Good Evening Mr. and Mrs. North and South America and All Ships At Sea, Let’s Go to Press!
JW Patterson is the director of debate at the University of Kentucky, one of the most historically significant and successful debate programs in the United States. He is also the founder and director of the National High School Tournament of Champions — the TOC — the tournament which has become, over its long history, the championship event of the national circuit. He joins me today for an exclusive VBD interview.
He can take great pride in many victories, both deeply personal and deeply universal. This includes directing a program where a team that began debating as sophomores with virtually no experience reached the semifinal round of the National Debate Tournament their senior year. Where six debaters went on to be the top speakers at the NDT. Where a team claimed the championship of the NDT. Where teams have won most of the major tournaments at one time or another over his many long years of involvement in debate.
His great pride extends beyond the scoreboard. “The greatest source of pride is that I may have made at least a minor contribution to many, many debaters who have become very successful and useful citizens,” he comments, “and to have so many of them say after graduation that debate was their most rewarding college experience, and how they have found so many uses for the skills they learned in debate and how that experience helped them in achieving their ambitions.”
Just as his pride extends beyond the scoreboard, Dr. Patterson’s commitment to debate extends far beyond the Kentucky team. As the founder of the Tournament of Champions and powerful voice in both matters of debate education and the debate experience on all levels and in all communities, JW Patterson has had a tremendous impact on high school debate.
JC: JW, thank you for joining me for this interview. I hope all is well in Kentucky.
Let’s begin with the basics. How did you personally get involved in debate?
JWP: I became involved in debate in Oklahoma on the college level. I coached for a few years at Muskogee Central High School in Oklahoma and then moved on to college teaching.
I took a job at the University of Kentucky as Assistant Professor of Speech Communication in 1960. This was the best offer I had that did not require me to do debate. From 1960 to 1971, I taught and did research in the Department of Speech Communication as well as serve as Director of the University of Kentucky Centennial celebration. In 1971, the Department of Speech Communication decided to downgrade debate, but the President of the University responded to an outcry from former debaters and moved debate from Speech Communications to the Vice President for Student Affairs. This move came in August of 1971 and the President suddenly realized that there was no one to direct it. I was on vacation when the President called me and asked if I would do it.
I turned him down three times before accepting. Finally I said I would do it for no more than three years. The rest is history.
JC: Debaters and more recent coaches frequently ask about the genesis of the TOC. When you founded it in 1972, what were your goals? Did you see it as the championship for the national circuit, or did such a circuit not yet exist?
JWP: When I became Director of Debate at the University of Kentucky in 1971, I raised the possibility of hosting a high school debate tournament. Thus, I spent several months exploring this possibility. I asked several questions. First, was there a need for another high school tournament and, if so, what kind? What time of year should it be held and how big should it be?
As I talked with students and teachers, especially at our institute and other institutes, I heard three major complaints.
First, debaters overwhelmingly were crying out for flow-sheet judges. Many of them were being trained at institutes to argue before flow judges but most of them said they received very few such judges, either at Catholic or NFL Nationals and almost never at invitational tournaments.
Second, both teachers and debaters complained overwhelmingly about the politics involved in high school tournaments. Many said that up to 75% of the time they were either judged by incompetent people or people with a strong political bias.
Third, I heard a major complaint from those going to Catholic and NFL Nationals that there was much too much lag time between their district tournaments and NFL.
Thus, I decided to host a tournament in early May that would be aimed at the sixty-four top debate teams in the country. At that time, there was no national circuit. I decided that there was a need for an invitational national circuit tournament that would be limited in size and one in which debaters would have to qualify to attend. In this way, I could attract sufficient number of flow sheet judges and minimize political entanglements. At the same time the tournament would serve as a warm up for those debaters going on to Catholic and NFL Nationals.
JC: Was the TOC received positively? Did most top teams attend at first?
JWP: The first TOC was received very well. We had teams from coast to coast. As far as I could tell, there were a few qualified teams who refused to come but most did attend. At that time, most people in the know seemed to think that the top two teams in the country were from Toledo, Ohio, and Milwaukee. These two teams met at the TOC as well as the NFL final the same year.
One big holdout the first year was Ted Belch, who had a very good team at High Point, North Carolina. He said at the time, and has said so since, “I didn’t attend because I didn’t think anything worthwhile in debate would come out of Kentucky.”
JC: But clearly good things debate-related were already coming out Kentucky. Isn’t Kentucky one of the older debate camps? When did you found it?
JWP: In 1961. Kentucky is one of the oldest camps in the country. I [founded] it for two reasons.
At that time, [the state of] Kentucky had a wealth of speech and debate programs, but most of the participants never got out of state. I thought by bringing people to Kentucky, we would broaden their horizons. For many years we had debate, extemp, oratory, interp, and drama. I switched to only debate about 1980.
My second reason for the camp was simply that I wanted to maintain some contact with forensics. I came to Kentucky because it was the best offer I had that did not require me to do debate, but I still wanted to maintain some in involvement so the camp seemed the best way to go.
JC: Turning back to the TOC, let’s talk about how you settled on the mechanics of the tournament itself.
Was the system of bids at different outround levels (octafinals, quarterfinals, etc.) exist from the start? If not, how did it work? And if so, how did you arrive at this qualifying system?
JWP: For the first eight years, all qualifying tournaments were at the semifinal level. This worked well, but after a few years we came to the realization that at some tournaments it was much easier to get to the semifinals than others.
Also, [in] about 1980, some tournaments were becoming national in scope and we decided that it was as difficult to reach the octafinals or quarterfinals at some tournaments as it was it was to reach the semifinals at others. Thus, we instituted the four qualification levels.
When the TOC began, there were few, if any, “national circuit” tournaments. But there were several strong regional tournaments. Among others, these included Emory, Georgetown, Pittsburgh, Detroit Central Catholic, Bellaire in Texas, Tulane, Redlands, USC, Milwaukee, etc. At that time, several of these were on the verge of becoming national in scope.
JC: How did you first assemble your Advisory Committee? Were these coaches you knew from your days in high school coaching? From recruitment for college? Or just through the grapevine?
JWP: For the first eight years, I did not have formally designated Advisory Committees; I simply called on coaches in various parts of the country for advice.
For example, if I had an at-large application from a given area, I would send it to two coaches in the area and one outside the area. Initially, I leaned on coaches that I had known from my high school coaching days. After that, I leaned on coaches who attended the early TOCs. I did not formalize the Advisory Committees until about 1990. That is when we went to the committee rankings as a whole to decide the at-large recipients.
After the first few years, I began to realize the importance of seeking high school coaches’ advice on the TOC. Although it was, and still is, a Kentucky invitational tournament, I obviously recognized the importance coaches and debaters place on the TOC. I, therefore, leaned heavily on coaches advice in helping me keep the TOC as a major culminating event. In selecting people as my advisors, I always ask the question “is this coach capable of putting aside their personal agendas for the good of the TOC?”
JC: What kinds of qualities do you look for in a TOC-qualifying tournament?
JWP: We look for tournaments that have a substantial number of quality teams from several states as well as a tournament that is run according to widely accepted norms. We give some consideration to regional placement in hopes that we can give as many people as possible an opportunity to qualify for the TOC.
[So, then,] geography is a factor. It is particularly encouraging when a tournament springs up in an area where we don’t have many qualifiers.
Beyond that, it’s important how many teams are in attendance from how many schools and how many states. It is particularly encouraging when schools are attending outside that area and when some teams or LD debaters are in attendance that have been earning TOC bids at other tournaments.
JC: To borrow an expression from both Chris Matthews and Aaron Timmons, it’s time for a hardball. Do you feel the TOC promotes or favors a particular style of debate? If so, what is it?
JWP: I do not feel the TOC promotes a particular style of debate.
The style of debate employed in high schools and by many of the schools attending the TOC is highly influenced by the style of debate employed by college debaters and taught at summer debate institutes. Both the good and bad practices used in college debate ultimately trickle down to the high school level. This is particularly the case in policy debate, but it has had its impact on LD debate.
For example, in the early TOCs, the use of the “spread” was indeed a rare phenomenon. But as college debaters used it more and more, soon it became the dominant practice in high school debate.
JC: Which practices specifically would you personally consider good? Bad?
JWP: I think three of the worst practices in NDT have filtered down to high school debate.
First, inaudible speech started in college debate and soon spread to high school debate. This has tarnished the name of debate as a communication activity. When non-debate people, such as university professors, go into rounds and say they can’t understand a thing that’s being said, it tends to undermine one of the purposes of debate. In the 70s, college debaters began speaking or reading as fast as they thought the judges could take and before we knew it, many judges were reading almost everything that was uttered in the debate. It wasn’t long until this practice spread to high school debate.
Second, stretching topicality to the outer limits started in college debate in the early 70’s. Today, some NDT teams stretch it to the point where the designated topic for debate is no longer in the round. In my opinion, this has weakened the strength of the arguments and strained the argumentative fields.
Third, and this is minor, but the dress code of college debate had diminished to the point to where “the sloppier the better.” High school policy debaters picked up on this and acted accordingly and now I am seeing it in Lincoln-Douglas debate.
JC: As corny as it might make me sound, I really agree with the last point you just made.
JWP: Also, some twenty to twenty-five years ago college coaches and hired support staff began doing the work for the debaters, i.e. doing the research and writing the briefs. In my opinion, this is antithetical to the role that the teacher should play. I think it lessens the learning experience for the debater and it discourages those debaters whose limited resources prevents them from hiring a support staff if they choose to do so. This practice has spread to the TOC debaters to the point that some schools arrive with bigger support staffs than the squad they brought with them.
As far as good practices that have spread from college to high school, the biggest one is the development of more sophisticated arguments backed by more in-depth evidence.
JC: Some see the TOC as being necessarily in conflict with Nationals. Your comment?
JWP: I have never thought there was an inherent conflict between TOC and NFL Nationals. In fact, when I picked the date for the TOC in 1972, I regarded it as a warm-up for NFL.
The fact is that the TOC and the NFL serve different purposes. With its district qualifying system, NFL represents ever area of the country whether there are competitive champions in that area or not. The TOC, on the other hand, attempts to bring together the best policy teams, LD debaters, Public Forum teams, and Student Congress competitors in the country regardless of where they are from. If by chance they all happen to be from the same area, that’s fine. The important thing is that we have a qualifying system that insures the very best will be there.
Granted our qualifying system is not perfect and we are constantly trying to make it better. But in large part, I think it gets the top debaters to the TOC.
JC: What specific complaints have you heard about the qualifying system?
JWP: I have [heard] three major complaints.
First, many say that the qualifying tournaments are not as geographically well-distributed as they should be. For example, some say that there are far too many tournaments in some areas, specifically the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic as compared with the Midwest and Northwest. This is perhaps true, but it should be noted that there is much greater participation in certain areas than others. Others say this is unfair because people in the Northeast, for example, don’t have to travel nearly as far to qualifying tournaments as do people west of the Mississippi.
Second, some say that the level of competition is not equal at various levels. For example they note that it’s much harder to get a bid at some quarter finals tournaments than at others. Admittedly this may be true, but I am at a loss as to how to correct it.
Third, some complain that we don’t give qualifying status to some tournaments even though the draw is as good or better than it is at some of the qualifying tournaments. Often this is because that area doesn’t need a qualifying tournament at a given level.
JC: Sometimes you’ve had to make calls about TOC bids based on unexpected contingencies: the freeze-over of Atlanta during Emory a few years ago, the cancellation of Westminster in ‘98 (and the subsequent relocation of the bid to Mars Hill), the switch of the LMU tournament to USC. Has there ever been a particularly tough call to make? Have any of these situations caused you to rethink standing TOC policy?
JWP: Perhaps one of our weakest policy links is that we do not have a clear-cut plan on how to deal with unexpected situations. As of this time, I deal with them on an ad hoc basis but have no clear-cut policy. The Emory situation was one of the toughest calls. Even though it would have been based on one round of debating, I did offer to count as qualifiers if indeed an octafinal had been held.
JC: Lincoln-Douglas debate debuted at the turn of the 1980s but didn’t appear at the TOC until 1986. Was there resistance to adding it?
JWP: We added Lincoln-Douglas to the TOC in 1986. This move encountered a strong resistance from my Advisory Committee. I started making plans for this in 1983 but was warned repeatedly by many policy coaches that this would ruin the TOC. Finally, after three years of arguing, I put it in the TOC over objections of many, many policy coaches.
One of the people who had backed this move from day one was one Richard Sodikow of Bronx Science. He had been urging me to do this since 1981. At that time, Richard had a very high profile image in being a very successful coach in both policy and LD.
JC: What were the objections to adding LD to the TOC? Don’t worry. We won’t be offended. [laughs]
JWP: I was told by some of my advisors that LD was a form of shallow debating. That it didn’t require in depth research and in depth argument construction. The same people said that putting it in the TOC would give it a dignity that it did not merit and that it’s addition would detract from the “real debate.” I disagreed with my advisors.
I was fortunate in that I had heard some very good Lincoln-Douglas debates in its infancy and I came to the conclusion that if it is done well debating value topics demands more creativity that does policy topics.
JC: Public Forum debate seems to have been welcomed into the TOC more quickly. What led to its inclusion?
JWP: Three years ago, we added Public Forum. There was much less outcry against this move than I received with LD but it had and still has its detractors. Some say the verdict is still out.
JC: I have sometimes thought that perhaps a TOC in Public Forum is antithetical to an event that is supposed to feature “community” judges more than coaches and other “debate expert” critics. Your thoughts?
JWP: Granted, the manner in which Public Forum is currently judged does not live up to it’s stated mission, but I think in time this problem will be solved. Certainly at the TOC in 2008 we are making every effort to have UK community people as judges.
JC: The TOC is an old tournament with lots of traditions. I’d like to ask about some of them. First, and perhaps most importantly, tell us about the history of the tournament hotel. This past year marked quite a swanky upgrade.
JWP: When I started the TOC we used the Downtowner Motel on Main Street in Lexington. This proved to be grossly inadequate. At that time, we moved to the Hospitality Inn on the north side of Lexington. The hotel was soon bought by the Helmsey Corporation in New York City and was called the Harley. In the late 90s, Leona Helmsey sold the hotel to the Ramada Inn Corporation. We used the hotel from 1975 to 2006.
This year, we moved to downtown Lexington to the Radisson Hotel. The much-needed move was a long time coming. We outgrew the Ramada about ten years before we moved. We needed more bedrooms, more meeting rooms, a larger banquet facility, etc.
I was reluctant to move, I suppose, for sentimental reasons. For over thirty years, I had run both our high school and college tournaments out of the Ramada Inn and the Lexington Suite holds many fond memories. This is the one thing we miss the most about the Ramada. To my knowledge, no hotel in Lexington has a hospitality room as big as the Lexington Suite.
JC: How did the Breakfast of Champions start? Are there any now-defunct traditions you’ve wanted to bring back?
The Breakfast of Champions on the last day has been part of the TOC from it’s beginning. Its title came from an old syndicated radio program that originated in Chicago in the heyday of AM radio.
JC: When did you begin the tradition of having guest speakers at the TOC? Have any speakers and speeches particularly stuck out in your mind? Last year’s was quite excellent.
JWP: We have always had what used to be a luncheon speaker and a speaker at the Breakfast of Champions. Two that stand out in my mind as being particularly good was a debater from Northwestern name Mike Gottlieb and, of course, Bill Smelko’s last year. I can think of no speaker who captivated the audience like Bill did. I watched the students as Bill was speaking and they seemed to be hanging on to every word he was saying.
JC: Have the trophies had the Kentucky Derby-style horses from the start?
JWP: Yes the trophies have always featured the Derby horses.
JC: In recent years, the TOC has been expanded to include new events and has been moved to a new hotel. Are there any other short-term and long-term changes we should be expecting?
JWP: I think we have had enough change for the moment. Of course, we are constantly looking for ways to improve the qualifying system, and will make changes as new approaches emerge.
JC: I often ask human interest questions. So, now, the age-old one — and the source of many a trivia question on VBD — what is the origin of “JW”?
JWP: As to the origin of JW, at the time of my birth my parents were trying to decide between Jason William and Jackson Wallace. The doctor suggested they just put down the initials and change the name later. Of course the change never came, and I have lived these many years with only initials for a name.
This has caused me some apprehension over the years. Many times people have insisted they want to know what the J and the W stand for. Several years ago, in dealing with an insurance company, they just kept insisting that I give them the real name. In desperation, I sent them “J.(only) and W.(only).” The policy arrived made out to “Jonly Wonly Patterson.”
JC: [laughs]
I can’t think a human interest question that’s going to produce a better response than the Jonly Wonly anecdote, and since that seems to be all the time we have, I’ll move on to an important final question.
JW, you’ve been involved in debate for a long time, and as such, have a great deal of experience working with fellow coaches and with debaters. What advice would you give both coaches and debaters regarding “national circuit” debate?
JWP: Don’t go overboard hopping across the country just to try to get bids to the TOC. I believe coaches should try to balance the attendance at local, regional, and national tournaments. All of a school’s debaters should have experiences at all levels if at all possible. I think it is a big mistake to pick a handful of students and travel them only to national tournaments. I think it is also a mistake not to attend local and regional tournaments just because they don’t have TOC bids. The TOC is only a part of the learning experience. To assume that it’s the one and only learning experience is a sad mistake.
Popularity: 8%
test
50 Responses to “Good Evening Mr. and Mrs. North and South America and All Ships At Sea, Let’s Go to Press!”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- The At-Large Process Begins
- Chris Catterton is Harker Champion
- NFL Districts Report
- David Donatti Wins TFA State
- Chris Theis Defends Iowa Round Robin Title
- Matt Thomas Wins Westchester Classic
- Field Report: TFA State
- Becca Traber, Madeline Vuong Win Lone Star Round Robin Titles
- Good Evening Mr. and Mrs. North and South America and All Ships At Sea, Let's Go to Press!
- The Cat Nats Report
Posted from: 168.221.143.68
March 10th, 2008 04:42
Kudos on this interview
Posted from: 68.110.230.80
March 10th, 2008 08:08
JW is a giant in the debate community. He was one when I debated in college 30 years ago and he is one today. I salute Jon Cruz and VB for highlighting the work of one of the greats. By the way, in the late 70s, Kentucky’s Skillman and Oberst were among the fastest speakers on record. I recall Oberst in 1AR putting 12 responses on a mere subpoint. But, he was pretty clear while doing it, so I suppose he heard JW’s warning against incomprehensibility.
Posted from: 67.207.136.196
March 10th, 2008 08:16
[…] Briefs Daily has an interesting interview with Dr. JW Patterson, the Director of Forensics at the University of Kentucky and founder of the […]
Posted from: 72.177.121.19
March 10th, 2008 11:52
it was so interesting to hear the conception of some of the traditions.
Posted from: 216.250.178.113
March 10th, 2008 19:50
Awesome interview!
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
March 10th, 2008 20:27
Nice
Posted from: 72.80.236.116
March 10th, 2008 20:50
I think three of the worst practices in NDT have filtered down to high school debate.
First, inaudible speech …. before we knew it, many judges were reading almost everything that was uttered in the debate. It wasn’t long until this practice spread to high school debate.
—-
I agree so much. I believe that debate should be a communicative activity and that reading arguments after the round undermines the purpose of having a round at all.
Posted from: 24.215.130.4
March 10th, 2008 21:41
Bobby, i disagree about a judge calling arguments to read. While debate is a communicative activity, and arguments missed because of excessive speed or lack of clarity are the debater’s problem (if the judge is ignored after doing something to indicate their unwillingness/inability to flow that argument such as by shouting speed or clear or dropping their pen), I can think of at least two situations where it would be acceptable to do call arguments; in fact, not doing so would be irresponsible.
A) Often the judge misses parts of essential arguments through no fault of the debaters. An inadequate flower who’s afraid of admitting it in their paradigm or by shouting speed, daydreaming, a pen unexpectedly runs out, whatever. The judge should do the honorable thing and make up for their mistake after the round, rather than hold the debaters accountable for a situation outside their control.
B) Obviously, flows don’t account for every word or exact rhetoric. If the precise wording of a piece of analysis becomes an issue, examining the written document is a necessity to making an accurate decision, which is the ultimate goal of any round.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
March 10th, 2008 22:16
i agree w. mr. seth.
i think judges should make very clear when something is unclear or inaudible. i myself have problems flowing things that are unclear or inaudible, so i can seriously sympathize. however, if the judge is not willing to make such gestures, it is absurd (at least in my opinion) for the judge’s problem that they deign not to inform anyone about. policy debate is a whole other issue, but in LD there is literally no excuse not to notify the debaters whether something is unclear or inaudible. i would much rather have a critic yell at me or some similarly over the top tactic than continue to flow and then complain post-round about clarity or speed. notification by dropping of the pen is also preferable.
Posted from: 24.4.205.201
March 10th, 2008 23:10
great interview, jon. this was a great look into the mind of the person who pretty much made the national circuit happen…rather invaluable, i think. out of curiousity, though, and at the risk of seeming dense, is there any significance to the title of the interview?
Posted from: 71.236.138.137
March 10th, 2008 23:28
I also agree with Seth/Reebs, but I think the dropping the pen is a less than ideal method of communication. Especially while reading, it can be very difficult to here a pen drop or see it, but auditory signals let everyone know. Also, as an opponent, I would probably be focusing on trying to flow whatever incomprehensible spew is coming out instead of checking up on the judge so I would likely end up answering arguments the judge didn’t care about.
Posted from: 68.175.61.157
March 11th, 2008 05:35
Ankur — You’re not dense; it’s admittedly an obscure reference, but one that JW and I liked. Every summer, JW sends out reports from each of the Kentucky Fellows debates over the CX-L, LD-L, and other debate listservs. He used to memorably begin each of the reports with the line that I co-opted as the title. (And it would also appear in all capital letters.)
I agree with Seth’s two cases in which a judge should call evidence. In those cases, I think the practice is not only valid but probably preferred since it has nothing to do with communication issues. (A common instance of an outside force interfering with the round might be a school bell ringing during the reading of a case or card.)
I do differ with Seth on the “inadequate flower” point, but that’s only because I agree with Rebar that really, judges should be indicating if they can’t understand something. (Jim Menick has a policy of saying “speed” out loud if he can’t follow, with two warning “speed”s and then a punishment “speed” that causes your points to be reduced. Some judges yell clear. Others make it very visually clear that they aren’t flowing what they can’t understand.)
Unfortunately, I think some judges use the opportunity to call evidence as an excuse to be lazy, and I think some other judges call lots of evidence at the end of the round to look cool.
But to resolve a debate over the precise wording or legitimacy of the evidence, or to make up for a factor beyond the judges’ control? Yes, I think calling for evidence in those cases is valid.
Posted from: 12.216.104.95
March 11th, 2008 07:26
some judges also ask to see evidence for the cites, that doesn’t seem antithetical to the activity
Posted from: 71.139.28.190
March 11th, 2008 07:41
While I understand the arguments being made in favor of a judge notifying debaters during the round that s/he can’t flow that amount of speed, I respectfully disagree that s/he should yell “speed.” To do so is, in my opinion, interventionist.
There are times during rounds when the clarity of articulation or of argumentation — or of both — is lacking. If we were to jump in during the round with hints to debaters about adaptation, where’s the brightline to where we stop? The number of times we as judges have been tempted to yell out “new argument/no link/you’re getting muddled and confusing, etc ” are innumerable. And yet we don’t, because to intervene is to skew the round and to take away the advantage of the better-adapting debater.
Again, I do sympathize with debaters like Earl — it’s difficult to juggle flowing, comprehension, and judge adaptation all at once, and it takes a while for the best debaters to be able to handle it all. It does come in time, though.
On the judges side of things, I do hope that more judges feel comfortable putting in their paradigms that they can’t flow top speed, prefer a moderate pace of delivery, or won’t vote on arguments we don’t understand by the end of the round. We owe it to debaters to be upfront about those things and to help them adapt to our judging styles.
Posted from: 68.175.61.157
March 11th, 2008 08:29
Least contentious post ever:
I agree with Maeshal; I’ve done that before and I didn’t even think to include that on the list. Point taken.
I also agree with Jennie about the paradigms.
Posted from: 205.221.1.253
March 11th, 2008 10:00
This is a really solid and interesting interview. I continue to be amazed at JCruz’s ability to be a top-notch debate journalist and still coach a monster debate team. Well done!
I don’t think we can possibly overstate the significance of JW’s vision in creating the TOC. Many aspects of debate that make it entertaining, enlightening, and worthwhile extend from the national scope that is a direct result of the system he has built. And it was fun to read how that came about.
And the Jonly Wonly line is classic…just classic. :)
Posted from: 136.152.141.171
March 11th, 2008 13:47
I’m not sure about the whole yelling clear thing…doesn’t it give the fast debater an advantage by allowing her to find the exact maximum threshold of the judge?
This effectively enables the debater to be as unclear as “safe”, thereby increasing their odds of being too unclear for the opponent, but just barely at the judges threshold.
I much prefer a world where speed is a strategic tradeoff- you get to make more arguments, and you increase your odds of out-teching your opponent, but you risk the judge missing a key argument.
And as a judge, I have no problem saying that I missed an argument– that suggests that the debater went too far on the strategic tradeoff. Some would argue that it’s unfair for the debater to not know the specific threshold, but I’m not sure why the debater has the right to that knowledge.
Posted from: 216.62.156.183
March 11th, 2008 13:50
I agree with the majority of what Ms. Savage said. However, I don’t think that a judge yelling speed or clear is the same as yelling weigh/new argument. While I do think its a matter of judge adaptation, there is still a lot of subjectivity in a judge’ statement of being ok with speed. What I consider to be reasonably fast is different from what David does. I also think that yelling speed is different from yelling weigh because it isnt a strategic flaw in terms of the round that someone is forgetting to do in relation to the flow. So while still being a majority of the debater’s problem, it is hard to perfectly adapt to a judge by (at most) a minute long conversation prior to debating.
Posted from: 72.80.252.105
March 11th, 2008 14:41
I can agree with Seth that there may be times where it seems necessary to read arguments after the round but I still have a problem with doing so. Suppose one comes up with an argument in round and it is that argument that comes into question in terms of its wording. It would be impossible for the debater trying to win off of said argument to tell the judge to read it at the end of the round if they missed something or if the rhetoric comes into question. Here it would be unfair to allow prewritten argumentation to be reread for clarity and evaluation when it would be quite impossible to do so with other equally important arguments. This is because at the point where one is allowing arguments to be reread if they are written down and can’t have the other argument read as well, the judge has just given one debater an advantage over the other. It would be impossible to vote off of an argument that was missed or misheard if it was developed during round. By allowing arguments to be read afterwards you give an advantage to some debater arbitrarily, and discourage development of new arguments throughout rebuttals.
Posted from: 128.101.49.27
March 11th, 2008 14:46
Rather than add on to what has already been substantively said I’ll merely interject with what I do while judging. You can either praise me or strike me for it, either way I honestly don’t care.
If someone is speaking excessively quickly for me to keep up flowing I am not going to do anything about it. I do this not because I think it would be interventionist or give an unfair advantage to him/her, but because s/he deserves any negative consequences which may result from speaking quickly by choosing to speak at such a pace. This doesn’t mean I won’t do absolutely anything. At most I’ll frustratingly stare (not to get their attention, but because that’s just what always seems to happen) at the debater in an attempt to comprehend what’s being said and then flowify the incoherent babble through my pen. So anyone who uses eye contact and notices me not flowing should take that as a warning because I flow as much as I possibly can for reasons I don’t need to explicate here. Though I will say that a main motivating factor is to check back any new extrapolations you may hide in future analysis in an attempt to trick me - I dare you to succeed.
As an aside I don’t think that confusing the judge is something unique of speeding. Aggrandized rhetoric from certain authors is purposely used by debaters, though not necessarily for means of discombobulation, and no judge is going to yell “clear” or “cut out the bullshit” DURING round. Partly because the judge has an obligation, I believe, to answer all questions a debater may have before the round. Including “Will you listen to (a.k.a. Will you not unilaterally exclude arguments regardless of whether they are (technically) won by a certain side) cards with specialized jargon from a field of study you’re not familiar with?” AND “Will you listen to arguments that are being spoken too quickly to completely understand?” I think it’s perfectly legitimate for a debate to ask before the round “Is this too fast?” and then proceed to give a demonstration of how fast s/he’ll argue. Thus, I don’t see why judges should do something differently when they’re confused by speed as opposed to when they’re confused by jargon. Both things can be prevented prior to round. Any debater who CHOOSES to practice such practices risks certain things (like those mentioned in previous posts, namely, speaker points, a judge’s ignoring of an argument, and a judge’s inclination to vote against you for being unnecessarily difficult). [I would never do the last and rarely would do the second]
In addition, I am always open to arguments with an appeal to in-round understanding and I know that there is a convincing case to be made for them (as the characterization of debate as an activity of communication makes clear). An argument like “If you didn’t understand it the first time you heard the argument don’t vote on it because X” OR “Don’t call any items read after round because I only have a very limited amount of time in round to clarify what was read while you (the judge) can read the evidence indefinitely (and possibly interpret it differently than it was conceived of in round)”. For me the metaphysical possibility to make such arguments takes the supposed “obligation” to make the round clear off the judge and puts the onus on the debater to make the judge only evaluate what was clear. I’m probably a little biased toward this view (of making debaters responsible for everything they can possibly be responsible for) for non-debate reasons…but I’ll just say that both judge and market intervention should be avoided at all costs.
Do I care if I’m on a panel and a fellow adjudicator yells “clear”? Not at all. Even though it may conflict with what I would do in that situation it’s their round as well and it makes it somewhat easier for me to flow. I would only be in disagreement with yelling clear in such an instance since it was the debater’s strategic choice to speak quickly and I don’t think the judge should limit a debater’s freedom to win as they please. This issue of strategy has already been touched on so I’ll stop.
Speaking quickly is a razor and I walked the line on that silver blade. The evil that debaters do lives on and on…
Posted from: 128.101.49.27
March 11th, 2008 14:51
So to tie the whole asking question prior to round thing - It’s the debater’s, and only the debater’s, fault for not asking questions pertinent to their strategy for a round and what may result from that strat.
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
March 11th, 2008 15:03
This is where JW probably got the line from… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walter_Winchell_Show
YAY GOOGLE
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
March 11th, 2008 15:46
I actually gave some thought to what Julian and Jaw wrote and I might agree.
Insofar as using speed is a strategy, why should I tell a kid whether or not it is a good strategy for them in the round? Would I yell “make the link” or “what’s the impact” to queue a debater to make better links or be more specific with their impacts? That is probably a problem.
Posted from: 68.175.61.157
March 11th, 2008 18:02
Maybe we need to take a page from the Dallas Perkins playbook and yell “Not buyin’ it!” during the round.
Posted from: 74.36.137.22
March 11th, 2008 18:20
Uncle Juju speaks the truth. I pretty much agree with everything he says- if debaters can’t notice someone staring at them, especially the judge… well, I don’t know. They don’t really deserve to win if they aren’t paying any attention to the judge.
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
March 11th, 2008 19:14
CK -
Why should I give any clues that I’m not understanding?
Posted from: 128.54.165.135
March 11th, 2008 19:17
juju, who goes too fast for you? Didn’t a certain Nick Tourville attend SLP during our year?
But anyway, I don’t think calling for ev or saying clear is interventionist. I know there’s the “no b/l arg” for yelling clear, but that’s kind of logically fallacious… like, the bright line is very clear. only in issues of ability to hear the words being uttered can you yell out in the round. There are ways to gauge how much a person knows about certain args bc they should probably post in their paradigms (or FB for ppl who post books) what they’ve read. Not everybody is amenable to critical theory and psychoanalysis, and that should be already obvious. Further, teh debater should make the implicit links in teh arg clear so that ppl can understand it anyway.
some may say that this gives the other debater a disadvantage, but theres a reason ppl don’t bitch as much about this in policy… its expected that you read that material. In fact, if a debater hasn’t read Foucault yet, then they sadly aren’t holding up to their research burdens on any topic. his analysis of power is one of the most influential things to come out of the French school of thought.
The same goes for speed, it should be expected that you can handle faster forms of debate. Don’t lower the standard, rather make kids learn how to understand it. That’s why there are novice and JV divisions at tournaments. You wouldn’t expect a kid who never did debate to be able to understand some args that ppl read even if they were slowly read just because there is a research burden and level of understanding of nuances.
Other than that, i really agree with the third to last paragraph from juju and downward. i mean, the activity wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for HS kids who want to learn and debate, and it seems like we should keep the activity up for them. I mean, coaching is a huge portion that one devotes to, but we’re still educators who should let students explore new forms of argumentation and really find themselves in the philosophy they espouse in a round.
Posted from: 72.80.252.105
March 11th, 2008 20:01
The disadvantages that I was referring to were in terms of being able to reread and evaluate prewritten argumentation, so that it has the potential to be voted off of, and having that be an impossibility for on the spot argumentation.
Posted from: 76.17.236.195
March 11th, 2008 20:24
A few thoughts on speed and saying clear:
1. I’m not inclined to tell a debater to speak more clearly both for the reasons articulated above and because the practice is full of implementation problems:
a. The no-brightline argument is more complicated than Kamil suggests. Comprehensibility is an impossible standard to apply consistently. What if I get the gist of an argument without it being totally clear? Do I impose the same burden of clarity for arguments I’m more familiar with than other arguments - comprehensibility as a standard wouldn’t allow for that. We all know cards we could flow if someone read it while eating a banana because they’re so familiar to us. What about a debater I’ve judged 10 times on a topic so I’m familiar enough to know a number of their arguments? Some of these will be problems already without adding into the mix the question of when I should and should not yell clear.
b. Debaters tend to be variably clear and unclear. Do I only yell clear when they are totally incomprehensible for a long time? How long do I have to wait before its apparent that they are not going to become clearer, and by then have they wasted a huge chunk of their speech? Do debaters really want me gauging that in my mind while trying to flow in as detailed a way as possible? Sometimes I’ve found myself yelling clear when the debater has moved on and is already speaking more clearly. That just confuses people. Should I risk yelling clear in the middle of a speech and throwing someone off? Doing that to a 1AR in a tight round might be enough to cause a loss by itself.
c. A judge does more than assign a win/loss - she also rates the quality of the debater relative to the field through speaker points. Telling a debater to clear improves his or her speaker points relative to what they would have received had they not been told to clear (hopefully). In effect a judge has coached a debater in the middle of the round and therefore improved their quality in relation to the field (at least in the judge’s mind), which is unfair to the field in general. It also starts to look a lot more like intervention. In that way the practice is analygous to yelling “weigh” or “remember to extend the impact.” I suppose a judge could protect against this by just assigning the speaker points they would have given absent saying “clear,” but that is a hopelessly speculative and subjective endeavor.
d. When I’m yelling clear I’m neither flowing nor listening. That might only be for a second, but if someone is really going fast and that second contained the warrant to the only piece of offense they then extend, it can be a problem. If I’m saying clear more than once and for both debaters, the problem is amplified. It puts both debaters in a position to not know what is on my flow. We probably can’t get rid of that problem, but I see no reason why a judge should augment it.
2. As a general rule I can handle speed and won’t drop debaters for speed I consider excessive (though I’ll reduce speaker points). It’s been commented in a couple of places that debate is a communicative activity. That’s a truism, I suppose. I don’t doubt that there is significant value to teaching strong communication skills, but a) there are vehicles which are probably better suited for that, and b) to say the activity is communicative is to beg the question - what constitutes good communication and to what degree ought we to enforce norms of good communication? Moreover, different discursive settings always have idiosyncratic discursive norms. That doesn’t mean that we can’t weigh the value of teaching communication in relation to other stylistic issues in terms of the purposes we are trying to achieve, but it does mean that saying debate is communicative is only half of the argument.
I am generally not a fan of hyper-speed for a different reason, which is that it is often used to avoid or obscure substantive argumentation. My own view is that the paramount value (forgive the pun) of debate is to teach and develop rigorous and critical thinking. It is not only pragmatically useful, but most debaters report (speaking only from my experience) that it is also important in developing their own sense of self and personal beliefs. Value judgments like that will of course never be universally agreed upon, but I don’t think you will find many people making a convincing argument that thinking poorly and uncritically are compatible with anyone’s conception of what constitutes good debate. When speed enables a person to intentionally use bad arguments to garner a strategic advantage, it not only compromises the intellectual integrity of the activity but also makes it so insular that its educational purpose is largely frustrated (if not totally obliterated in some rounds).
In a competitive activity there will of course be an impetus to win, and this means that people are likely to employ as much strategy as they feasibly can. There is a certain intellectual value in this; we could draw the analogy to chess. But of course the only object of chess is to win. Our desire to win has to be constrained by our desire to maintain intellectual integrity, basic fairness, and educational value. Strategy can be an ally here, not an enemy. The ability to substantively engage with the critical elements of an advocacy is the very heart of stategy. Spewing as many bad arguments as you can think of, though often called “strategy,” hardly seems to fit the term in any meaningful sense. It strikes me as among the more thoughtless ways to debate.
I know there aren’t a lot of new revelations here, but for what it’s worth I hope that debaters will take Dr. Patterson’s thoughts to heart and consider what goals they are advancing when choosing what level of speed to employ.
Posted from: 128.101.49.74
March 11th, 2008 20:29
Matisyahu, Twista, Bone Thugs, and a few others go a little too fast for me at times, but I think that it can be partially attributable to accents, background noise, etcetera. In terms of LD debate though, I don’t think I’ve ever encountered “speed” as the problem as much as I have encountered “enunciation” as the problem. Obviously speaking too quickly for some people will diminish their ability to enunciate, but people don’t need to speak quickly in order to get more ‘arguments’ out. It is possible that one could spew just as much by slowing down a little since then they won’t waste time tripping up or mumbling nonsense and consequently they’d also be more coherent.
Yeah I remember SLP and taking The Tourvillain under my wing. What it do?
See I got my own lable, it’s goin DOWN NOW
Posted from: 74.36.137.22
March 11th, 2008 20:35
@bietz- I don’t think that “clues” are really necessary, my post was more directed along the lines of “if you don’t care enough to adapt, you don’t deserve to win.” But clues are nice to help debaters know when they’ve gone too far. :)
Posted from: 169.229.81.189
March 11th, 2008 22:04
+1 to Julian on the problem being enunciation rather than speed itself.
My answer to are you ok with speed is usually “Can you be clear while going fast?”
Also, like Julian, I usually involuntarily give signals to a debater that I can’t understand them.
Finally, debaters need to realize that blippy speed is a disaster. I find that for me at least, maximum tolerable speed is partly a function of how long each argument is. If you’re reading framework arguments at the same speed you read evidence, you’re making a mistake in my opinion. I usually need people to slow down during their theory blip wars, for example.
Posted from: 128.54.165.135
March 12th, 2008 06:58
that’s true, most often the problem is debaters being unclear rather than too fast. the only problem is that the subjective nature of ‘clarity’ varies from judge to judge as to what is permissible. I guess Juju makes a good point that dbaters should just ask before the round if their spread is too unclear, but its a lot easier to just mention it in rounds. I mean, if we value adaptation at all then judges should at least meet debaters half way. and its not randomly giving one debater an advantage over the other. The other debater can go just as fast if they want to (unless of course they haven’t developed enough skills to go that fast), they just need to do enough drills and have enough blocks cut or have a good ability to jump between args.
So maybe this does influence spks a bit, but they’re already so messed up to begin with in LD that there’s really no impact to yelling clear. When everybody is already giving out 29.5s and 30s like they’re candy and regard a 28 as ‘bad’ then there’s probably something wrong with the system already…
further, if you’re already giving involuntary signals then what’s the problem with yelling out to the debaters? sure in one instance the debater has to be more observant and ‘read’ the judge. but isn’t that giving the debater who doesn’t read off as many blocks an advantage? like, there’s absolutely no way to delineate between that notion of intervention.
really, i think we have to reconceptualize our notions of intervention. If giving signals to debaters is a form of intervention then i don’t know what adaptation means. Judges aren’t simply a blank slate computer, they are still a human evaluating a round. I mean, the idea of having to actually evaluate arguments seems kind of novel in LD…
Posted from: 128.54.165.135
March 12th, 2008 07:07
“Spewing as many bad arguments as you can think of, though often called “strategy,” hardly seems to fit the term in any meaningful sense. It strikes me as among the more thoughtless ways to debate.”
the problem is that this form of argumentation is strategic. it wins rounds. and that’s the sad part. if other kids let their opps get away with ridiculous args then obviously they are going to lose. the answer isn’t employ speed better its to get ppl better at answering those shitty spreads. this is why too many negs win rounds. there’s a reason why the 2AR exists. it wins rounds for a reason. you can clarify the debate and weigh args against each other and advance a position on a whole. if we stop caring about the micro-args on each flow then more diversification occurs and each small dumb arg matters less because other debaters can give weighing analysis that weighs on the level of how good the warrants are for each arg rather than actually answering the entire spew.
don’t hate the playa, hate the game
Posted from: 76.17.236.195
March 12th, 2008 10:35
“don’t hate the playa, hate the game”
We should do both. Incentives exist to debate in an intellectually unrigorous way, but debaters are free to choose not to debate that way. Debaters should be held responsible in terms of speaker points for their choices, but the main point of my argument is that debaters should choose not to abuse speed. They may want to win more than they want to do the intellectually honest thing, but my argument isn’t about policy, its about the choices students and coaches should make.
The thrust of my comment on strategy was exactly what you said - the use of real strategy can check back bad speed so that people aren’t loosing to it all the time. If I were to tick off a list of my five favorite debaters off all time that is one of the outstanding characteristics in their styles. That is one answer as far as how to approach beating the problem. The other is probably speaker points, and another is probably coaching.
Posted from: 136.152.162.181
March 12th, 2008 14:01
Regarding Kamil’s point-
It’s a skill to be able to watch a judge and decide whether they’re super into an argument (ie circling it on their flow), lost (i.e. searching for the right place to write on their flow), or just unhappy.
While I think that you’re right that intervention is a hairy issue, I’m not sure why my argument bites into the brightline issue you’re talking about.
All I’m saying is that the debater doesn’t have some inherent right to that sweet spot that’s too fast for the opponent, and ok for the judge. So, as a judge, I don’t know why I should do something PROACTIVE (i.e. yell clear) to let them access that sweet spot.
Also, the idea of meeting the debaters halfway on adaptation doesn’t really make sense to me. It’s not true that adaptation is some inherently good thing…The only reason adaptation has any value is because it gives the debater a better chance at getting the win from the judge.
Given the judge in theory has no reason to try to give the W to a specific debater, the idea of a judge “adapting” is nonsensical. Maybe you meant something different by adaptation/I’m misunderstanding you?
Posted from: 136.152.162.181
March 12th, 2008 14:06
I realize my first paragraph regarding “reading judges” was sort of unclear.
What I mean is that involuntary cues aren’t controllable. That implies that they’re an objective fact in the round…like time limits. So it is a skill for some debaters to be able to access advantages from involuntary cues. That skill should be rewarded, since it uses a fact of debate to increase chances of the win.
Voluntary cues, on the other hand, like yelling clear, are a proactive choice that affect the outcome of the round. Again, intervention is a hairy issue, but barring some overwhelmingly good argument in favor, I’m not sure why I should proactively change the round.
Posted from: 169.229.32.138
March 12th, 2008 16:21
i am troubled by the notion that speed is “academically unrigorous” or especially worthy of suspicion. speed is a way of saying more words. if these words are used to form stupid or cheap arguments, that is a different issue. policy debate illustrates that speed works when it is a) the norm and b) there are community norms that reward people for making smart and substantive arguments rather than dumb a prioris. the problem is not speed, it is that debaters are taught to run dumb a priori arguments and judges vote on them (which isn’t to say that i don’t vote on these arguments [very] regularly, but that’s because debaters frame their arguments in a way that makes these relevant issues for consideration–being tab is important too)
moreover, even if adam and co. are right about strategic vision being an effective antidote to speed:
a) i have no clue why there’s a tradeoff.
b) speed is also an effective antidote to speed. most “fast” debaters in LD are not very fast. if 1ARs cannot figure out what arguments are important and cover them, they deserve to lose. again, policy debate illustrates that debaters can cover even very quick spreads.
finally, the argument that there is a distinction between clarity and speed is true, but that is not a justification for holding fast speech to higher standards of clarity than slow speech. judges who consciously look to punish faster debaters or who are unwilling to work harder to compensate for their flowing inadequacies are, frankly, doing a disservice to the debaters and not doing their job.
Posted from: 128.54.58.94
March 12th, 2008 19:37
I don’t think that ppl are going to disagree with you smitty. ppl don’t think that speed is bad, but that ppl use it in dumb ways (well, i agree with your post at least)…
but i am troubled by Jay saying that you give an advantage to the debater that went too fast for you first. it disadvantages the opp far more. if tehy see that you can handle that speed or think you can bc the other debater did, then they could go even faster and would end up losing a lot more. even if they didn’t go faster or as fast then tehy could just lose time in responding to args and worrying about misflowed args that you didn’t flow either. that means that tehy have to waste prep time and change their strat based on an arg that isnt in teh round. if you yell clear then you set the standard for both debaters.
further, facial signals only advantage the debater that is speaking because the opp is flowing args not looking up. or they could be looking at the opp’s cards during the speech. so they can only read you during speech and CX. that means that you create a system that is more disadvantageous. if you yell clear then that sets up a clear standard for both debaters to rely on for their clarity and spreading capabilities.
“Also, the idea of meeting the debaters halfway on adaptation doesn’t really make sense to me. It’s not true that adaptation is some inherently good thing…The only reason adaptation has any value is because it gives the debater a better chance at getting the win from the judge.”
do you have a paradigm up? if so then that is meeting the debaters part of the way there. if you are truly a clean slate then neither debater should know anything about you. rather, 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. although there should be limits to how much a judge can speak out during a round bc that would be to much influence, but all those args fall prey to ‘no b/l’. what i am saying is that the line should be drawn at ability to understand the words that are coming out of a debaters mouth. they can look up your paradigm if they want specs on the qualitative nature of args. tehy can’t do that with speed bc what is comprehensible is dif for every person.
damnit juju, i don’t have your knowledge of the 36 chambers and hence can’t come up with cool quotes at the end of posts.
Posted from: 76.17.236.195
March 12th, 2008 22:17
My argument was not that speed is inherently academically unrigorous. It is that speed is often a vehicle for obscuring or avoiding substantive argumentation. The specific conclusion I reached was that debaters should choose not to use speed for that purpose. Any other practice which is employed for academically unrigorous purposes should also be avoided. But speed tends to be the easiest tactic to get away with making intentionally bad arguments. If you make a small number of bad arguments they are significantly more likely to be beaten. If you make lots of them it is harder to beat them all regardless of their quality. That undermines what I believe to be an important educational goal.
So, while we clearly agree that the problem is speed used for bad purposes, I’m hard pressed to believe that it is simply a neutral tactic among many that can be used well or poorly. I think most people would agree (although maybe this is just my own misperception) that they see more “bad speed” than “good speed”. That’s not surprising given what I described above - speed is an effective vehicle for getting away with bad arguments. I think its fair to say that this tactic has become increasingly problematic in terms of the quality of argumentation we want to encourage and so a) debaters and coaches should reexamination the choices they are making as to when and how they use speed and b) we should have a discussion about effective ways to check the problem.
It is true that more speed also checks speed, but there is a limit to that logic. Debaters can only go so fast and remain comprehensible. There is a ceiling on speed and its not far off from what many debaters can do. Regardless you still get to the point where the person spreading is going fast enough that more speed on the other side won’t cope. Also, checking speed with more speed tends to just produce blip wars, which doesn’t solve the underlying concern of improving the quality of argumentation. So, at the end of the day my own belief is that focusing on strategic choices as a check will be more effective and tend, by and large, to produce better debate. I don’t have a complete disagreement here - certainly you probably need to move faster to deal with a spread - but as I say I don’t think that is where our focus should lie if the object is to improve the quality of argumentation.
I also want to make clear that I’m not opposed to some level of speed - certainly speed that is faster than conversational has evolved into the community norm. I rarely penalize for speed unless it is in fact employed to facilitate intellectually unrigorous arguments. But there is reason to be concerned here, and too many people are consistently winning by intentionally using bad arguments. I think we need to face up to that and figure out what to do. I know most folks on this discussion aren’t in disagreement with that, so I’m not targetting anyone specifically. I’m just saying we need to avoid the conclusion that we should stick our heads in the sand and hope existing practices will solve the problem without proactive efforts on our part.
Posted from: 169.229.81.189
March 12th, 2008 22:37
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?
Posted from: 169.229.81.189
March 12th, 2008 22:39
Honestly the signposting sucks in the above message, but I doubt it matters at this point. I’m proabably not going to respond again…
Posted from: 12.215.129.141
March 13th, 2008 07:06
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.
Posted from: 12.215.129.141
March 13th, 2008 07:07
yelling, not telling.
Posted from: 12.215.129.141
March 13th, 2008 07:09
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.
Posted from: 128.36.76.42
March 13th, 2008 13:50
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.
Posted from: 169.229.81.189
March 13th, 2008 21:14
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.
Posted from: 75.167.204.90
March 14th, 2008 09:59
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.
Posted from: 169.229.81.189
March 14th, 2008 17:53
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.
Posted from: 169.229.81.189
March 14th, 2008 17:54
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.