Comments on: Good Evening Mr. and Mrs. North and South America and All Ships At Sea, Let’s Go to Press! http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/03/10/good-evening-mr-and-mrs-north-and-south-america-and-all-ships-at-sea-lets-go-to-press/ Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:50:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: jay http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/03/10/good-evening-mr-and-mrs-north-and-south-america-and-all-ships-at-sea-lets-go-to-press/#comment-205881 jay Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:54:44 +0000 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/03/10/good-evening-mr-and-mrs-north-and-south-america-and-all-ships-at-sea-lets-go-to-press/#comment-205881 I'm seriously not posting on this thread again, because it's kind of pathetic that I spent this much time on this already. I bet there's 2 people reading this thread lol. So ernie if you want to reply, that's cool, but I'm out. I’m seriously not posting on this thread again, because it’s kind of pathetic that I spent this much time on this already. I bet there’s 2 people reading this thread lol.

So ernie if you want to reply, that’s cool, but I’m out.

]]> By: jay http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/03/10/good-evening-mr-and-mrs-north-and-south-america-and-all-ships-at-sea-lets-go-to-press/#comment-205879 jay Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:53:31 +0000 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/03/10/good-evening-mr-and-mrs-north-and-south-america-and-all-ships-at-sea-lets-go-to-press/#comment-205879 First, Ernie, your argument that you're more likely to get args down than the opponent is precisely my argument. Suppose for a give debater your threshold is 350wpm and the opponents is 300. This implies that the fast debater maximizes his/her advantage by speaking at 350wpm. If you don't yell clear, they have to guess. They would, I imagine, be conservative, and preemptively slow down since the ultimate devastating impact would be to go so fast that your arguments are missed. They slow down to 325, maybe 300. So in a world where you yell clear, you enable one debater to be 25-50 wpm faster, leaving the opponent behind. AT: Miscellaneous arguments... yelling clear takes 1 second, and I'm not sure it impedes flowing. AT: The opponent is relieved when you yell clear. The other debater may be relieved when you yell clear, but that's just means they're happy that you don't get it either/the opponent might slow down. Theoretically, though, they'd be better off if you didn't get it. AT: You're not yelling clear continuously, so you're not enabling a precise threshold. Agreed that you're not continually yelling clear, but the debater still uses your yelling of clear to find a fairly precise threshold. 1-2 yellings of clear is all it takes. AT: you already punished them by docking speaks. The speaks punishment is non-unique. Whether or not you yell clear, your paradigm for docking speaks in response to lack of clarity remains the same. AT: The room is noisy/you're asleep in the morning, so you should let them know when you need more clarity. I've been conceding that judge's speed threshold varies throughout this discussion. That doesn't imply that the debater should get to know the threshold. So the room noise and judge humanity arguments don't have much impact on my arguments. AT: Speed good Fast debate might be good, but I'd argue that this principle has limits since most fast debater actually aren't efficient and could make as many and probably higher quality arguments if they slowed down a bit. Even if we agreed on speed good, I still prefer competitive equity over the advantages of higher speeds. So, if yelling clear hurts the other debater, to me, it outweighs the "lost" advantage of higher speeds. First, Ernie, your argument that you’re more likely to get args down than the opponent is precisely my argument. Suppose for a give debater your threshold is 350wpm and the opponents is 300. This implies that the fast debater maximizes his/her advantage by speaking at 350wpm. If you don’t yell clear, they have to guess. They would, I imagine, be conservative, and preemptively slow down since the ultimate devastating impact would be to go so fast that your arguments are missed. They slow down to 325, maybe 300.

So in a world where you yell clear, you enable one debater to be 25-50 wpm faster, leaving the opponent behind.

AT: Miscellaneous arguments…
yelling clear takes 1 second, and I’m not sure it impedes flowing.

AT: The opponent is relieved when you yell clear.
The other debater may be relieved when you yell clear, but that’s just means they’re happy that you don’t get it either/the opponent might slow down. Theoretically, though, they’d be better off if you didn’t get it.

AT: You’re not yelling clear continuously, so you’re not enabling a precise threshold.

Agreed that you’re not continually yelling clear, but the debater still uses your yelling of clear to find a fairly precise threshold. 1-2 yellings of clear is all it takes.

AT: you already punished them by docking speaks.
The speaks punishment is non-unique. Whether or not you yell clear, your paradigm for docking speaks in response to lack of clarity remains the same.

AT: The room is noisy/you’re asleep in the morning, so you should let them know when you need more clarity.

I’ve been conceding that judge’s speed threshold varies throughout this discussion. That doesn’t imply that the debater should get to know the threshold. So the room noise and judge humanity arguments don’t have much impact on my arguments.

AT: Speed good
Fast debate might be good, but I’d argue that this principle has limits since most fast debater actually aren’t efficient and could make as many and probably higher quality arguments if they slowed down a bit. Even if we agreed on speed good, I still prefer competitive equity over the advantages of higher speeds. So, if yelling clear hurts the other debater, to me, it outweighs the “lost” advantage of higher speeds.

]]> By: Ernie http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/03/10/good-evening-mr-and-mrs-north-and-south-america-and-all-ships-at-sea-lets-go-to-press/#comment-205684 Ernie Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:59:05 +0000 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/03/10/good-evening-mr-and-mrs-north-and-south-america-and-all-ships-at-sea-lets-go-to-press/#comment-205684 Jay- 1. I don't think it advantages the fast debater. See my argument about how I'm likely to get down more than the opponent. Almost every time I've asked one debater to clear up/slow down, the other debater has shown a non-verbal sign of approval. Moreover, I'm not continually yelling clear to let the debater adjust to my "maximum"--once or twice is enough. They are still punished by me not flowing while I yell clear and the arguments I missed in the mean time; moreover, speaker points still go down. Finally, see my argument about how room conditions vary and sometimes I can't tell that this is the case until the round has started. In the end, I don't think its an incredibly big deal. I really don't see any reason why debaters are substantively/structurally disadvantaged. I think that fast debate increases depth of argumentation when done right and, given that I can't articulate exactly where my limit is, I see no problem with allowing debaters to adjust. Oh--one final issue. Judges are humans, not robots. There are certain times of the day when I'm better able to flow than others. Thus, I think I have an obligation to let them know when I'm drastically below where I have been flow-wise other times that I've judged them. Jay-

1. I don’t think it advantages the fast debater. See my argument about how I’m likely to get down more than the opponent. Almost every time I’ve asked one debater to clear up/slow down, the other debater has shown a non-verbal sign of approval. Moreover, I’m not continually yelling clear to let the debater adjust to my “maximum”–once or twice is enough. They are still punished by me not flowing while I yell clear and the arguments I missed in the mean time; moreover, speaker points still go down. Finally, see my argument about how room conditions vary and sometimes I can’t tell that this is the case until the round has started.

In the end, I don’t think its an incredibly big deal. I really don’t see any reason why debaters are substantively/structurally disadvantaged. I think that fast debate increases depth of argumentation when done right and, given that I can’t articulate exactly where my limit is, I see no problem with allowing debaters to adjust.

Oh–one final issue. Judges are humans, not robots. There are certain times of the day when I’m better able to flow than others. Thus, I think I have an obligation to let them know when I’m drastically below where I have been flow-wise other times that I’ve judged them.

]]> By: jay http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/03/10/good-evening-mr-and-mrs-north-and-south-america-and-all-ships-at-sea-lets-go-to-press/#comment-205397 jay Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:14:59 +0000 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/03/10/good-evening-mr-and-mrs-north-and-south-america-and-all-ships-at-sea-lets-go-to-press/#comment-205397 Ernie's point is the classic argument- theres no way the debater can know whether the judge's limit is 300 wpm or 350, and the judge him/herself cannot quantify it...so the judge should yell clear. But again, the point I make is that the debater doesn't have a right to know the exact threshold. Knowing the exact threshold advantages the fast debater. (see above arguments). So yelling clear substantively helps the fast debater. Ernie is right that there is a risk that my paradigm disadvantages fast debaters since they can't know whether they're too fast. Once again though, it trades off with the advantage of speed. So the choice for the debater is to make 25 answers at 350 wpm, causing me to miss 10% of the args, or make 20 at 300wpm, with me missing 5%. So, the debater has to learn how to balance risk. Also, remember that some cues regarding the judge's opinion always exist- for example, whether they're writing. Finally, even if both our advocacies harm one debater substantively, I would rather harm the fast debater, since they took the proactive choice to be fast to the point of being unclear. The opponent shouldn't be punished by the fast debater's lack of clarity. Yelling clear does exactly that. Ernie’s point is the classic argument- theres no way the debater can know whether the judge’s limit is 300 wpm or 350, and the judge him/herself cannot quantify it…so the judge should yell clear.

But again, the point I make is that the debater doesn’t have a right to know the exact threshold. Knowing the exact threshold advantages the fast debater. (see above arguments). So yelling clear substantively helps the fast debater.

Ernie is right that there is a risk that my paradigm disadvantages fast debaters since they can’t know whether they’re too fast. Once again though, it trades off with the advantage of speed.

So the choice for the debater is to make 25 answers at 350 wpm, causing me to miss 10% of the args, or make 20 at 300wpm, with me missing 5%. So, the debater has to learn how to balance risk. Also, remember that some cues regarding the judge’s opinion always exist- for example, whether they’re writing.

Finally, even if both our advocacies harm one debater substantively, I would rather harm the fast debater, since they took the proactive choice to be fast to the point of being unclear. The opponent shouldn’t be punished by the fast debater’s lack of clarity. Yelling clear does exactly that.

]]> By: bhill http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/03/10/good-evening-mr-and-mrs-north-and-south-america-and-all-ships-at-sea-lets-go-to-press/#comment-205290 bhill Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:50:20 +0000 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/03/10/good-evening-mr-and-mrs-north-and-south-america-and-all-ships-at-sea-lets-go-to-press/#comment-205290 I have to agree with jay here, at least in terms of speed. When a debater asks me to yell CLEAR if they aren't being clear or are being too fast I think there's a fundamental problem--why are you speaking in such a way that there's a potential you aren't being coherent? This is especially a problem in the beginnings of cases (esp aff ones) where debaters start at full speed, and fail the basics of good public speaking (i.e. that you should start slowly and increase in speed so that a person is familiar with your voice, that you should ORGANIZE arguments and pause to give judges time to write, etc.) If a debater isn't willing to put in the effort to make themselves as clear, coherent and understandable as possible, they are gambling that the judge will try to adapt to them by saying anything. Even though I know many refuse because it's a strategic advantage--see jay's point here: "regardless of whether the args are too fast for the judge, the opponent still has to TRY to answer, so knowing the judge’s threshold has ZERO effect (and definitely no positive effect) on the opponents strategy, while having positive effects (as discussed above) on the fast debaters strategy.)" On a different note, besides speed a fundamental problem I notice in delivery is that debaters speak WAY TOO SOFTLY and TOO QUIETLY. Even when I ask debaters to speak loudly they just patently refuse. As a result, I miss arguments, give up flowing, etc. Here's a hint: if there's a loud air conditioner....if the judge is sitting a distance away from you... if peopel are leaning in to try to hear you, you should probably raise the volume a bit. I have to agree with jay here, at least in terms of speed. When a debater asks me to yell CLEAR if they aren’t being clear or are being too fast I think there’s a fundamental problem–why are you speaking in such a way that there’s a potential you aren’t being coherent?

This is especially a problem in the beginnings of cases (esp aff ones) where debaters start at full speed, and fail the basics of good public speaking (i.e. that you should start slowly and increase in speed so that a person is familiar with your voice, that you should ORGANIZE arguments and pause to give judges time to write, etc.)

If a debater isn’t willing to put in the effort to make themselves as clear, coherent and understandable as possible, they are gambling that the judge will try to adapt to them by saying anything.

Even though I know many refuse because it’s a strategic advantage–see jay’s point here:

“regardless of whether the args are too fast for the judge, the opponent still has to TRY to answer, so knowing the judge’s threshold has ZERO effect (and definitely no positive effect) on the opponents strategy, while having positive effects (as discussed above) on the fast debaters strategy.)”

On a different note, besides speed a fundamental problem I notice in delivery is that debaters speak WAY TOO SOFTLY and TOO QUIETLY. Even when I ask debaters to speak loudly they just patently refuse. As a result, I miss arguments, give up flowing, etc.

Here’s a hint: if there’s a loud air conditioner….if the judge is sitting a distance away from you… if peopel are leaning in to try to hear you, you should probably raise the volume a bit.

]]> By: Ernie Rose http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/03/10/good-evening-mr-and-mrs-north-and-south-america-and-all-ships-at-sea-lets-go-to-press/#comment-205150 Ernie Rose Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:09:37 +0000 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/03/10/good-evening-mr-and-mrs-north-and-south-america-and-all-ships-at-sea-lets-go-to-press/#comment-205150 Also, room dynamics really change how easy it is to flow one debater from round to round. It is really hard for a debater to know when poor listening conditions exist--there are some real crappy rooms at MBA--so I think, given this, I have an obligation to once tell them I can't understand. Also, room dynamics really change how easy it is to flow one debater from round to round. It is really hard for a debater to know when poor listening conditions exist–there are some real crappy rooms at MBA–so I think, given this, I have an obligation to once tell them I can’t understand.

]]> By: Ernie Rose http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/03/10/good-evening-mr-and-mrs-north-and-south-america-and-all-ships-at-sea-lets-go-to-press/#comment-205149 Ernie Rose Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:07:36 +0000 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/03/10/good-evening-mr-and-mrs-north-and-south-america-and-all-ships-at-sea-lets-go-to-press/#comment-205149 yelling, not telling. yelling, not telling.

]]> By: Ernie Rose http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/03/10/good-evening-mr-and-mrs-north-and-south-america-and-all-ships-at-sea-lets-go-to-press/#comment-205148 Ernie Rose Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:06:47 +0000 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/03/10/good-evening-mr-and-mrs-north-and-south-america-and-all-ships-at-sea-lets-go-to-press/#comment-205148 What if a debater isn't loud enough? Should I let the debater go even if I can't hear her in order to avoid intervention? I yell clear because I have no way of showing in my paradigm when a debater is going too fast or at what point I can't really understand them. Given this, I am punishing a debater for 13 if I do not indicate to them that they are going too fast. I think we generally have an idea as to what a link is in debate, meaning that it is a debater's own fault if she fails to present one. I don't think there is a communal understanding on what 300 as opposed to 350 wpm sounds like because most people don't do drills (shame on those of you who don't). If debaters make me yell clear multiple times, they are punished through a drop in speaker points (and the fact that I am not flowing while I am telling clear). I don't think I'm advantaging the faster debater generally because I think I can usually flow at least part of what they are saying on my computer when they are going to fast/being too unclear while I doubt that the opponent can understand at all. I'm a crappy flower but computers make flowing much easier. What if a debater isn’t loud enough? Should I let the debater go even if I can’t hear her in order to avoid intervention?

I yell clear because I have no way of showing in my paradigm when a debater is going too fast or at what point I can’t really understand them. Given this, I am punishing a debater for 13 if I do not indicate to them that they are going too fast. I think we generally have an idea as to what a link is in debate, meaning that it is a debater’s own fault if she fails to present one. I don’t think there is a communal understanding on what 300 as opposed to 350 wpm sounds like because most people don’t do drills (shame on those of you who don’t). If debaters make me yell clear multiple times, they are punished through a drop in speaker points (and the fact that I am not flowing while I am telling clear). I don’t think I’m advantaging the faster debater generally because I think I can usually flow at least part of what they are saying on my computer when they are going to fast/being too unclear while I doubt that the opponent can understand at all. I’m a crappy flower but computers make flowing much easier.

]]> By: jay http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/03/10/good-evening-mr-and-mrs-north-and-south-america-and-all-ships-at-sea-lets-go-to-press/#comment-205018 jay Thu, 13 Mar 2008 05:39:33 +0000 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/03/10/good-evening-mr-and-mrs-north-and-south-america-and-all-ships-at-sea-lets-go-to-press/#comment-205018 Honestly the signposting sucks in the above message, but I doubt it matters at this point. I'm proabably not going to respond again... Honestly the signposting sucks in the above message, but I doubt it matters at this point. I’m proabably not going to respond again…

]]> By: jay http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/03/10/good-evening-mr-and-mrs-north-and-south-america-and-all-ships-at-sea-lets-go-to-press/#comment-205017 jay Thu, 13 Mar 2008 05:37:55 +0000 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/03/10/good-evening-mr-and-mrs-north-and-south-america-and-all-ships-at-sea-lets-go-to-press/#comment-205017 Re: Kamil On the "clear" yelling helps the opponent argument. This makes no sense. 1. It's pretty easy to watch the judge when you're only flowing. 2. regardless of whether the args are too fast for the judge, the opponent still has to TRY to answer, so knowing the judge's threshold has ZERO effect (and definitely no positive effect) on the opponents strategy, while having positive effects (as discussed above) on the fast debaters strategy. When I put up a paradigm, I am stipulating how I am going to judge (for example not yelling clear), and debaters may or may not adapt to my stipulation. I'm not sure that's me adapting to them. It is me trying to make my preferences publicly known, but that's self interest as much as anything. So no, I don't see how I adapt to debaters. "by admitting that different judges evaluate the same round in a different way is to say that adaptation is the most important aspect of debate. each judge likes to hear things differently and may evaluate the same rg in a different manner (as many have seen me do at various tourneys…). so yes, it is an inherent good." I have no idea how judge diversity changing evaluation of rounds means "adaptation is an inherent good" That doesn't seem to logically follow. RE: Smitty I'm not sure who has made the speed bad argument. I'm just making an argument about how judges should not enable or prevent speed. even if we agreed speed good, I think my arguments still apply completely on the issue of yelling clear. Finally, unless a VERY clearly articulated advantage is shown for yelling clear, it seems that the default should be for the judge to remain quiet. After all, why would we default to judges participating in the round? Re: Kamil
On the “clear” yelling helps the opponent argument. This makes no sense. 1. It’s pretty easy to watch the judge when you’re only flowing. 2. regardless of whether the args are too fast for the judge, the opponent still has to TRY to answer, so knowing the judge’s threshold has ZERO effect (and definitely no positive effect) on the opponents strategy, while having positive effects (as discussed above) on the fast debaters strategy.

When I put up a paradigm, I am stipulating how I am going to judge (for example not yelling clear), and debaters may or may not adapt to my stipulation. I’m not sure that’s me adapting to them. It is me trying to make my preferences publicly known, but that’s self interest as much as anything. So no, I don’t see how I adapt to debaters.

“by admitting that different judges evaluate the same round in a different way is to say that adaptation is the most important aspect of debate. each judge likes to hear things differently and may evaluate the same rg in a different manner (as many have seen me do at various tourneys…). so yes, it is an inherent good.”

I have no idea how judge diversity changing evaluation of rounds means “adaptation is an inherent good” That doesn’t seem to logically follow.

RE: Smitty
I’m not sure who has made the speed bad argument. I’m just making an argument about how judges should not enable or prevent speed. even if we agreed speed good, I think my arguments still apply completely on the issue of yelling clear.

Finally, unless a VERY clearly articulated advantage is shown for yelling clear, it seems that the default should be for the judge to remain quiet. After all, why would we default to judges participating in the round?

]]>