There And Back Again

An Exclusive VBD Interview with Michelin Massey

NEW YORK, N.Y. — Michelin Massey — the former assistant coach at Denver East in Colorado and former director of forensics at Christopher Columbus in Florida, Hopkins in Minnesota, and Harvard-Westlake in California — has been active in Lincoln-Douglas debate since 1992.

Given both his many years as a preferred judge and his rare resumé as the coach at several geographically disparate debate programs, Massey has a perspective on debate informed by many experiences and concerns. He joined me for an exclusive VBD interview in which he shared his views on a number of current issues in the activity.

Jon Cruz: Thank you for joining me for this interview, Michelin!

You are no longer coaching a team actively, but you remain involved in debate during the season. What keeps you coming back?

Michelin Massey: I love debate because the debate community has given me so much. I’ve met some incredible personalities and have learned so much about myself. It’s my pleasure to help new generations of young people learn about how to debate at the highest levels.

JC: Where did you debate in high school, and what was the scope of your competitive experience?

MM: I debated at Eaglecrest High School in Aurora, Colorado.

My competitive experience was almost exclusively on the local Denver circuit. I did attend a few national-level events, including the NFL National Tournament a couple of times.

NFL Nationals was crazy. My junior season, the event was held in Ft. Lauderdale. Our hotel was directly across from the Atlantic ocean. My senior year the tournament was held in North Carolina, a much less scenic locale, yet incredibly fun, nonetheless.

JC: Many times debaters find their first national-level tournament to be an intimidating and perhaps even overwhelming experience. Did you?

MM: Yes. The first event I ever attended was the St. Mark’s tournament. It was the first tournament where I debated my senior season. I was really intimidated by the fact that many of my opponents already had over thirty rounds on the topic. The quality that really struck me about that tournament was that every person I debated were the best from their area. It was really amazing.

I could only afford to attend St. Mark’s and the Omaha Westside tournament in 1995 and 1996, respectively. I remember the St. Mark’s tournament really distinctly because I got to see some pretty epic debates involving top level competitors at the TFA and TOC level.

JC: Epic debates involving top-level competitors at the TFA and TOC level? This is the Michelin Massey interview; we want war stories. Indulge us.

MM: Well, the biggest debate that I saw my senior year was at the St. Mark’s tournament. In the semifinals of the tournament, two really top competitors (Win Hayes and Beau Gratzer) debated in a round that was pretty amazing. The topic was about affording “disabled” athletes the same athletic competition opportunities as “able bodied” athletes. Since the topic was so narrow, it took quite a bit of effort to make the debates interesting. Nonetheless, Beau had about eighteen unique answers to the AC and Win’s 1AR was pretty much flawless. The judges took a bit to make the decision, but Win won.

They were pretty different, stylistically. Beau was really quite aggressive and very fast. He always made a ton of smart answers. Win was quick, but more of the prototypical moderate debater. It was an all-time clash because it wasn’t just the rivalry of the arguments; it was the way in which they had to make concessions for the other person’s style that made their debating special.

I also got to see Hetal Doshi, Brian Fletcher, and Courtney Ballentine debate in the elims.

JC: What initially attracted you to debate?

MM: I was (and am) attracted to the competition.

JC: What was the Colorado circuit like when you debated?

MM: When I debated, the Colorado circuit was quite competitive. There were always several debaters who were in the hunt and quite talented. Because the area didn’t really have a national presence, the debates weren’t especially technical. However, debaters from Colorado have always been great at adapting to nearly every potential audience.

JC: You remained involved in Colorado debate after high school in many ways. Did you feel a particular loyalty to the area, or was it simple commitment to debate itself?

MM: My main desire in being involved with debate in Colorado was to help improve the overall quality of debate in the region. I felt like if talented students had the opportunity test their mettle, debate in the area would improve as a whole.

The main way in which I was involved with debate while in college was to judge local tournaments. I also served as a coach for several students who competed in the Colorado/Wyoming area. As I started to become more involved with national level events, I was able to parlay those experiences to acquiring a TOC bid for the University of Colorado at Boulder tournament. I was fortunate enough to continue running the event with my best friend and college debate partner, Craig Clark, three years after college.

The tournament had an awesome draw. Back in the day, I judged at all of the major Round Robins, Glenbrooks, Bronx, etc. One thing I noticed is that the same seven or eight students were participating in those events. It seemed to be a self-fulfilling cycle of the best students getting access to those events and winning the major tournaments.

One of the things I wanted to do with my round robin [the Flatirons Round Robin, affiliated with the tournament proper] was to give students who were excellent, yet largely undiscovered, an opportunity to debate against other great students.

Another mission of the round robin was to give the best debaters from Colorado the chance to compete against some of the brightest stars on the national circuit. The final mission of the round robin was to make it possible for the tournament to feature some diverse competition and improve the overall quality of the field. I wish that more students from the region would’ve had the opportunity to attend the tournament. Yet, the students who were able to come had a great experience. We were poor college students, but debate was incredibly important to us and we made the quality of the rounds our priority.

JC: In a lot of ways, it sounds like Flatirons led the way for the proliferation of the larger number of more diverse round robins we see today.

MM: I’d like to think that’s the case.

It’s funny because some of the people who were at the round robin and very successful are out of debate (Eric Gehrie, Tom Pryor, Sean O’Donnell, Justin Herndon, and Louis Provost). However, there are many others who have stuck around (Tommy Clancy, Stephen Babb, Sarah Smith, Seamus Donovan, Justin Eckstein, and Rick Brundage). That round robin proved that excellent debate could thrive so long as great judging and underrated talent found each other. Even with very minimal amenities, the debaters loved it because we prioritized the debating over all other considerations.

JC: You mentioned that you judged at a number of elite round robins. How did you become so involved in national-level debate if your background in high school afforded little opportunity to compete nationally?

MM: The Internet. I was a very frequent over-poster to the LD-L and got the opportunity to judge at some events like Bronx Science, the Glenbrooks, the TOC, and TFA state. Those tournaments were my first foray into national level debate.

JC: You’re a very established critic. When you started, you didn’t come from a very established program nationally, so I’m curious if you felt you (and your decisions) were treated any differently by debaters when you were starting out.

MM: When I first started judging on the national circuit, the people I met initially were a bit skeptical about me since they really didn’t know me. After they’d heard some of my oral critiques and I’d taken the time to discuss issue with coaches, people were a lot more receptive to me.

At the time, I was a very heavy poster to the LD-L, so that also helped people to get an idea about where I was coming from with regard to how debate ought to be. It’s funny because I know very few students here in Denver anymore, so when I do judge around town, the kids have a similar mistrust. I think it’s just the nature of debaters to be skeptical about people who they don’t know.

JC: Did you have any particular mentors as you began coaching and judging?

MM: My mentors were quite numerous. I don’t mean to neglect any name, but I will try to include everyone: Aaron Timmons, Victor Jih, Jane Boyd, Greg Malis, Jenny Cook, Minh A. Luong (R), Steve Clemmons, Fred Robertson, and John Gibson. In particular, AT and Victor were (and has always been) people who have believed in me, given me opportunities, and shown me how excellent coaching is done. I learned so much from them about life and debate.

JC: What do you consider to be the vital attributes of a good coach? Of a good team?

MM: One of my mentors, Aaron Timmons, told me that a coach must simply “work hard.” A coach who’s willing to bust his/her butt for their students is one who will succeed. I agree with that. I do think that some coaches may work too hard for their students, supplanting their students from the process. Nonetheless, I do think it’s important for the coach to give their students the same effort that the students produce for them.

Team-wise, I believe the most important thing is to be like a family. Families may have rivalries and even bickering. However, when push comes to shove, the members of the family will defend each other until the end. They will support each other’s dreams and successes. They’ll provide consolation for each other when they fail. In developing teams with that philosophy in mind, I found that every member of the team was much happier and more successful.

JC: I am going to ask a very “rigid” question, but I think it will be a good way to start off discussion on larger issues in the activity. What do you think are three best changes in LD since your earliest days of involvement, and the three worst changes?

MM: Best changes:

(1) More judges who are willing to consider substance to always trump form;

(2) More students who are willing to engage arguments that are outside of the main; and,

(3) More democracy with regard to the sources of debate power.

The worst change is that too many great people are no longer coaching because of the intensity and time commitment required to play the game at the highest level. I am not sure about other bad things, though.

I believe it’s a lot better off now than when I started. However, I do believe that the activity may have already peaked.

JC: If it peaked, when did it? Not that I’m trying to force you to declare that LD has jumped the shark or anything….

MM: I think that LD debate was at its best in 2001. That year, there were so many awesome debaters who possessed their own style and could get it done on any given weekend. Going into that year’s TOC, I honestly believed a dozen students could win.

Everything since then has been because of the advances those students made. Granted, there were some seriously awesome years with students who I thought were tremendous competitors such as 1998 and 2006. Looking at the class of 2001, though, I really found that year to be a year wherein students, judges, and the activity made its biggest strides.

JC: If LD was at its best in 2001, who do you feel were the best debaters? Why? What did you like about each of them?

MM: That’s a difficult question since there were so many great debaters. I will highlight a few of the debaters I remember the most, though it is not to slight anyone in particular.

Tom Pryor really stood out to me because of his ability to see the round in a detached way, especially when it was the late elims. He had such amazing word economy. When the chips were down, he really stepped up.

Tommy Clancy was so aggressive and fast. He put a tremendous amount of pressure on 1ARs and 2NRs with his incredibly well designed traps, turns, and spikes. Tommy was one of the first debaters to take the “shit storm” to the next level because every turn could mean the end of the debate for you.

Stephen Babb just made sense to me that year. I didn’t think he was amazing at any one aspect of debating. However, he really found a way to speak with judges to persuade them. His persuasive power came because he connected issues so well.

I definitely don’t want to leave out David Vivero, a student I coached that season.

David was one of the hardest working debaters I’ve seen, regardless of format. David was so driven to cut the best evidence, the most evidence, and write positions that came directly from a diverse literature base. He made a ton of advances that year and I’m proud that he’s still a great friend.

JC: What has happened to LD post-2001 that has prevented it from building even further on the “advances those students made,” to use your words?

MM: I don’t think there was a specific impediment, per se. I simply believe that the activity lost some of its steam in the subsequent years. Debaters have been quite competitive (and good) since then. It’s just that the collection of debaters at any given time hasn’t been as strong.

JC: Looking back to those three points you made for a moment, can you think of any major rounds or major tournaments at which high-level debaters won more off form than substance?

MM: I can, but I am not going to sit here and bash people’s accomplishments. The bottom line is that those students did what they needed to do in order to succeed. The critics showed them favor and it worked well enough to put together some wins.

JC: Regarding arguments “outside of the main,” what would you consider the “canonical” “main” arguments in LD during your early days of involvement?

MM: Well, the big arguments were the ones related to old-school social contract/rights theory. Anything directly from (or based on) stuff written by Locke, Hobbes, Mill, or Rousseau were the biggies. As I started to get more involved on the national circuit, it seemed like everyone owned the IPO by Simon and Bowie.

JC: You had quite a run with some debaters you coached involving arguments that I think, by any definition, fall outside the main. This, of course, includes a particular octafinal round at the TOC on a topic somewhat related to this year’s TOC topic.

MM: That is true. However, if you really look at those cases, they weren’t really that abstract. We had some funky cases that never saw the light of day.
As for the TOC octafinal debate between Apple Valley KO and Columbus DV, I think that debate really helped to open the space for new ideas in this format. The subsequent discussions made an impact that we still feel today.

JC: Can you tell us about the case, and the reactions to the case, in said TOC octafinal round?

MM: The case was pretty straightforward: the possession of nuclear weapons is sexist and therefore immoral. Primarily, the concept of deterrence is coercive and stems from a masculine view of the source of power being domination, not cooperation. The case also talked about the sexual and sexist metaphors used in describing weaponry. The most obvious example, of course, is the design of the weapons themselves. The case impact was the existence of the war system. Since nuclear weapons deter cooperation vis-à-vis deterrent’s coercive force, no conflicts can ever be resolved.

The reaction to the case and the debate were pretty strong. The prevailing “powers that be” really found the round to be offensive and destructive to LD debate. Given the fallout of the case, I was asked not to return to a camp where I worked for years; critique lectures were given at camps about how I was a part of the group of people who were to bring demise to LD. My student was accused of making the argument simply because the opposing student was female. I was accused of forcing Mr. Vivero to make the argument. None of those things were true. It was quite malicious.

Yet, there were a tremendous number of people who supported what we did. They learned from it and ran. They made critique debating their own and allowed themselves to make their arguments in cleverly insightful ways.

JC: Was the case in question a “kritik,” or did it follow the standard model of a debate case, with a value and criterion?

MM: I think the question you pose presupposes the same conception the position sought to performatively undermine: that an argument can be “critical” and adhere to the value premise/criterion model. To answer your question more directly, the case position was a gender based criticism of deterrence. It employed both a value and criterion.

JC: I assure you that presupposition was not my intent! [laughs] But, turning back to those three points again, what do you mean by on democracy in debate?

MM: In today’s debate landscape, there are more sources of power. There are people in their early 20s who own and operate debate camps that are teaching significant numbers of students how to debate. There are students who, with their independently hired coaches and parents, find their way to the final rounds of huge tournaments. If you look back on those tournament’s histories, that is not something you’d ever find. The students who were in late rounds were typically ones from programs with big time coaches and significant institutional support. This development has come because there are more camps, more round robins, more information, and more opportunities to debate at the highest level.

When there were one or two camps, it was a lot more difficult to succeed if you didn’t go through that system.

JC: At the time, did you see yourself outside the “system” that you’re saying has largely been supplanted?

Yes. Even though it was certainly not my intent, I was definitely made to feel that my contribution to the activity in the form of innovative argumentation was unwanted.

JC: Do you feel there is any new kind of “system” developing even with increased democracy? What I mean to say is that many have called the “national circuit” exclusionary. Are they simply lacking the perspective to see that it’s less exclusionary?

MM: I think that debate in general is more democratic in every single place where debates are held. I liken debate to college basketball (and this year) football. There are so many programs and students who wish to compete. With information and some coaching savvy, students from different sources are finding their way to bigger tournaments and finding success.

Is the national circuit exclusionary? Yes. It is that way by its very nature. Without money, one cannot travel somewhere else. Without parental and/or administrative help, a young person cannot get out of school to compete. Are the people on the national circuit exclusionary? Some are and some aren’t. Like any group, you’ll encounter nice people and some who are not so nice.

JC: Let’s talk about the discussions on the LD-L in your early days of judging, given what a prolific poster you were. Did they mirror any of the current debates about debate?

MM: I think that the nature of the activity is different now, so a lot of those discussions are pretty moot. However, it does seem like the tone of the discussions are pretty similar. When there’s an issue people really care about, there’s quite a bit of passive-aggression going around in those flame wars.

I do like how people are becoming a lot more transparent about their arguments and discussing them in public. That is something I wished we would’ve had when I competed.

JC: You have judged policy debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate. Many of today’s debates about debate revolve around the use (misuse?) of theory arguments that have an origin in policy debate. When did you first see these kinds of arguments?

MM: The first time I ever saw a theoretical argument was when I was in high school. I watched a few policy debater friends really throw down on a topicality debate.

As for LD, I think that arguments will move at light speed once information spreads to the middle class. As soon as the average student understands how to break down a theoretical argument, the elite student will figure a way to master a new position. Progress will result because of the competitive process.

JC: In policy debate, theory arguments seem to be the most “democratic” – in other words, the kinds of arguments anyone can make, since they do not generally require specific evidence. Yet in LD, at least for the past few years, they seem to have been the domain of an “elite.” Thoughts?

MM: Theoretical arguments themselves are just as democratic in LD for the reason you list. The reason why they have mostly been the domain of the best debaters has been because of their relative newness. Great debaters figure out a way to carve their name into the proverbial tree of knowledge. Since LD is structurally more conservative than policy debate, only the best students can create progress because they’re most skilled at convincing many different judges that their newfangled styling is legitimate.

Sure, they’ll lose some rounds on face. Yet, their mark will be left on the activity because others will see what they do and try it on themselves. Eventually their practices become so ingrained into the psyche of the event that few people remember “the way it used to be” in a positive light. The failure of the activity will be when we punish innovation.

Don’t get me wrong: I don’t mean that we should encourage new things simply for their own sake. What I mean is that the wonder of debate is that young people find their voice in this format. When we encourage students to learn about expressing themselves with arguments of their choice, that’s when we’ve succeeded.

JC: Why, then, are these theory arguments still perceived as the domain of the ‘elite’ by many in the community?

MM: I am not sure. I think that’s an unfortunate misconception.

JC: Are there particular theory arguments from policy that you are glad to see introduced into LD? Are there are any that you think don’t work in an LD framework?

MM: My most favorite argument is “multiple conditional counter-plans” are bad.

“Multiple conditional counter-plans bad” states that it is inappropriate for a negative to respond to an affirmative advocacy with several possible alternatives. Typically, in this case, the negative doesn’t advocate any of their possible alternatives. They simply posit them as something other than the affirmative in order to reject it. The arguments are conditional (i.e. the position can be kicked at any time), which makes them a moving target. It also makes it nearly impossible for an affirmative to develop an offensive strategy with permutations, impact turns, etc. because the negative can simply comment that the arguments “aren’t counter-plans, this isn’t policy debate!”

I like how we are now encouraging students to take responsibility for what they say in round.

JC: There was a big discussion raging on the comment threads of VBD regarding pre-standards arguments. What are your views on this form of argumentation?

MM: I think that so-called “pre-standards” arguments are fine, insofar as the debater who makes the argument explains why that argument precedes the typical “standard” filter that they or their opponent proposes. Theoretically, I think that the use of “pre-standards” arguments needs justification.

The primary justification I see is one from old-school CEDA days — the “non starter”. A “non starter” is an argument that short-circuits the resolution. If the resolution implies the existence of condition X, but the negative says how condition X is unreal, then the resolution should be rejected because it can’t even begin.

A “non-starter” example — Resolved: a just society ought to prioritize money over free-time.

One non-starter would be the proof that a “just society” does not exist. Another could prove that money and free-time do not conflict. What the debater is doing is demonstrating why the presumption of the resolution is faulty. Since the affirmative is charged with affirming the resolution, they must defend its assumptions.

If we’re saying that our new paradigm is that the affirmative must affirm the resolution in *some* way, then this position doesn’t make sense (much in the same way that these arguments fell out of practice in CEDA debate when CEDA became plan-focused policy debate). However, if we hold on to the view that LD debaters must either affirm or negate the resolution as stated, then the affirmative has a duty to defend the resolution — spots and all.

LD debaters have often made what I believe is a lazy and unsatisfactory answer to this argument: the resolution presupposes the existence of condition X, so we should use that as a starting point from debate. The problem with this approach (that critical arguments have demonstrated) is that we cannot presume the existence of anything. In fact, there may be good reasons why that thing does not exist. If it does not exist, the resolution cannot be affirmed as stated because it’s based in a faulty premise.

Where I think that “pre-standards” arguments are problematic is when there are multiples of these positions. Multiple “pre-standards” arguments are bad because their use is infinitely regressive. Since the debater offering these arguments is making them with no risk on their end, encouraging multiple “pre-standards” arguments allows students to evade the selected issue entirely. In a world like this one, nothing prevents a student from giving a speech filled with so-called “pre-standards” arguments.

I also think multiple “pre-standards” arguments are problematic because they may conflict. If a debater has a topicality interpretation that can only be met with some other damning interpretation of the resolution, the affirmative’s ability to adequately address these issues is diminished.

JC: What is the bright line for “multiple” pre-standards arguments? When do they become too much? More than one? More than two? Or what?

MM: I think your question about the “bright line” for multiple pre-standards arguments is funny. Multiple means more than one!

I think that the abuse occurs as soon as an additional “pre-standards” argument is made since typically these arguments don’t carry equal risk for each debater. What can (and probably does) happen quite frequently is that the negative debater will have five “pre-standards” arguments. They could get their butt kicked on four of the five, but win on a cheap-shot because they buckle down and collapse to the under-covered one in the 2N. If debaters allow their opponents to do this, more debaters will debate in this way, which is anti-educational (less topic-specific education) and anti-competitive (impossible for affirmatives to spend four minutes to defend against seven minutes of “pre-standards” arguments).

Even if a negative has two “pre-standards” arguments, the strategy/time skew has occurred.

JC: I guess I am looking to clarify specifically why one pre-standards argument doesn’t constitute “strategy/time skew,” but two does. Is it because of the possibility of kicking out an undercovered one? Or what specifically?

MM: There’s a strategy skew with multiple “pre-standards” arguments because they may conflict; because there’s not equal risk for both debaters to win or lose on the position; because it is nearly impossible to draw a line between the acceptability of two “pre-standards” arguments and ten “pre-standards” arguments (creating a norm that only one argument is acceptable does create a strong distinction); etc. Simply because a debater must defend an assumption in the resolution or their position, it does not mean that it’s reasonable to force that defense in a way that would make debating about the remainder of the topic impossible.

JC: Many, if not nearly all, theory arguments in Lincoln-Douglas debate can find their roots in policy debate. Have you heard any theory arguments that you do not feel make sense in an LD context? If so, which ones, and why?

MM: I do not believe there are any theory arguments that cannot be well applied to Lincoln-Douglas debate given the right context. Since most LD topics these days are more specific policy motions with a value tint, debaters have a wealth of opportunity to apply theoretical arguments borrowed from policy debate as well as create their own theory. If a student truly committed themselves to learning about existing debate theory and generating ideas about new theory, it’d be groundbreaking and incredibly successful. The judging at most elite tournaments is open-minded enough to listen to a well-formulated and new spin on debate.

It’s simply a matter of someone being willing to step up and do it.

JC: Changing pace for the conclusion, I’m going to ask about team-building, especially given your earlier comment on the pressures placed on coaches. You have coached individual debaters and entire teams. What would you say the greatest difficulties confronting a new coach are? What should a new coach keep in mind when starting a new program? When replacing a former coach?

MM: I think the biggest difficulties young coaches face is paperwork! It’s a monumental task to learn about schedules for getting field trip approval from the school, teachers, and parents; securing funding for individual trips; balancing the interests of students against tournament limitations; finding sufficient competent judging; booking and arranging for travel; etc. Being a coach who administers a program is a full time position. This is why schools that do the best have a person whose function is to ensure that these things are done correctly. They have other(s) that do the coaching.

New programs have the difficulty of finding a sense of legitimacy. This comes in the form of securing a (meager) budget; finding team members; accessing practice space; developing a work ethic for the students; teaching the parents about the idiosyncrasies of debate subculture; integrating the concept of debate into the overall school.

Replacing a coach is difficult for a newcomer. Newcomers always want to do things their way. The new coach has to teach the students a new style. They have to encourage the students to “buy in” to the way they coach. I’ve also found administrative differences as well. Schools are accustomed to the way Former Coach-X did things and are uncomfortable if you’re at all different from them. While replacing a popular coach can be an incredible challenge for an incoming coach, replacing an unpopular coach can pose some hidden challenges. The new coach may have to overcome some fears on the part of colleagues and students alike that they are different than the old guard. They may need to take extra time to build up trust with their new students so that they can teach properly.

JC: To finish, then: at each of the teams at which you’ve worked, what were your initial goals, and long-term goals?

MM: Unfortunately, I have never stayed in any one place for as long as I’ve wanted to see my long-term visions come to fruition. My sense of wanderlust has made it nearly impossible for me to establish roots in any place outside of Colorado.

Nonetheless, my goal of all timeframes has been quite simple: help my students achieve whatever it is they want from this activity. I’ve had students whose legitimate goal was to win elite round robins and the TOC. I’ve had other students who wanted to be among the elite and go to or even clear at the TOC. I’ve had other students who were stoked to advance at larger regional tournaments. I’ve had other students who simply wanted to break even at local tournaments — to move beyond very humble results.

The message I’ve tried to convey to every student I’ve had is that debate is largely a machine. It gives back much of what you put into it. Granted, there are moments of subjectivity that may cause luck or unluckiness. However, the best students seem to rise above any individual circumstance to find their way into deep elimination rounds with a shot at a tournament title. I do not believe that this is a random correlation. If I ever do return to full time coaching, my goal will be to contribute positively to debate so that it’ll continue to evolve in positive ways.

Popularity: 2%

test

This entry was posted on Saturday, August 30th, 2008 at 8:12 pm and is filed under Interviews. 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.