking and mass appeal. If adaptation and lay persuasion are your metrics, SoCal loses on both.
As a final caveat, anytime you involve generalities in an argument you are necessarily going to be under and over inclusive. I have met more smart judges and smart debaters from SoCal then I can recall. I’m sure the debaters who closed out California State are probably brilliant. I’m trying to point out that empirically, when SoCal judges dominate the Cali State pool, SoCal people perform better. These same judges/coaches illustrate a devotion to their style that I think is unrivaled except maybe by UIL. The problem, as I see it, is that in the same year these people dominate Cali State, they bomb at every other major tournament, including NATIONALS. Something is wrong with the practice when you are claiming people should ADAPT, but you are only asking for adaptation to a judging pool that comprises a very small subset of the country.
Posted from: 75.37.17.209
April 23rd, 2007 17:27
kevin–
my argument, appellate court analogy and all, was not meant to say that circuit debate is necessarily accessible, merely that the fact that it is not readily accessible is not a good standard for the substantive value or depth of that style of debating. And YES, your original post does heavily insinuate, VERY heavily, that circuit debate is shit. Let me quote:
“I want you to show the most “circuit”/”flow” round to the smartest non-debater you know and see what they say. They’ll laugh, think it is a joke and possibly vomit. I showed my brother, a law student, what I considered a “circuit” round and he laughed for a few minutes, then asked for the real debate.A truly broad audience wouldn’t accept “circuit” debate as having any merits beyond its hyperspeed and verbal masturbation.”
Your argument implies that because your law school brother and “smart people” who don’t do debate aren’t equipped to understand it, somehow renders it stupid.
And seriously dude, regarding your calling me a “tool” and other offensive language, wtf? My original post had no ad hominem attack; it didn’t even imply your position was stupid. It engaged with it in reasoned argument, which you apparently seem unable to do.
Posted from: 75.33.203.139
April 23rd, 2007 17:38
I’d have to agree with your argument, but I was not taught debate by a coach. Our coach, Ms. Leonard is a speech coach; we have no LD coach. I learned lay LD from Nick last year and everything (really, everything) I learned about flow was on the east coast at a two week camp over the summer. And if I recall correctly Nick in the semis round beat his Bellerman opponent in a flow debate style with a lay panel (2/3 of his voters were dropped cards) that he picked up at VBI in two weeks in the summer previous… I just feel like defending our league (definitly not to slam Northerners because I forgot which of my opponents were from where). And as for adaptation, my neg binder had one standard neg case (which I used in all my rounds with lay panels), a kritik and a spreadable 2 minute flow case (neither of which I used). I was told before hand it was a flow tournament. I also had pages of policy evidence cut by a friend. But you guys can beleive whatever you want about SoCal debate technique.
Posted from: 75.37.17.209
April 23rd, 2007 17:50
I think its pretty admirable that you guys, the San Dieguito crew, closed out even lacking a coach. This year, I was fortunate to live in Cali and have a dedicated coach, but last year I lived in a state with virtually no LD debate circuit whatsoever, and I can relate.
Whether or not circuit debaters should have won under a flow-type calculus, closing out under the circumstances given such a competitive pool is a great achievement–after all, I presume facing Diehl or Moerner would be pretty hard whether or not they were debating technically. Whether or not circuit style debating is preferable, not many get a chance to engage in it, a fact those of us lucky enough to do don’t often realize.
Posted from: 24.94.6.144
April 23rd, 2007 18:26
Congrats to Stanert and Slemon for closing out!
Posted from: 24.25.215.34
April 23rd, 2007 18:43
much love for christian (post 58) who makes a ridiculous amount of sense
Posted from: 71.70.246.134
April 23rd, 2007 18:51
Quickly then I’m done.
Steve and circuiteers:
you both start by saying youre going to re-explain or by saying that I didn’t understand your argument. After reading your posts, I have come to the conclusion that I understood them both correctly. In fact, my refutation still stands. Moreover, you have yet to refute any of it. Instead, you’ve chosen to make new arguments that don’t prove you right about the “appeal to broad audiences” that sparked this discussion, but are right. Props. You’ve successfully avoided debate, all the while maintaining your implicit intellectual superiority. I urge you both to re-read my post. It is clear, simply and responsive. Maybe if you attempt to apply the responses to your arguments, you can see how you’ve devolved from the orgininal question of “broad appeal”.
Christian-
You don’t understand my analogy. Hmm, I think you refuse to understand it because doing so would render you… omg… wait for it… wrong! (AHHH NO NEVER!) You’ve simply restated your claims to a self-referential definition of “Accessibility” in an even more absurd example. Like my pals Steve and “circuiteer”, you should re-read my response and actually apply it to context instead of refusing to understand in order to obstinately support a point you could never lose for fear of being wrong.
I’m not responding to anymore as I can do nothing more to help Steve, circuiteet and Christian understand my arguments. Clarity is certinaly only a mechanism for obfuscation for them. You’ve devolved into making a claim, letting me refute it, then making a different argument that, while true, is meaningless as refutation to my argument. Congratulations, you have won an argument that doesn’t prove anything about what we first began arguing about.
Posted from: 71.70.246.134
April 23rd, 2007 18:53
ps- anonymous posts lend MASSIVE credence to arguments. I think I’m going to agree with Christian now. He truly does make a “ridiculous amount of sense”.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
April 23rd, 2007 18:58
I’m not posting anonymously and I think Christian’s post made a ridiculous amount of sense……….. is everything cool now?
Posted from: 67.182.80.140
April 23rd, 2007 20:26
Does anyone read these long ass posts anyway? I sure as hell don’t.
Anyway, this was a really fun tournament (despite the first day’s weather, and the “shelter” we were given). The competition consisted of some great debaters, and I’m happy with making it to quarters and getting knocked off by one of the champs.
These guys from San Diego were just flat out good. They were personable, didn’t simply read from a script with monotone, and deserved to win. The flow from my round with this kid took nearly two pieces of paper per side, and every turn that could be said was said.
I debated Jon Kwan the round before, and quite honestly he didn’t have the charisma that San Diego had (and what I strive to have, which is what I owe knocking him out to). Debate should be more passionate than just making a claim and moving on, you have to SELL IT to the judge because lets face it, none of these parents know who a popular circuit debater is. I mean, to experienced judges, Kwan wouldve seemed very creative and all the like, but a lay judge doesnt want to hear how national sovereignty ACTUALLY is defined as individual and personal self-determination, not as the power structure of a nation.
Anyway, all in all, tourney was fun as hell. Grats to everyone who made it in the first place.
Posted from: 72.134.46.12
April 23rd, 2007 20:29
These conversations seem to pop up a lot after tournaments like this. I have to admit, as someone who was in the tab room, there were moments when I was a bit flabbergasted by the outcome. I was definitely mildly put off when all six of my kids dropped. That being said, it was their job to adapt. I love it when debate presents the opportunity to appeal to a fresh pool of critics. As an educator, I really believe that persuasion is a skill that deserves to be rewarded. Fresh judges vote for who persuades them. On the “circuit” we play by a lot of esoteric rules that I think are really fun, but they are not designed to persuade communities beyond ours. I don’t think that means they should be dismissed. Still, I think there should be room for real world persuasion. Cali state presents that sort of opportunity. The champions ought not be belittled for having the ability to appeal to the masses. Similarly, we should celebrate the unique flavor of circuit debate when given the opportunity. I would be super sad if all debate looked the same. This is the only game I can think of that allows students an opportunity to take part in creating the so called rules of the game. If you uphold one set of standards above the others, you do the same thing that the NFL has sought to do by rewriting the ballot. The game should not be constructed from the top down, but it should also not be defined by the elitism that some of the previous posts express.
in terms of tournament logistics, there are some pretty odd rules that make the tournament tough. The panel of judges is not that bad. It actually increased the amount of qualified judges in the policy pool. The real problem is that judges are not assigned to specific pools. A critic may be judging HI one round and LD the next. It could be more specialized.
Congratulations to San Deguito and debaters like Diehl who managed to adapt to the pool.
Posted from: 169.229.77.223
April 23rd, 2007 20:33
Yeah Norcal’s just better in everything…it’s the truth, we’re the better half of the state (go warriors!).
Seriously, though, SDA isn’t a random no-name school. They’ve had a small, relatively local team for a while now. They had a policy team do pretty well at Berkeley a few years ago if I remember rightly…I don’t know either of the kids here, but assuming anything about their style simply cause you haven’t heard of them before seems rather silly to me.
I don’t really feel like jumping into the main discussion occurring right now, but I do want to say one thing about Christian’s argument (others, too, but he’s the most vocal…so you get singled out, bro). Criticism, as Christian rightly says, is valuable and worth engaging in if we want to promote “good” debate instead of just saying “debate that wins must be good.” Also, the whole “fragile psyches” point is one where I completely agree with him, too. Here’s the difference, though – when you tell me that the Mavs should’ve won last year’s finals, I expect two things – you know something about basketball, and you have direct knowledge regarding last year’s NBA finals (ie you watched the games). I think it’s safe to analogously apply those standards (competence, direct knowledge) to talking about debate. Now, Christian and I certainly disagree about certain aspects of debate, but he definitely is competent to talk about debate. That meets the first standard. The second standard about having any direct knowledge about the tournament…well, that seems sorely lacking. Much as I love the CFL kids, the simple fact is that I have no idea what happened to them in the particular rounds in which they dropped. Moreover, the double-elim arrangement of the tournament means that isolating particular performances becomes even harder – I can break as a 6-2 at Cal, but I can’t do that at state.
This is not to say that any criticism from afar is necessarily flawed. We can talk about whether NBA division winners should automatically get a top 4 seed or whether 7 game series are best or whether the arrangement of home games as 2-3-2 should be changed…in short, we can engage successfully in criticism of the structure of the tournament (perhaps because this is something everyone can read about, where direct experience is not so key?). Many have chosen to do so on this thread – three judges vs one judge, hired judges vs not, etc etc. However, calling out particular performances seems, to me, to be rather problematic.
That said, huge congrats to both of the state champs. Anyone who can take down a title like state without a coach and with flow-ready stuff only has shown that they deserve their success. Congrats also to Tim for making semis, and also to whoever was in the other semis round!
Posted from: 75.37.17.209
April 23rd, 2007 20:43
From your original post, MR. Cotter: A truly broad audience wouldn’t accept “circuit” debate as having any merits beyond its hyperspeed and verbal masturbation.
You are clearly implying, especially by bringing in the example of your law school brother, that circuit debate is somehow inferior to your style of debate. I reiterate my last post: I didn’t attack the “broad audience” argument you posted, only what it implied about the educational content of circuit debate in general.
And Jesus Christ dude, do you ever look at the mirror and realize that you are one veritable dick? My posts prior to this have not been offensive in the least–I simply made a point, which you deemed fit to respond to by calling me a “tool” and other such bullshit.
Posted from: 24.25.215.34
April 23rd, 2007 20:55
If we don’t know enough about the situation to really criticize the debaters, it would seem that we don’t know enough to really defend them either. We default to congratulating them becasue VBD tells us that they are state champions but like Ankur says, judging these debaters requires competence and direct knowledge. Most of us posting here lack the direct knowledge. On the other hand, it’s pretty safe to say that most of the judges at this Cali state tourney lack the competence to make good decisions even if they have the needed direct knowledge. We can congratulate SDA for being champions. But we need to understand that the judging process that got them there is unreliable and completely unpredictable and so we can’t say good or bad things about these kids based on these results.
As for the judging, I would say that persuasive debating isn’t always good debating (it often isn’t) but that circuit debate also isn’t always good debating. I don’t think we can just say that slow, traditional debate is “good” or “bad” or that fast, technical debate is “good” or “bad”. Having a “broad audience” means nothing to determine the quality of debate – this is an America that continues to elect worthless politicians, after all.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
April 23rd, 2007 21:05
Yo alex, why all the hating? I know for a fact people could be posting on here criticizing the way you debate and your performance at the tournament but they’re not.
Even so, your standards of “charisma” and “passion” are really bad ways to evaluate what’s good in a debate round because there will always be people who are able to talk prettier than others by their very nature without making real arguments. This also gives debaters a disincentive to do actual work to try to improve since no matter how high quality and well warranted their arguments are they would never be able to win because they’re just naturally not as good of speakers. This becomes increasingly problematic when we take into account that not all debaters have the same degree of fluency in English, the same sized vocabularies, etc.
p.s. I think jkwan and others who debate in a way you criticize have been successful enough that your argument that they “make a claim and move on” is empirically denied anyway.
Posted from: 169.229.77.223
April 23rd, 2007 21:06
I’m not sure if slimeball is talking about only me, but since I’m mentioned by name: yes, my argument prevents you from giving clear reasons to defend the SDA kids (or anyone else) unless you were there. Yes, we default to congratulating people who win things – it seems the nice thing to do, if nothing else…and if you don’t have a good argument for either side, why not just be nice?
I am deliberately ignoring the stuff about judges at state being good or bad and the circuit/league throwdown. I’ll let others fight those battles; watching is more fun anyhow.
Posted from: 172.193.144.125
April 23rd, 2007 21:10
KEVIN COTTER FOR PRESIDENT!
Posted from: 24.25.215.34
April 23rd, 2007 21:13
Why default to being nice?
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 23rd, 2007 21:50
The idea that one must be obligated to conform to lay judges is ridiculous. In a state as highly competitive as california, the state tournament really ought to have a judging pool that can keep up. The state tournament has judging problems for, really, one main reason–the fact that there are three judges.
i know that Ankur and Dave McGinnis had an interesting conversation about three-judge lay panels on the LD Boards, but I sort of have to echo the sentiment.
Usually, having three judges is a good thing. However, when two of those judges have no idea what they are doing, that is a problem. The state tournament rules stipulate that each panel have (1) a coach (the flow judge) (2) a parent (lay judge) and (3) a “Community member”, usually even more lay than the parent.
The two lay judges (almost) always vote for the prettier speaker because they can’t keep up.
If we can put a coach in every panel, then we have enough flow judges. The rounds really ought to be adjudicated by the coach only.(Sure, the judging pool won’t be of the same caliber as that of a circuit tourney, but it will be substantially better than it is now)
This would also improve speech because there wouldn’t be a shortage of judges. (Seriously, I had to wait 50 minutes to watch a couple of my teammates’ duo)
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
April 23rd, 2007 21:52
Ankur–I think you make a good point about the limits of our knowledge concerning kids we haven’t seen debate. That’s approximately the point I was trying to make when I said that really talented kids occasionally come out of nowhere. And you’re also right that lots of things can happen in any given round, so it’s hard to justify making a claim like “Diehl should have won his quarters round” unless you were actually there watching the round. That said, I don’t think anyone is making that sort of claim–I think the claim is that structural problems with the tournament (of the sort you say we can criticize from a distance) had an effect on its outcome, which doesn’t seem like a very bold claim at all. I doubt anyone would dispute that, if all of the outrounds panels had been replaced with panels from, say, Stanford, the outcome probably would have been different, for better or for worse (even though one or two big names probably still would have been upset by relative unknowns).
Kevin–I honestly still do not understand the analogy, and I promise you that my inability to understand it is not simply an attempt to shield myself from the blinding light of reason. I don’t know what you mean by “self-referential,” I don’t know why it’s a bad thing, and I don’t know what “absurd example” I was invoking (as far as I can tell, I was working with your example). Though I do appreciate the accusation that “Clarity is certinaly only a mechanism for obfuscation for them”; I’ll try to be less clear in future, in order to avoid obfuscating the issue any further.
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 23rd, 2007 22:00
btw, Alex Rausch:
here’s how the world of debate works
speaking/being personable:
“Slemert” > Kwan
debating:
“Slemert”
Posted from: 69.181.162.118
April 23rd, 2007 22:00
In the other events:
Public Forum – James Logan Curson/Asir d. Lynbrook Subramanian/Shen
Policy – Leland Liu/Young d. Bellarmine Simmons/Wong
Parli – Bellarmine Stephan/Larson d. Claremont Maine/Rasheed
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 23rd, 2007 22:01
wtf? It cut my post.
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 23rd, 2007 22:02
anyway, all I was saying is that Kwan’s a better debater than “Slemert”, despite the fact that SDA peeps are personable.
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 23rd, 2007 22:03
Claremont Maine/Rasheed=Parli champions of the universe
Razizzle Rashizzle!!
Posted from: 169.229.77.223
April 23rd, 2007 22:25
Congrats to the Leland girls! It’s good to see my alma mater on top. :D Say what you will about the tournament itself, I can guarantee that no one outworked those two…this success has been a long time coming.
Christian: if that’s all you’re saying, then we don’t disagree. It was maybe unfair to single you out in that way, so my apologies for that. I think I (wrongly) read an implication into your post that BECAUSE the CFL kids did poorly, the tournament MUST be flawed, and that is the argument I wanted to defend against.
fritz: coach often means IE coaches, so don’t think that your solution would put highly experienced judges in every round. I find your comment that adaptation to parents is ridiculous rather amusing, but no need to rehash that argument here – you indicate you’ve read my comments on the matter on the other board, so *shrug*.
slimeball: I appreciate the desire to stay consistent with the handle you’ve chosen, but since when does politeness need a justification? Common respect for others means we ought avoid disparaging them, particularly in public, without cause. If you want a more rigorous discussion of why politeness matters, I suggest you look up Robin Lakoff – her work on politeness and avoiding “face-threatening actions” seems somewhat pertinent.
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 23rd, 2007 22:31
ankur:
IE Coaches > parents
Most IE coaches have had at least *some* experience judging debate.
Sure, there would still be randomness, but there would be less of it.
Posted from: 69.12.136.2
April 23rd, 2007 22:32
1. At awards and throughout the tournament, I could see this “San Dieg-who?” argument coming. I’m not sure why it’s worth getting so angry about CA State when TOC is coming up, but whatever.
2. The judging was really streaky, at least in parli. We (most likeley) won our quarters round on a dropped RVI, but lost in semis when the aff tried to extend all of their case through ink (and got away with it).
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 23rd, 2007 22:36
The state tournament has bad judging in general.
In Parli, its especially worse because there is no set format for the debate. (It can be a value, fact, or plan debate depending on the topic)
Posted from: 75.80.139.173
April 23rd, 2007 22:40
“At awards and throughout the tournament, I could see this “San Dieg-who?” argument coming. I’m not sure why it’s worth getting so angry about CA State when TOC is coming up, but whatever.”
Word.
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 23rd, 2007 22:44
yeah, cuz after TOC happens there are like, absolutely no discussions whatsoever about what the outcome should have been.
gimme a break.
Posted from: 129.116.60.220
April 23rd, 2007 23:27
i think it’s worth noting that none of the aforementioned circuit debaters have posted on this thread, and the majority of people discussing the judging at the california state tournament do not actually live in california.
Posted from: 129.116.60.220
April 23rd, 2007 23:29
oops, moerner did post a couple of times at the beginning. my bad.
Posted from: 128.12.50.69
April 23rd, 2007 23:30
This thread is ridiculous.
There are different styles of debate. Deal with it. There are plenty of tournaments designed to reward flow-oriented, technical, circuit debate. That’s fine. Cali state is designed to reward traditional persuasion and good communication skills.
There was a time when discussions like this on VBD would turn into arguments about “lay debate” vs “circuit debate”. For some reason, today’s argument is being framed as “bad debate” vs “good debate”. I find this somewhat offensive.
My old team (Bellarmine) is oriented (as in, #1 goal) towards winning Cali state sweepstakes. We don’t prep a topic for the circuit and then try to adapt our positions for league – we prep league first. From day one, we spend hours working on strategies to convince lay people that we are right. It’s not better or worse than circuit debate, it just builds different skills.
The logic of many people in this thread is circular. It defines “good debate” as “successful circuit debate,” and then complains that successful circuit debaters aren’t doing well at Cali State.
I don’t really see why people are complaining so much. Cali state doesn’t give out bids to the TOC nor does is it at all affiliated with the national circuit. Moreover, everyone’s rants about how Diehl, Kwan, or Moerener should have won it proves there isn’t a need for a tournament to reveal the best circuit debaters in california. These issues have already been resolved on the circuit at tournaments like CPS, VBT, and Berkeley.
The California High School Speech Association’s State Tournament is designed to reward traditional, lay debate. Some people disagree with its philosophy, so they’ve started their own league, the Bay Area Circuit Debate League. If there’s a demand, BACDL will grow large enough to hold its own state tournament. That’s fine. For now, cut the arrogance and realize that not everyone in America cares about your conception of debate.
Posted from: 24.176.242.93
April 24th, 2007 00:02
Props to Bobby for having the balls to speak the truth.
Posted from: 128.12.68.178
April 24th, 2007 00:03
My friend and esteemed colleague Bobby Holley covers what is essentially my position on all of this jibber-jabber with both boundless eloquence and a generous dose of rationality. This is nice for me, because it leaves me to just spout my absurd, meaningless, completely humorless nonsense all over the rest of this thread. So let’s talk a bit about my views on ‘good debate’ and ‘bad debate.’
What is good debate? Well, good debate is when the two debaters take the judges out to dinner during the hour for which the round was allotted. Each round could have a different culinary theme, like Thai cuisine, or maybe it could be like Iron Chef where you just have to involve a certain ingredient, like eggplants. Debate tournaments would be like weekly adventures for the taste buds!
What is bad debate? Well, bad debate is when people talk round and round in circles on VBD threads without bringing their incoherent trains of thought to an ending station. Did we learn nothing from Thomas the Tank Engine in our childhood days?
In other news, congratulations to Bellarmine speech and debate for another state championship! I don’t know about any individual results other than in LD, but for the one that I do know, big congrats to Tim McKenzie for semifinals!
Also, huge props to Michelle Ho, champion of Original Advocacy, who, all by herself, as the only entry from her school, constitutes the 3rd-best small-school speech and debate PROGRAM in the entire state of California (or so I was informed by her brother yesterday).
Posted from: 128.12.68.178
April 24th, 2007 00:29
I actually went back and skimmed through all the posts, and was happy to see Simmons/Wong in the policy final and Stephan/Larson as parli champions. Woohoo, congrats to them!
In the time that I spent scrolling through, I thought more about my vision for debate tournaments as taste-testing conventions (who actually spends brainpower on these posts?), and I’ve decided that this would actually be an amazing idea. Debate would be ten times more fun if the tournament catered in a different type of food for every round. Of course, each helping would be very small, but that’s okay — it could be like an all-day dim sum meal with all sorts of world cuisines! Entrants to the tournament would just have to pay more, but then they could eat lots of delicious dishes all day instead of going hungry until the evening, when they have half an hour to eat crappy pizza before going to sleep. My God, I am a genius.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
April 24th, 2007 05:27
state tournaments are oppressive in general.
Posted from: 130.49.58.41
April 24th, 2007 08:10
theres no need to get all fancy with food, id be 80x happier if every tournament had an MBA-style snack break (or, as they call it, the refresher). mmmm, goo-goo good.
Posted from: 75.80.139.69
April 24th, 2007 10:27
I’ve debated both Slemon and Stanert, and so have most of the people on my team. Both of them are feared (and, as much as this is possible in a local debate league, respected) by most of us. It’s true that they’re really personable, and it’s probably true that this is where most of their appeal comes from. While they’re smart and they make good arguments, they aren’t the smartest kids in our league, or the most knowledgeabe. Nor do they write the best or most interesting cases. They speak really really well, and understandably, and without jargon.
I say all this just to give everyone context.
I don’t think it makes sense that they won the state tournament. Or rather, I don’t think it makes sense that the state tournament is organized in such a way that ennabled them to win. California is one of two or three dominant debate-states, and it’s sort of farcical that the state tournament is such an outlier in terms of the way it evaluates debaters. Having debated Slemon and Stanert and also having debated big name debaters at big circuit tournaments, I can say without reservation that the big name debaters are better in every way but persuasion (this isn’t an insult to the champions, I’m not saying they’re dumber or inherently worse, they just don’t have a coach). I think (I hope) we all understand that LD is supposed to be about argumentation, that the people who work hardest in LD are the people who spend hours reading philosophy, practicing the spread, working spikes into their cases. LD is not speech. The values of LD, if we want to be objective about it, are the values of the people who do LD (eminently, not those of the parents of the people who do LD, not those of random people off the street). LDers agree that the important thing about LD is argumentation, LDers feel guilty when they’re slimey. Realizing all this, I think it becomes clear that the state tournament is an anomaly. It’s a big tournament that bequeaths its victors with important-sounding laurels, and so it makes sense that the tournament should reflect the actual values of LD, not the values NFL admins try to assign it. And yet, the state tournament admins say that they’re against “circuit debate”.
I don’t know what ought to be done about it, but it bothers me that some people are totally all right with the fact that the impressive title of ‘California state champion’ can consistently be awarded to people who do not reflect the type of debate that is respected by most debaters.
And in defense of SoCal debate:
It really isn’t our fault that we do what we do. Many of the teams down here lack committed, experienced LD coaches, and so we either go to camp or teach ourselves. The local circuit encourages persuasiveness (almost all judges are inexperienced parents–I’ve had perhaps two flow judges at all of the league tournaments I’ve been to this year), and frowns on the flow. This is sad because we have a lot of talented debaters (anyone remember the brief efflorescence of La Jolla?). What’s really sad about it is that our debaters hate the persuasive shit–we don’t enjoy debating in front of parent judges who give irrational ballots, we all want better debate down here. What to do about it? Idono.
Posted from: 128.12.50.69
April 24th, 2007 12:36
TheProblem –
“I think (I hope) we all understand that LD is supposed to be about argumentation, that the people who work hardest in LD are the people who spend hours reading philosophy, practicing the spread, working spikes into their cases.”
You think, and you hope, incorrectly.
It’s getting more and more annoying when people keep asserting the type of debate they’re fond of as “[what] we all understand LD is supposed to be about.” Given the disagreement in this thread, I think it’s fair to say that not everyone sees eye to eye with you on this one. As such, it’s absurd to go on about the “objective [values]” of LD debate and to preface your sentences with a Bill O’Reilly-style “LDers agree…”
Argumentation, including all the things you mention, is important in lay debate. However, it’s not the only important thing. Last year we spent weeks cutting cards, but we made sure that every card was clear, intuitive, and made sense. The spread can be useful, but only when it’s laid down without jargon and relies on word economy instead of speed. Vinitha’s lay-spread made her a legend at league tournaments, and I spent days attempting to imitate her technique. Spikes are great, but only when they are clearly explained as pre-empting arguments your opponent might make in their next speech, not when they’re a blippy A Priori extended out of some impact. What was that about lay being slimey again?
I feel like a broken record, but I’ll say it anyway. The above describes lay debate, which is distinct from circuit debate. Clearly, there’s some skill involved in both. They’re different games.
You complain that “the impressive title of ‘California state champion’ can consistently be awarded to people who do not reflect the type of debate that is respected by most debaters.”
But really now, how impressive is a title like ‘State Champion’ (with the exception of TFA state) to those in the know like yourself? Circuit debaters and coaches are much more impressed with success at circuit tournaments like Berkeley or the TOC. The people who are impressed by the title of “California State Champion” are exactly the kind of people who would be impressed by the debate it features: outsiders to debate. If you want the woman at the grocery store to be impressed with your accomplishments, then accomplish something she would be impressed with. You can talk all the smack you want about lay people, but the fact is that lay people constitute 99.9% of the American population. Don’t try to tell them that they’re just too ignorant to appreciate good debate. Go play your circuit game, and be contented with impressing the small minority of people who care.
Posted from: 38.118.12.10
April 24th, 2007 13:14
I have 3 really unhelpful contributions:
1. I heard in a debate round that having one “conception of the good (debate)” is problematic in its imposition on the individual, human worth, freedom, (insert your VC here).
2. Last night’s episode of “Heroes” points out that half of New York City would be .07% of the American population. Bobby Holley implicitly claims that the “we” articulated by “The Problem” stands at .10% of the American population. I think more people should watch “Heroes.”
3. This “discussion” happens all the time today. It happened in ancient debate world. It happened in dinosaur debate world. It is a Sisyphus (or a Sissy-fuss if that play on words strikes you).
I like flow debate. I like Bobby Holley. I like California. I like “Heroes.” There is so much to like in the world once you get over the fact that people like different things sometimes. Why play in a field where the grapes are sour?
NOTE: This post is not intended to be taken seriously, unless, of course, you can find a serious lesson in it.
Posted from: 204.180.72.192
April 24th, 2007 15:00
(Sorry if I repeat anything, but I’m not going to read through all that.)
All y’all circuit people: Correct me if I’m wrong, but when I was in your place my frustration came from that at the end of each round, the judge needs to make a decision, and when that decision is arbitrary or irrational you feel cheated. But while circuit judges call themselves tabula rasa or objective, and circuit debaters base their strategies on objective rationality and logic, there’s really nothing objective about it. You’re right that people need to be rational, we need objectivity and logic and all that, but those are specific values that come at the expense of other values. Persuasion is valuable, emotion is valuable, understanding is valuable, and all are often sacrificed when “objectivity” (which is really anything but objective) is the focus. Think of the most “objective” judges in LD right now, Christian Tarsney and Eric Palmer for example (not to malign either, I loved having either as a judge when I debated, and I know Christian is conscious of and committed to the value-judgement implicit in his paradigm): They are both considered neg hacks because the paradigm they use is best served by throwing out as many arguments as possible and then going for whatever’s strategic. That’s not necessarily a bad strategy, but clearly it emphasizes some values at the expense of others.
I’m not sure LD is really able to have the sorts of debates about rationality/methodology that policy does. In policy teams like KCC (in high school), Fullerton, Bard, and Oklahoma (in college) are successful questioning this idea that we should line up lots of arguments and then assess them in a vacuum. In LD people don’t really do it, I think Corbin and DWeeks came close last year with their Nietzsche critique, but no one has had the chutzpah to say “rationality sucks, objectivity is a lie.” That might be a product of the fewer number of speeches, the time skew in the NC/1AR, or just the community, I don’t know. I know current critique/performative debate began in college policy when a supreme court topic provoked a critique of the idea of rational/objective legal reasoning, and judges were left not knowing how to rationally judge the arguments at the end of the round. Maybe LD just needs a topic like “The judiciary should act objectively.”
But until the debate happens in rounds and debaters tell their judges a methodology to use, it’s up to judges to decide the methodology. At this tournament, they just choose to value persuasion and understanding above rationality. It’s a value judgment, but it’s no less imposing on the debaters than the choice to look to unemotional reason.
Posted from: 66.60.188.6
April 24th, 2007 15:13
So, I was wondering if someone would care to explain something for me.
I tend to make a habit of pursuing skills that will be useful to me at some point in my life, and this has led me to speech and debate. Because my interest in this activity was utility, it leaves me with a somewhat unique viewpoint on the “flow” vs. “lay” issue.
I respect and admire “flow” debators, who are able to digest high volume and complex arguments at high speeds while responding to and building upon all points of the debate. However, at the point where the speed, complexity, and volume exceeds the ability of all but an elite minority to comprehend it, what use is it?
While “lay” debators aren’t able to argue at such high speeds, with such intricate cases or massive lexicons, and may not be able to present such a host of information in 360 seconds, they are able to get a point across to anyone willing to listen and persuade them in their favor. This I see as a useful skill.
Pandering to an elite few, not so much.
But maybe I’m missing something.
-Steven Rubert (the “lay” debator from NorCal who took LD at Logan)
Posted from: 204.180.72.192
April 24th, 2007 15:18
I don’t mean to imply the Eric Palmer isn’t conscious of this, I just haven’t talked to him about it.
Posted from: 204.180.72.192
April 24th, 2007 15:23
Steven, if you picked up the New York Times I’m sure you’d understand it. If you picked up the latest volume of Dialog you’d probably understand most of it, you wouldn’t understand some, and most people wouldn’t understand any of it. If you picked up a medical textbook I doubt you’d understand any of it.
Does that mean that medicine isn’t valuable? How about Christian’s example of a constitutional law proceeding. Almost no one would understand that, is that valuable?
Comprehension isn’t the only value.
Posted from: 66.60.188.6
April 24th, 2007 16:41
Ah but the difference is in the audience.
In medicine you are interacting with the human body, which understands what you are doing and reacts accordingly, whether or not the governing intelligence does.
In Constitutional law proceedings I would contend that my original question has some bearing. I don’t like everything that goes on in those hearings either.
However, in debate I was under the impression that the object was to convince others that you were right.
Am I wrong on the object of debate, or is the opinion of these elite few really that much more important than the average american.
Steven Rubert (who now does PubFo because it is more his style)
Posted from: 24.176.242.93
April 24th, 2007 16:55
Steven, you’re mishandling the medical example. He’s not speaking of a doctor communicating with someone’s liver, rather someone (lay person) reading a book (medical textbook) and trying to comprehend what it says.
Just as the lay person wouldn’t understand half the medical jargon used in those books, they probably won’t understand the final round at Glenbrooks — but that doesn’t mean there isn’t any value to what is said in those medical texts, and it surely doesn’t mean there isn’t any substantive value to what is said in fast, technical debates.
Posted from: 75.37.17.209
April 24th, 2007 17:01
what’s hilarious is that i’m the one who came up with the constitutional law analogy, and cotter keeps attacking christian on it, and christian keeps questioning what is has to do with anything. that’s pretty funny.
Posted from: 24.176.242.93
April 24th, 2007 17:02
Additionally, that doesn’t mean there isn’t something to be said for adaptation (there certainly is). You wouldn’t hand a medical textbook to my grandma and expect her to be able to perform a flawless triple bypass, similarly debaters shouldn’t go 350 wpm running a theory dump in front of my grandma and expect her to be able to understand the substance of the round.
Essentially, circuit debate doesn’t preclude good debate, in fact it’s often (for those who understand it) more educational. But same could be said for lay debate for those who prefer slow speed and persuasion.
In the end, I don’t think good debate vs. bad debate should be an issue of circuit debate vs. lay debate. Rather an issue of adaptation. Honestly in the end it doesn’t matter who threw out more substance but rather who gets the W.
You shouldn’t want to be going fast in front of my grandma, and you likely won’t go 100 wpm in front of a “circuit” judge. Suck it up, and adapt.
Posted from: 70.231.138.246
April 24th, 2007 17:05
Bobby Holley is the truth. CA state is designed towards lay debaters, the TOCs and other various california invitationals are for flow debaters.
Also, the whole lay vs. flow issue is easy to resolve.
The only reason why this conflict exists is because at the end of the round in most circuit debates -unless it’s ridiculously close- you can pretty much tell if you won or lost or not (or what you will win/lose on). In lay debate, that is usually never the case, which is why circuit debaters start to trip out when they feel they should’ve won on X argument but then got voted down on persuasive speaking issues.
I don’t mind good speakers if they make sense, but if they’re spewing nonsense (if you affirm, your ballot will save bunnies and rebuild the rainforests) then I start to get upset. That’s why I think it’d be useful to say something along the lines of “I know my opponent can speak much better than I can, but I implore you to remember that this is not about who’s speaking style you prefer, but the argument that is winning.”
Then it’s still pretty random as to whether or not that will offend the judge or whatnot.
Posted from: 130.49.58.41
April 24th, 2007 17:26
whoa, epalm is a neg hack?
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 24th, 2007 18:05
First of all, I think it’s reasonable that Holley is defending the tournament.Seriously, is anyone expecting him to say that the tournament majorly sucks?
Asking Holley’s opinion on whether or not the state tournament is legit is like asking George Bush whether or not the war in Iraq is legit.
Also, saying that someone doesn’t care about something doesn’t make it unimportant. I don’t care about tax records, but they’re important.
(Call me an ass, or a shitkicker, but it needed to be said)
Guys, flow debate is centered entirely around arguments, which makes it legitimate debate. If you want to persuade lay judges about whether or not the UN should value human rights, then write a fucking O.O!
In a state as competitive as california, the state champion should be ther person who can think on their feet the fastest, come up with the best arguments, and put the most work into their event. Debate is about, well, debating, not speaking pretty so that people who will never understand what you’re saying can pretend to.
As debaters, we are among an elite group of smart, intellectually minded students who have all been endowed with the capacity to argue about things that other kids our age cannot even comprehend.
The state tournament is (or at least should be)designed to determine which of us is best at that.
Unfortunately, lay judging forces us to limit our capacity to do this so that people who are inexperienced in the event can keep up.
C’mon guys! In baseball, an umpire would never tell a pitcher to slow down his fastball so that way he can tell if it’s a strike.
Mindless repition for the sake of appealling to people who are not suited to be adjucating your work is not the kind of policy that should be adhered to when prestigious laurels, bragging rights, beautiful trophies, shcolarship money, and the title of “California State Champion” is on the line.
Posted from: 128.135.151.100
April 24th, 2007 18:09
I think a distinction has to be drawn between the descriptive and prescriptive discussions being confused here. The descriptive discussion, illustrated by the esteemed Mr. Bobby, commits a blatant and egregious is-ought fallacy. Bobby tells us: “Cali state is designed to reward traditional persuasion and good communication skills,” and that we should “deal with it.” I don’t think any of the more well-reasoned responses on this thread are questioning this description of the California State Tournament. But just because this is what the California debate tournament purports to be (more on that in a minute), doesn’t mean that it is what it SHOULD be. Following from this, an indict of the structure/function of the tournament is by no means an indict of the debaters who won. Undoubtedly, the debater who won is the one who adapted better than his competitors to the audience he was presented with. We can recognize that effort and at the same time recognize that there might be some things wrong with the tournament. To give an overly simplistic example, if the tournament were to say that this year’s LD winner would be determined by who could lift Bobby Holley the most times, than undoubtedly the winner would need to have massive guns because Bobby is such an imposing physical specimen. We could even commend the winner on his strength at the end of the day. But that wouldn’t be a reason to accept this new paradigm for debate success.
Based on this really simple insight, hopefully we can move away from a discussion of whether or not the debaters who won are super duper people or debaters (though the second component is certainly relevant to the discussion that follows) and focus the discussion on the more relevant issues.
I think those issues are two-fold: 1) are the goals of the California tournament (as expounded by Bobby, they are to encourage traditional persuasive ability) ones we should be pursuing; and 2) is the California State tournament as currently operated effectively achieving those goals.
Avoiding debate on these issues by saying people just have to “deal” with certain tournamens and obfuscating the issue by claiming any attack on the tournament is by necessity an attack on the debaters who won does a disservice to our community and will ultimately insulate tournaments, which students pay for, from any meaningful change.
And I recognize Bobby wrote some very good arguments in defense of the tournament later on. I really didn’t mean to belittle the guy with the example above, I just think the back lash anytime someone criticizes a tournament is way out of proportion to what the posts deserve.
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 24th, 2007 18:10
Also, the state tournament sneers at “circuit debate” because its run by speech people.
I mean, the organization is called “The California High School Speech Association”
It wouldn’t be fair for a circuit LD or Policy judge to judge an OO or an Extemp speech and say “Well, I gave you seventh because you didn’t spread enough”
Likewise, its unfair for a parent/speech person to mark down a debater for making more arguments in a span of time than the average person could keep up with.
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 24th, 2007 18:13
I guess I’m done now.
Posted from: 75.4.11.92
April 24th, 2007 18:39
anjan,
thats so weird, i thought of the same thing when i read bobby’s post. coincidence?
Posted from: 70.137.153.214
April 24th, 2007 20:10
Actually, Steven, I would agree that circuit-style ld doesn’t really develop persuation skills. However, that doesn’t mean this style of debating is useless, as it teaches various other important skills and provides a number of benefits. Some of those are the ability to absord a large ammount of information quickly (this is, I suppose, helpfull when listening to lectures in college, etc.), the ability to take organized notes (again, college), as well as good articulation, enriched vocabulary and a better knowledge of philosophy. However, the most important thing you are forced to learn in rounds with flow judges is pure logic, because flow juges specialize in it, so the debaters have to make logical arguments to win (while the 2-1 decisions made by flow panels indicate that flow judges are somewhat subjective too, they are clearly much less subjective than parent judges). Sure, given that the majority of the population reverts to common sence and scholasticism rather than pure logic, logic won’t always help with communication of ideas, but it is still something that is necessary in almost all aspects of life.
That being said, I believe that lay-oriented debate is also very usefull, and if you decide to attend a tournament that you know has lay judging, don’t be suprised if it turns out to have lay judging.
Posted from: 66.60.188.6
April 24th, 2007 21:53
Hmm. The medical analogy isn’t one that I don’t understand, it is one that was misapplied.
The information in a textbook will be read by the elite few and will be applied to indifferent organs and cells of a body. The understanding of the patient, or a random child who finds the book has nothing to do with it.
What is the purpose of LD if it isn’t to convince people that the position you are defending is more moral than another?
You will notice I have not complained of flow in Policy debate, because a policy being enacted is very much like a medical procedure being performed. The policy will have definite outcomes and the elite few are the ones who are qualified to judge this.
However, all people are moral beings. Therefore in LD debate, all people should be considered qualified to judge, and when trying to defend your position, you should be able to do it in a way that all moral agents can understand.
Unless you only want to convince the elite few. In which case you are playing with yourselves, and the accusation of verbal masturbation was entirely warranted.
While the ability to digest complex information at high speed, interact with it, and then regurgitate the processed product is very useful in college, if those were your goals you would be better suited with Policy. Unless you really like playing with yourselves.
Posted from: 24.176.242.93
April 24th, 2007 22:34
Back to the medical analogy, the point had nothing to do with the content (and application thereof), it was the comprehension of that content by a third person.
You could argue policy debate has to deal with the effects, similar to a medical procedure, but I don’t think this is exclusive to policy debate…but that is besides the point, and a completely separate tangent.
I was discussing the original topic of appealing to a broad audience (which is what the discussion taking place has largely been about).
The whole point of my last post was that the content of the medical text is so jargony you wouldn’t expect the lay person to understand it. That a medical textbook WOULD only appeal to what you call the elite few. Similarly circuit style debate is meant to appeal to those who can understand and enjoy that type of debate.
Going back to the earlier example in my last post, I wouldn’t expect my grandma to be able to understand a medical text, let alone perform a triple bypass, neither would I expect her to understand finals at Glenbrooks.
What I was advocating was that the round should occur in the context of who is judging the round. If you get a lay judge, suck it up, and debate for the lay judge the way they want. If you get someone like Eric Palmer or Josh Anderson in the back of the room the debate the way that appeals to them.
It’s not an issue of wanting to convince a ‘few’ there are plenty of tourneys where the flow paradigm dominates the tab room, and there are tourneys where lay debate dominates it. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter whether or not you appeal to 99% of the American people as long as you appeal to the person in the back of the room.
Adaptation, whether it means pandering to the overall ‘few’ or the lay majority is never masturbation, and never playing with yourself, it’s plain INTELLIGENT! Any debater interested in picking up ballots will tell you the same.
ON OTHER ISSUES:
- Stop with the masturbation example, it’s rude, and flat out stupid. The same argument could be applied to you, and you appeal soley to your base RATHER than advocating ADAPTATION — which is what I’m doing. I’m not saying always go circuit, or it’s converse, I’m saying at the end of the day SMART DEBATE = DEBATING THAT APPEALS TO YOUR JUDGE! I honestly don’t care if that judge is flow or lay or w/ev.
- Where did the morality issue come from? And NO the point of LD isn’t to show who is more moral, that is decided in the value debate, and is contextual to the rounds themselves depending on the values being run, not the event. You’re not helping your case the LD = X when you make broad (incorrect) generalizations about it.
Additionally, I just think it’s kind of dumb that you’d advocate presenting LD in a manner all moral agents can understand…guess I’ll start debating in every single language that ever existed at the same time every round, because god forbid we alienate non-english speakers as a or im-moral. LOL
SO HERE’S WHAT IT BREAKS DOWN TO:
If you can’t do circuit debate, then avoid the circuit and stick to your local tournaments. (that or run to PFD with your tail between your legs)
If you don’t like lay debate, then avoid it and stay on the circuit.
If you are smart, you’d realize there is value in both styles, you’d learn to be proficient at both. And you’d simply ADAPT to your judge, instead of avoiding tourneys or complaining when you drop a round because you failed to ADAPT.
Posted from: 76.176.50.1
April 24th, 2007 22:42
Wow, you guys are actually debating… about how you are debating… about how me and Matt debate.
And it sounds to me like Nocal debate is just policy with one person. Pardon Southern California for staying tru’ to da’ rootz.
Posted from: 24.176.242.93
April 24th, 2007 23:52
By the way congrats on the finish.
I’m not talking about you guys specifically, or any debater specifically. I think the convo has left the issue of you guys onto the broader subject of defining ‘good debate’.
Posted from: 128.12.50.69
April 25th, 2007 02:00
fritzpielstick-
You caught me. I secretly hate lay debate, and I’m only defending it because I want people on the circuit to think it’s cool and to add value to my “prestigious laurels [and] bragging rights.” Luckily, an “elite” debater like yourself was “endowed” with the superior intellect to blow my cover. (Honestly, not everyone outside debate is a moron, nor is debate a special club of the chosen ones. Stop being so full of yourself and realize that debaters are just highschool kids with an extra-curric).
Lay judges don’t “limit [your] capacity” any more than a 4 minute 1AR does. Their lack of knowledge of the activity is a constraint that forces you to build certain skills, just like the 1AR forces you to get good at issue selection, word economy, and on the circuit, speed.
Steve-
When I say “deal with it,” that’s exactly what I mean. As much fun as it is to accuse me of fallacy, I think you’re missing my point. I’m not mixing up the descriptive and normative questions because there IS NO normative question. Asking what debate “ought to be” is as stupid as asking what art ought to be. Different people like different styles. Nobody forces modern art fans to look at impressionist paintings, just like nobody is forcing you to attend the CHSSA state tournament. If you disagree with its conception of debate, don’t go, and feel free to start your own league like BACDL. When you say these arguments “insulate tournaments, which students pay for, from any meaningful change,” you act like the state tournament is some democratic institution stealing taxpayers’ money. Again: CHSSA never claims to represent your views, nor does it in any way compel you to attend, and therefore pay.
You claim that a tournament that rewards lay debate is as arbitrary as a tournament where people try to bench me. The punch of that example stems from the idea that, well, nobody in their right mind would call bobby-benching “debating.” As such, you’re appealing to a common usage definition of what debate is. By that standard, Cali state is far truer to the idea of “debate” than the TOC, because when most people think of debate, they think of the kind of things you’d see in a lay round.
I’m not arguing that lay debate is the “right way” to debate. I’m just _informing_ you that there are plently of people, both coaches and debaters, who find lay debate to be a worthwhile time investment and prefer it to circuit debate. I’m not telling you that you ought to be muslim or that you ought to study physics, so stop telling CHSSA that they ought to orient THEIR tournament for circuit debate.
I think I and others have given plenty of reasons why we value lay debate. For those like fritzpielstick who still mentally equate “lay debate” and “bad debate,” you’re missing the fact that it takes both work and skill to be successful in front of a lay panel.
I’m pretty much done with debate. I’m not coaching anyone, I’m not debating in college, and I’m not teaching at camp this summer because of an internship. As such, I don’t really care about bragging rights or prestigious titles. Everyone in my dorm was a champion of something in high-school. The only thing that’s still important is the skills I gained, both on the circuit and in front of lays. Try stepping back and taking a deep breath.
Posted from: 66.60.188.6
April 25th, 2007 06:28
Robert, I think you have the right of it. I am glad you aren’t slavishly loyal to any one style of debate. I hadn’t realized that we were in such violent agreement.
Nick, not all of us NorCal debators are “circuit” debators. I’m about as “lay” as they come (though i understand and can follow flow if need be), and I’m from the Sacramento Valley.
Posted from: 24.176.242.93
April 25th, 2007 07:03
Haha, alright thanks Steve. Good to hear, I suppose.
Posted from: 71.139.21.18
April 25th, 2007 07:23
I like how Eric Palmer is a neg hack as well.
Posted from: 75.37.17.209
April 25th, 2007 16:26
what effective aff strategies have you guys found for defeating the multiple a priori neg case strat?
theory frameworks/mult a priori bad ?
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
April 25th, 2007 16:46
In response to Kevin Cotter’s first post:
I would like to start off by congradulating everyone who competed at this tournament, especially San Digueto on the close out. I am not writing to defend or oppose lay debate or anyone involved in this tournament. I think both circuit debate and lay debate have inherent educational worth. Despite being on a more circuity-style focused team, I learned from the bright debate out there (i.e. Dan Meyers, Eric Palmer, Prashant Rai, Stephen Hess, Dave Mcginnis, and Mike Bietz (what he told me on the LDboards) that a truly skilled debater must learn to adapt to both styles. This means it is inappropriate to label a certain style of debate as oppressive, reactionary, or “verbal masturbation.” The only way for debate to fluorish as an activity is if lay debaters and circuit debaters alike learn to respect different styles.
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
April 25th, 2007 16:47
bright debate minds*
Posted from: 67.182.80.140
April 25th, 2007 21:12
“Yo alex, why all the hating? I know for a fact people could be posting on here criticizing the way you debate and your performance at the tournament but they’re not.”
That’s sad, I like constructive criticism.
Also, since when am I hating? I stated Kwan would’ve seemed very creative and innovative to flow judges. Too bad there was only one in our round?
Regardless, there has to be adaptation, even if it isn’t to the extreme of lay vs circuit judges. When presenting your case, it’s simply a bonehead move to read down the page and be oblivious to judge reactions. When Kwan was redefining nat. sov. as civilian self-determination, the judges’ faces were priceless. These mom and pop judges were like, What the hell? At that point, he should’ve went for a different approach, I don’t care if these judges were lay, circuit, deaf, whatever. It’s crucial to observe judge reactions and adjust accordingly. Whether its a slight tweak or a redirection of your whole case, you can’t expect 100% of the judges to buy your position and just keep on trudging through it.
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 26th, 2007 21:20
Bobby Holley:
Lay judges don’t “limit [your] capacity” any more than a 4 minute 1AR does. Their lack of knowledge of the activity is a constraint that forces you to build certain skills, just like the 1AR forces you to get good at issue selection, word economy, and on the circuit, speed.
Exactly. A judge isn’t going to understand you if you desperately have to word economize and go fast in the AR speeches.
Therefore, lay judges shouldn’t judge.
Sure, you can “build skills” by communicating with judges, but that isn’t what the focus of debate should be! Debate is about, well, debating. It is an excercise is outwitting and outworking your opponent. Having to do this in front of a person who doesn’t understand you hinders your ability to do it in the first place. When you are in front of judges who can keep up with you and can think on an equal or higher plane, than all you have to focus on is outsmarting you opponent. It makes debate intellectual, not a crapshoot contest whose sole focus is to determine which teenager-in-suit speaks the prettiest.
LAY JUDGES AREN’T STUPID, THEY ARE JUST PEOPLE WHO, DESPITE BEING NICE, HARNWORKING MEMBERS OF SOCIETY, ARE NOT, AND I REPEAT, NOT, QUALIFIED TO JUDGE HIGH-LEVEL DEBATE.
And, saying that debaters are smarter and more intellectual than other students does not make me full of myself. It’s the truth. We can speak publicly and think on our feet. We have those abilities. If I were to walk up to a football player and tell him that I can outdebate him, I would be right. If the football then told me that he could throw a longer pass than me, he would be right.
That’s the way it works. Now get over yourself and stop pretending that you’re the supreme arbiter of justice, fairness, and politeness.
btw, guys. i can build my “persuade-lay-judges into-thinking-I’m-right” skills in other areas. I do extemp. I enjoy it. I have qualled for state and nats twice in it. All you do in extemp is prove a random judge that you are right.
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 26th, 2007 21:21
HARNWORKING lol
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 26th, 2007 21:21
or lqtm…
Posted from: 128.12.39.83
April 27th, 2007 13:40
For someone who prides himself in being such a h4rdc0r3 fl0w db8r, you’re hilariously non-responsive. You still go on about “what the focus of debate should be,” which presumes that there is somehow an ‘ought’ to debate. I think I’ve addressed that thoroughly.
Your condescending attitude towards your peers isn’t going to make your very many friends in life, and it’s sadly going to perpetuate the stereotype that debaters are pompous assholes. Your earlier post about how l33t you are was the subject of a good laugh by the people who happened to be hanging out in my room at the time. Afterward, Matt Sheehan (Dan Sheehan’s non-debating younger brother who, mysteriously, is just as smart and well-read Dan) leaned back and said “yep, sounds like a debater.” Come back in four years and read what you wrote here. You’ll be embarrassed.
“Now get over yourself and stop pretending that you’re the supreme arbiter of justice, fairness, and politeness.”
ROFL
Posted from: 130.49.58.41
April 27th, 2007 16:43
LOL U HAVE NO FRIENDS, NO REALLY LIEK NAME 5 FRIENDS.
Posted from: 76.176.232.147
April 28th, 2007 13:53
This is for all of you who are going to nats, you will be seeing Matt Slemon there!!!! So good luck! I also go to San Dieguito Academy and we are mostly a policy school, so it was really nice having Nick and Matt win State.
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 28th, 2007 15:14
Bobby Holley:
If debate debate doesn’t have oughts, then why don’t we just read poetry?
I know that you are judge. Therefore, I can logically specualate that when you judge a round, you drop the person who doesn’t extend their case. I can also logically speculate that this is because you see the importance of extending claims. So then, I can logically speculate that debaters “ought” to extend their claims.
Moreover, claiming that debate rounds should be evaluated by people who know debate doesn’t make me a pompous ass. If it did, then I would be equally pompous in claiming that:
1. Only people with law degrees should be judges and lawyers.
2. Only people with drivers licenses’ should drive cars.
3. Only people who know a lot about baseball should be major-league umpires.
4. Only people who are certified to teach children should be teachers.
5. Only people with good grades and good SAT scores should get into good colleges.
6. Only people with engineering degrees should be designing cars.
Have I made my point?
Debate rounds are hard to judge. I am not an asshole for saying that.
I would continue further, but I’m still not sure what exactly you are saying. Why on earth are you trying to justify having deliberately lay judging pools at state tournaments? Is it to defend the legitimacy of a tournamet that you won. Because if it is, then maybe it would be better to point out that you were a legit circuit debater.
I am not trying to belittle the accomplishments of you, Matt, or Nick. Rather, I am simply stating my oppinion that, because debate rounds are (generally) difficult to evaluate, the evaluation should be done by people who best know the ins-and-outs of the event.
Let’s kill this thread now.
Posted from: 128.12.39.83
April 28th, 2007 15:54
I believe I’ve answered each of your questions several times already.
1-I’m not defending Cali State because I won it. I’m done with debate and I have no interest your or anyone else’s opinion of me as a debater. I’m defending Cali State because it features an oft-misunderstood style of debate that I happened to enjoy.
2-I didn’t accuse you of arrogance because of your belief that debate should be judged by circuit judges, but rather because of your implication that non-debater high schoolers are morons. They’re not.
3-I agree that circuit debate should be judged by circuit judges. I also support another style of debate called lay debate and believe that you have no right to tell lay tournaments what to do. I also support poetry, including slams and freestyle battles. If a coffee shop wants to call a freestyle battle “The Great Lyrical Debate”, they are free to do that and shouldn’t have to bother with you pestering the patrons to flow.
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 28th, 2007 18:45
1. You can have your opinion that lay debate is legitimate. All I am claiming is that in a tournament designed to find the best debater in the state of California, the focus should be placed on the substance of the arguments, not the polish of the speaking. Most lay judges simply cannot keep up with high-level debaters, and therefore, they vote for the better speaker, or the vote based off of preexisting personal biases towards the topic. Therefore, they shouldn’t be left with the task of finding the best LDer in California.
2. I don’t think that non-debaters are morons. I think that debaters are smart people, who are (for the most part) more well-versed in a lot of things. Saying debaters are smart is NOT the same thing as saying that non-debaters are stupid. But even if I did believe that non-debaters were morons (which i don’t), perpetrating a stereotype that debaters are pompous asswipes and personally insulting me are just as offensive and non-progressive.
3. i think I can ‘cross apply’ my first argument. circuit debate should be judged by circuit judges, AND the state tournament should feature circuit debate, for a few reasons:
a) It requires the person to think on their feet more.
b) It requires the person to write more interesting cases
c) It requires more work and dedication.
d) It deemphasizes “poised speaking” and reinforces the fundamental idea that debate is about argumentation.
We’re really the only ones posting here at this point. Let’s stop now.
Posted from: 128.12.39.83
April 28th, 2007 19:49
“As debaters, we are among an elite group of smart, intellectually minded students who have all been endowed with the capacity to argue about things that other kids our age cannot even comprehend….saying that debaters are smarter and more intellectual than other students does not make me full of myself. It’s the truth.”
I think the implication of those statements is pretty clear. If you’ve changed your mind about being smarter than everyone else, you can go ahead and say that, but don’t accuse me of making unfounded accusations.
You grant that lay debate is legitimate. That’s a start. However, your next statement ignores two axioms that have already been established in this thread.
“in a tournament designed to find the best debater in the state of California”
First, since lay debate is legitimate, the phrase “best debater” is a misnomer because there is more than one legitimate type of debate. Second, it has also been established that CHSSA state is designed to find the best lay debater in california, not the best circuit debater.
You provide several reasons why you think circuit debate is better, but they’re circular because they appeal to the values of circuit debate to justify circuit debate. There are plenty of reasons why lay debate is important too. This is why I’ve said several times that there is no ‘ought’ issue with debate styles. CHSSA chose one, greenhill chose another, and the fictional coffee shop chose a third. Why not let diversity thrive?
Making arguments and asking people to stop responding is kind of wack. If you don’t want to have this discussion anymore, then you can be the one to end it.
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 28th, 2007 21:00
“You grant that lay debate is legitimate. That’s a start. However, your next statement ignores two axioms that have already been established in this thread.”
I never said that lay debate is legitimate.
I said that YOU CAN THINK that it is legitimate. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG.
THEREFORE:
1. Your claim that CHSSA State is legit is unmerited because only you think that lay debate is legit.
2. The title of “Best Debater” is ridiculous in the context of lay debate, because lay debate is not legit (I’ll “extend my arguments” on that later).
3. I highly doubt that CHSSA would honestly claim that the purpose of the state tournament is to find the best “lay debater” in the state. But if it is, then the CHSSA peeps all need to be electroshocked, if only for the betterment of society.
I looked up the word “debate” in Webster’s and it gave 10 definitions, all of which roughly amounted to “an argument” or “a discussion of ideas”. oddly enough, the “in an effort to appeal to some oblivious third party” clause was mysteriously absent. Go figure.
I can’t believe, that as a debater, that you would assert that the fundamental purpose of debate is to speak prettier than the other person. Because that’s what lay debate stipulates…
———————————————-
“…saying that debaters are smarter and more intellectual than other students does not make me full of myself. It’s the truth.”
Once again, you miss my point. If I claim that a debater is smart, or is even smarter than another student, that DOES NOT MEAN THE OTHER STUDENT IS STUPID, or is a “moron”. I did better on the PSAT than a lot of my friends did, but that doesn’t mean that they are morons.
But the issue of whether non-debaters are morons is really irrelevant anyway. if we can assume that debaters, regardless of their comparisos to respective non-debaters, DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO THINK AT A HIGH LEVEL, than we can conclude that lay debate downplays our ability to do so. When I am faced with a judge who will not understand my arguments, then all the work I put into conceptualizing and typing up those arguments goes down the drain. Moreover, the fact that my opponent cannot respond to them is also irrelevant, because my judge, much like Towlie on South Park, has “no idea what’s goin’ on!”.
———————————————-
So then, we can assume that CHSSA state is illegit for the following reasons:
1. It fucks with the idea of debate , making it a pretty-speaking contest, rather than an intellectual battle of ideas.
2. The person who is best at speaking pretty usually wins, not the person who has the best ideas/ drops the fewest arguments. Therefore, the “Best Debater” is actually just the “most personable speaker/guy or girl that was easiest for my neighbor to understand”.
3. According to you, the purpose of it is to “find the best lay debater”. Need I say more?
———————————————–
So then, what does this all mean?
1. CHSSA State is illegit and it doesn’t find the best debater.
a) It hinders creativity and intellectualism
b) It fosters biased/random decisions
c) It places style ahead of substance
d) it devalues the hard work of the debater.
2. Your logic that lay debate is, in fact, circular, because all of your claims to its legitimacy center around the sentiment that persuasion-at-the-expense-of-substance-debate is legit, which it isn’t.
Or, they stem from the idea that I supposedly claimed that lay debate is legit, which i didn’t.
3. That the CHSSA tournament should utilize flow judges and emphasize flow debating.
———————————————–
Finally, I hope you actually read my post, and respond in a way that doesn’t constitute you shitting out Matt Sheehan’s opinion of me or claiming that I am a pompus ass.
Posted from: 128.12.39.83
April 28th, 2007 22:05
Dear Fritz,
You’re right. Lifelong educators like Nermin Kamel, Gay Brasher, and Kim Jones ought to be electro-shocked for the good of society. Saying that you’re smarter and can think at a higher level than everyone else in no way belittles their intelligence. Lay debate is all about speaking pretty, and you’re definitely not arrogant.
kthxbye.
Posted from: 68.181.252.43
April 29th, 2007 01:54
I vote for Bobby on the flow.
Posted from: 24.5.180.172
April 29th, 2007 02:53
if you haven’t competed at chssa state before, don’t criticize it by calling it illegitimate. there takes more skills, rather than just “speaking pretty”, in order to win that tournament.
i think if i had to judge this, i would agree with bobby. lay debate is just another style of debate and just as legitimate as flow debate.
Posted from: 67.182.80.140
April 29th, 2007 14:31
“I vote for Bobby on the flow.”
lmao
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 29th, 2007 14:46
“… there takes more skills, rather than just “speaking pretty”, in order to win that tournament.”
You’re right. There ARE more skills that I forgot about. It’s also VERY IMPORTANT that you dumb-down your arguments and wear a nice suit! STUPID! How could I forget!!??
———————————————–
Bobby:
If you think I’m an asshole, then whatever. I give so little of a shit that you couldn’t see it with the world’s biggest microscope.
Unfortunately, mudslinging personal insults at me just doesn’t prove that lay debate is legitimate.
Nor does twisting my words.
Nor does claiming that CHSSA peeps are smart and well educated. FDR was smart and well-educated, but interning 120,000 japanese americans certainly wasn’t.
Nor does claiming that lay debate builds communication skills.
Nor does ignoring the multiple arguments that I’ve made, that prove the contrary.
———————————————–
You really haven’t made any substantive claims to prove that lay debate is legitimate, other than:
1. You think it is.
2. CHSSA has it (therefore it must be good)
3. I’m an asshole.
Sorry, you just aren’t saying anything.
And you are absolutely, completely, 100% totally NOT just defending the legitimacy of a tournament that you won.
Posted from: 129.116.60.220
April 29th, 2007 15:40
“You’re right. There ARE more skills that I forgot about. It’s also VERY IMPORTANT that you dumb-down your arguments and wear a nice suit! STUPID! How could I forget!!??”
Wow. I really hope that local and otherwise-minded coaches don’t get the perception that all circuit debaters are as incredibly arrogant as you from your posts. Contrary to popular belief, we are not all intent on colonizing every part of debate until it becomes a microcosm of the TOC.
I have nothing more productive to say that that, and this: more debate is good debate. It really doesn’t strike me as a problem if there are multiple circuits which each validate different kinds of debate. If there’s such a massive demand in California for a circuit state tournament, then MAKE ONE. It works very well in Texas.
Posted from: 128.12.68.178
April 29th, 2007 16:41
I think that if I were to debate a jar of peanut butter, I would let the jar of peanut butter win. That way, maybe it would let me take some of its contents to spread on some toast so that I could make a delicious peanut-butter-and-Nutella sandwich. Yum.
Also, revenge of the gangbang zombies!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EECLpP0dz9o
Posted from: 70.137.153.214
April 30th, 2007 00:24
OK, if this was a flow debate, Bobby would win it. Basically, there is no “narrow” definition of debate. Flow debate is a debate. Lay debate is a debate. Flow debate teaches some important skils. Lay debate teaches other important skills. Figuring out who is a better debater is as impossible as figuring out who is a more skilled person by having a dancer compete against a chess player. CHSSA, by refusing to hire flow judges claimes that it is a lay tournament made to determine the best lay debater, which it did. BACDL, by not allowing parents to judge claimes to be a tournament aimed at determining the best flow debater, which it does. It’s impossible to have a “legit” or an “unlegit” type of debate, just like it’s impossible to say that dancing is nonlegit because the chess players who worked really hard to learn chess weren’t considered to be good dancers.
That’s not said to undermine fritzpielstick’s ability to bebate, but you just can’t prove something that’s false. Actually, I kinda got convinced that CHSSA should really make it clear to colleges that would be impressed by the title of a State Champion that it is a lay tourney.
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
April 30th, 2007 18:39
“If there’s such a massive demand in California for a circuit state tournament, then MAKE ONE. It works very well in Texas.”
That’s because there are people in high positions in texas who actually care about debate.
The problem with CHSSA is that it is so heavily biased towards speech and congress. The reason for this is that the top people in CHSSA are predominantly speech and congress coaches. (There are some exceptions: Chuck Ballingall and Kim Jones, to name a couple). But for the most part, the tournament has a bias towards speech and congress.
And, local circuit/lay peeps already think that flow debaters are scary asswipes. That is why they are anti-flow debate.
More debate isn’t good if the debate in question is contradictory to the purpose of debate. Using the same logic, I could argue that in a school with a teaching shortage, they should raid the local homeless shelter for teachers, so that way they would have more.
My biggest beef with lay debate is that you can’t win by simply outdebating the other person. It is counterintuitive. This is a point that no one has really touched much.
If lay debate teaches skills, then those skills aren’t unique to debate. If I want to learn to be personable and persuasive, I could write an OO or something. If I wanted to blow away a judge with my amazing oration skills, I could do congress.
Flow debate, on the other hand, teaches skills that can be acquired only by debating. You can’t think on your feet faster by doing speech.
Finally, claiming that lay debate is equally legit doesn’t prove that CHSSA should have it instead of flow debate. So, at best we tie.
Posted from: 76.193.219.132
April 30th, 2007 20:26
First, on the issue of this:
“That’s because there are people in high positions in texas who actually care about debate.”
The implication of this is that people in high positions in CAHSSA don’t care about debate.
The assumption of this is that debate can only be defined as circuit debate.
I quickly gandered thru the CAHSSA website and I don’t think this is true. You already spoke to the creds of secretary of cahssa, and affirmed them. The president of cahssa is my coach and she cares about debate, she debated in high school and lets me travel to debate on the circuit. The area one rep is Keller-Firestone, the coach of Homestead-which not only had LDers on the circuit this year, but has blossomed in policy in the past. The Debate rep is Mr. Wolfe from Bellarmine, who I noticed has judged in policy at TOC-not to mention coached a team that has really excelled in almost every event they have taken on ( I can’t say “every event” cause I don’t know too much about thematic interp)
I don’t know anything about the webmaster and the other area reps (I’m not familiar with those parts of California speech and debate) on the website, so I’m supporting the people that I can recognize to my best extent.
Secondly, in regards to a state circuit tournament.
I think when john referred to making a state tournament, it doesn’t necessarily have to be thru cahssa. I may be wrong (not too well versed on texas debate), but UIL seems to be the “lay” tournament and tfa is the circuit one. They are both from different organizations. Currently, in California, if there is an organization that could create such a tournament it would be BACDL. I remember reading somewhere in their original schedule that they would have liked to have some kind of California Varsity Circuit finals, with invitations being based on the points accumulated throughout the year.
I think if you would like a circuit state tournament expecting CAHSSA to help make it an event is absurd-it’s not their purpose, and it’s not tied to TOC, nor does it have an obligation to conform to that philosophy. It’s their party, they can do what they want, and participating in it means that you know what you are getting into.
Complaining here that CAHSSA doesn’t promote circuit debate isn’t going to do jackshit to advance your debate desires or whatnot
If you do want to have circuit debate finals you just need to find a way to continue the vision of BACDL (since mcginnis is leaving– I believe he even offered on the boards to provide necessary information to running bacdl type tournaments to people who are interested).
peace. and while we’re posting youtube links, please watch this and feel happy feelings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s26z6I8RBFs
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
April 30th, 2007 20:47
honestly if you guys are gonna spam with youtube links please be entertaining.
behold: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZpPf-q2_es
Posted from: 69.105.172.252
April 30th, 2007 22:11
i did not read all of it, only scanned it and don’t be pissed if i am redundant
i think it is amusing that everyone tries to justify what debate is or should be. given the multitude of techniques, the range of ideas and arguments it seems difficult to argue what is best for it.
lay debate is nothing more than those who don’t have direct connection with the community. circuit debate means nothing more than debating around the country on weekends in a circular fashion. the connotation that it is associated with now might mean fast complex debate but i’ve encountered other styles on the circuit as well as those. personally, fast debate is awesome. i go fast in cali with lay judges and they pick me up or give me 15 (ouch) speaks in semis of regional tournies. i made like 10th place at the state tourney and had five warrants for my 2 contentions on neg and read fast using debate lingo. i ran a fem disad on aff. the point is you have to present it to whoever your talking to or stick to your ideas and be able to accept the consequences.
debate is never something tangible or something that can be described whollistically one way and codified. debate is what it is. debate is discourse and discussion. if someone choses to speak fast then so be it, but that act of speaking fast does not make it better. this is because what is “better” is subject – presentation is subjective as if “flow”. the flow is a piece of paper with squiggly lines written in cool flippy pilot G-5 (those are the best) pens. everyone flows differently and is liable to making mistakes. there is no such thing as a taba rasa (sp?) judge. on the flow different things are calculated differently and all debaters don’t solve conflicts. (i think the discussion of non-intervention on ldboards clarifies this). i have had many judges vote me down who are supposedly circuit on things they don’t understand or they think are far-fetched (like my free will does not exist case). in other words, if you can’t handle someone beating you with a different style then you should not be in a subjective activity like deabte.
but adopting one strategy seems stupid. why go slow when someone has 100 arguments? or conversely, why go fast if some has 3? to show off? to “deepen your intellectual experience”? that seems kind of far-fetched and a little conceeded. i don’t think there is a direct correlation between successful people and the speed in which they talk (if there is then i am willing to hear it and accept defeat on this one point.;ps. don’t give me those cards about education through fast talk from policy files i want substantive proof)
the best people at what they do adapt. that is why policy debaters have 32987987435 different files – so they can change. if debate is about getting ahead later on in life (if it is or not) then learning only one type of style seems counter-intuitive. believe me, i am that crazy guy who runs a westernism (don’t ask) kritk and then reads cards that say contradicting is good and topicality is genocide. but to truly advance in anything you have to give in to some degree. the best debaters are those who can do both. the dj’s who could go to semis in toc and then win nationals.
those who are hardcore one way or another are because they personally see that as adventageous or fun or better or whatever. that does not mean that is the case though. so long story short either adapt or be fine with the results when you don’t and save the “my debate is what debate really is” crap for someone who give a damn.
Posted from: 204.180.72.93
April 30th, 2007 22:13
Why are you all still talking about this? “fritzpielstick”, you know I answered every one of your points a couple weeks ago, right?
Posted from: 24.5.180.172
April 30th, 2007 23:00
here’s a better one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLt5atoZSQA
Posted from: 169.229.77.223
April 30th, 2007 23:56
I think this discussion is pretty much over, and I don’t feel like rekindling the flames. I also don’t really have any clue who fritzy is, nor do I care.
But if you really think that speech coaches don’t care about debate, you have no clue what you’re talking about. Personally, I would have had nowhere near the kind of exposure to debate if my coach, Ms. Brasher (an IE coach if there ever was one) had that attitude. The support and dedication she provides to students in EVERY event shouldn’t be shrugged off like that. From what I understand, my experience is not particularly unique. Mr. Lindsey at Logan is another great example of this – their IE excellence seems to have been no bar to the incredible showings of Justin, Mike, Bilal, etc…
I mean c’mon dude, I get that you think circuit debate is incredibly superior and all, but don’t take shots at people you don’t know, k?
Posted from: 75.11.167.77
May 3rd, 2007 07:28
What’s LD?
I second whoever said it: When did persuasion become uncool?
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
May 3rd, 2007 19:21
Guys, all I think is that debate rounds should be evaluated solely based off of who won the important arguments. I really don’t give a shit what the round consists of (be it 5 arguments or 500). I don’t care if it’s a local circuit novice prelim round or TOC finals. All I am trying to say is that debate rounds should be evaluated by people who vote off of the arguments, not silly things like speaking style, appearance, demeanor etc.
How is this wrong?
Sorry if I come off as a douchebag, but I think that my point is pretty simple and clear, and that you are all really blowing this whole thing out of proportion.
Advocating flow debate does not mean that I want to turn every debate round into a TOC round. I just want the person who did the better substantive debating to get the ballot.
I can’t believe someone would disagree with this sentiment.
Posted from: 204.180.72.93
May 4th, 2007 03:31
You’re still ignoring everything I said. “Objectively” evaluating the round off the arguments is not objective, it’s a paradigm and it maps values onto the debate and forces the debaters to adhere to those values.
There’s no such thing as evaluating the round off the arguments, the question is which way you want to be biased.
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
May 5th, 2007 09:28
“Objectively” evaluating the round off of who was nicer or spoke better is “objectively” bullshit.
Even if all debate stipulates that the judge perpetrate some paradigm or value, I don’t think that “support your case/don’t drop arguments” is to obscure or unreasonable.
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
May 5th, 2007 09:30
And voting off the arguments, at the very least, allows for LESS bias/randomness.
Posted from: 71.104.254.170
May 5th, 2007 12:27
What are you arguing, anyway? Is your argument that, because flow judges can on occasion be biased, my neighbor should be judging state finals? wtf?
There is absolutely no reason why a state tournament should be evaluated by people who don’t know very much about debate.