LD FINALS: Exclusive, Expert Commentary from 2006 NFL Champion Douglas Jeffers

LAS VEGAS, Nev. — We began the week in the Lincoln Financial Group Lincoln-Douglas Debate competition at Nationals with two hundred and twenty debaters. After fifteen intense rounds — featuring a double elimination system that slowly whittled away the field — there are two debaters remaining: the Hockaday School’s Joan Gass and Strake Jesuit College Preparatory School’s Todd Liipfert. Congratulations to both!

Douglas Jeffers — the 2006 National Champion — has provided expert commentary for VBD from the round. (Many thanks are in order to Christian Keil, Chris Blay, and Dylan Scher for their assistance with resizing the photographs taken this weekend — including the one above!)

Jon Cruz here for the introduction. We’ll get on the real deal – commentary from my good friend and colleague, Doug Jeffers – in just a bit.

We’re live at the COX Pavilion.

Tim Sheaff has asked the ushers to close the doors.

His facial expression is grave but…

WE HAVE BEEN WOWED BY MANY STARS OF STAGE AND SCREEN. WE’VE HAD ELVIS. WE’VE HAD THE BLUE MAN GROUP. AND NOW..

THE MOST ESTEEMED GUEST THAT I CAN IMAGINE…

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE SIXTEENTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES…

MR. ABRAHAM LINCOLN!

Mr. President: “Frankly, it reminds of a little story….”

[Audience groans.]

“…and he had a gun…”

???

[Each year, I note: this man really looks like A. Lincoln. Really.]

Mira just asked me for a non-black pen. I thought she said a little black panty. Okay, moving on.

[A few people are now awkwardly clearing their throats during the President’s address.]

“Who you are is even more important than what you say.”

[Sigh.]

QUESTION TO OUR READERS: How many of you have competed at the Watertown Speech & Debate Fiesta??? Adam Torson and Mike Bietz both have. §

I think Abraham Lincoln is crying now; he’s ending with a particularly powerful story.

“Make the same resolve….”

AND YOUR JUDGES ARE…

A three-diamond coach and chair of the Eastern Ohio District from GlenOak High School in Ohio, Nick Bullits
A four diamond coach and co-host of the 2007 Over the Rainbow – Wichita East – Vicki Fellers
A six-diamond coach from Truman High School in Pennsylvania – Mr. Karl Greco!
An assistant vice president for branding and advertising for LFG – Mr. David Wozniak!
The product manager of corporate branding for LFG – Mr. Jeff Cocce!
A six-diamond coach and NFL Hall of Fame Member, Mr. Randy Pierce!
A four-diamond coach who has coached a Lincoln-Douglas National Champion, from Regis High School, Mr. Eric Di Michele!
“Placing third in boy’s extemp in the 1956 Muskegee High School Nationals and an enormous disappointment to his parents,” from Glenbrook North High School – Mr. Greg Malis!
A four-diamond coach from Bob Jones Academy – Chuck Nicholas!
A two-diamond coach from North Catholic High School, Beth Young!
And finally, a one-diamond coach from East Chapel Hill High School and a former coach and competitor at Vestavia Hills High School, Willie Warren!

THERE ARE THIRTY DIAMONDS ON THIS PANEL!

14. John Scoggin – The Blake School (MN) – coached by Daryl Pinto
13. Erin Gregory – Chaparral High School (CO) – coached by Alan Martin
12. Ben Holguin – Edina High School (MN) – coached by Jake Gelfand and Jessica Bailey
11. Shivani Vohra – The Hockaday School (TX) – coached by Stacy Thomas and Tom Evnen
10. Courtney Nunley – Northland Christian School (TX) – coached by Kevin Roberts and Sam Duby
9. David Donatti – Strake Jesuit College Preparatory School (TX) – coached by Jerry Crist and Gary Johnson
8. Aparna Ramanan — Leland High School (CA) — coached by Gay Brasher and Chris Wardner
7. Rachel Lanier – Northland Christian School (TX) – coached by Kevin Roberts and Sam Duby

And now…the chair of the Lincoln-Douglas debate tournament…Ms. Pauline Carocci, to introduce the competitors…

Thank you to the fabulous tab staff: Michael Patterson, Jennifer Holden, Jay Stubbs, Phil Volen, Kristie Wallace.

CONTESTANT 110 WILL AFFIRM.

CONTESTANT 293 WILL NEGATE.

“They will get to work with their powers of persuasion.”

AND NOW, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PROVIDING EXCLUSIVE EXPERT COMMENTARY ON THE FINAL ROUND OF LINCOLN FINANCIAL GROUP LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE…FROM THE GREAT STATE OF TEXAS…BY WAY OF THE GREAT STATE OF NEW YORK…

HE HELD THE DEGREE OF OUTSTANDING DISTINCTION AS A COMPETITOR…

HE HOLDS THE DEGREE OF DISTINCTION IN COACHING…

YOUR 2006 NATIONAL CHAMPION…

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN…

DOUGLAS BRYANT JEFFERS!

[Doug takes over.]

Hello all. We’re here in the COX Pavilion of UNLV.

Joan began her case with a quote from Abraham Lincoln. I think she clinched the round right there. She noted that the resolution proposes “welfare capitalism” and not “socialism.” She argues that the value is justice because the resolution deals with conflicting claims. She then argued that her criterion of human dignity is the basis of justice.

Her first contention argues that the market is not concerned with dignity

Point A argued that a wide range of business practices (sweat shops, child labor, lack of safety, etc.) disregard worth and that affirming will allow concerns other than self interest to put a stop to this problem.

Point B argued that the market will not provide for those who, through no fault of their own, cannot contribute to the economy. Affirming would allow people to avoid being coerced by circumstances which are not morally relevant.

Contention two argued that the poor cannot contribute to the economy, and that the economy will develop better without extreme inequality.

Todd began CX by trying to nail down the specifics of affirming. He seems to be having a little trouble controlling the direction of CX. He seems to be trying to establish that affirming involves a systematic oppression by the government, while negating involves only possible oppression by the market. In general I would say that Joan did not admit anything important, but used Todd’s CX to effectively answer some of the arguments he is likely to make in the NC, and to give a solid explanation of her case.

Todd is delivering his thank you speech in a severe debater voice. The last word of each sentence is definitely being emphasized. The thank you speech is getting a bit fast …

But the NC seems to have recovered the national’s style (a little). Todd also offered a criterion of respecting human worth. His arguments are similar to Joan’s.

His contention argues that the affirming will create inequality. The Soviet Union and Egypt provide examples of how the affirmative world “replaces the invisible hand of the market with the government’s iron fist.”

Sub point B argues that affirming takes away incentives to perform, and Point C argues that the poor are poor because they don’t work hard.

On the AC

Todd says that his value of morality is better than Joan’s value of Justice. I’m not sure that I grasped the distinction. He then made his argument from CX about the Neg harms being speculative. He then argued that autonomy was the basis of human worth.

Against her first contention, Todd argued that there can be other checks on the market besides limiting economic inequalities.
Against the B point, he argues that the only people excluded by the market are those who don’t work hard, and that markets encourage people to excel.

Against the second contention Todd argues that the freest economies grow much faster than equal economies (with the attendant statistics). He also says that it is okay to violate a few rights for a better economy for everyone.

Joan began CX by pointing out the contradiction that property rights are said to be absolute, but that we can violate them to help the economy. There was a little laughter. Todd then said that he wanted to have welfare programs in the negative world, and Joan asked about the rest of his case which says that welfare programs are harmful. She then began trying to establish the standard. Todd asserted that autonomy was more important than life. For some reason everyone thought that Joan’s question as to whether she had a right to kill Todd was riotously funny.

1AR

Joan began by establishing that human dignity is the standard. She says that life is the fundamental factor in autonomy.

On the NC

Joan says that Scandinavia, not the USSR, is a good example of the affirmative world. She says that government funding can go to different contractors maintaining competition.

Going to A on the AC

Joan says that the problems she is talking about are social and need social solutions.

On her point B

Joan argues that some are not productive because they can’t be, not because they won’t. These have to be protected because it is arbitrary that the market won’t care for them.

She then says a few words about the empirical issue of whether affirming or negating will most help the economy, but I don’t think it amounted to a substantive argument. The speech seemed to rest on the intuition that some people will starve unless we limit economic freedom, and that life is the more important element of human dignity than autonomy.

NR

Todd argues that life is only important because it allows autonomy. He says that human live (like animals) but that their choosing is uniquely human (animals don’t chose) and that choice is therefore more fundamental. This was in the NC, and the 1AR did not seem to have a clear response to it.

Todd then challenges that governments are ethical agents and that letting the government take over removes incentives for corporations to work hard.

He then goes over his argument that the poor just need to work harder. He further argues that in the Aff world the government is in charge and not the people, and that that is a worse inequality. These constitute his voting issues.

Against the AC Todd develops another voting issue out of the notion that the market causes corporations to regulate themselves.

He goes on to say that his evidence is better on the question of which side will help the economy. The virtue of his evidence being that it has specific numbers.

He ends by making a vague argument that affirming will lead to a slippery slope, landing us somewhere near Nazi Germany.

The NR was extremely good and rhetorically sound. I was thinking that Joan was handily winning, but that speech did a good job of bringing up a couple of arguments that the Aff did not address, and of putting a very strong face on the Neg position.

2AR

Joan started with the standards, and the status of the right to life. There still does not seem to be a clear answer to Todd’s argument about autonomy being the thing unique to humanity.

She goes on to reiterate the harms of allowing corporations to go unchecked. She also extends her argument about the need to help those whom the market allows to fall through the cracks. These are the two issues she labels as her voting issues.

My Humble Opinion

All things considered, I thought that this was a very good round. I was especially impressed with the cross examination by Joan, but I don’t think that she developed the concessions she won well enough in the rebuttals. Obviously, the main issue in the round is the status of the right to life. Absent a clear priority of the right to life over autonomy, it would be hard to see how the affirmative contentions would outweigh the negative arguments, as Joan seems to be admitting that the resolution is about violating autonomy in order to preserve lives (by preventing people from starving). In the humble opinion of your critic, since Joan never seemed to have a clear response to Todd’s argument that choice is more fundamental than life because life is common to animals, the negative wins the standards debate, and the arguments in the negative case easily give him enough offense to win the round. But of course I didn’t have one of the ballots, so it remains to be seen what the judges decided. Stay tuned for coverage of the awards ceremony…

Popularity: 7%

test

This entry was posted on Friday, June 20th, 2008 at 3:00 pm and is filed under Nationals 2008. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.