Jordan Lamothe Wins Berkeley
BERKELEY, Calif. — The Meadows School’s Jordan Lamothe is the champion of the thirty-seventh annual California Invitational at the University of California, Berkeley, having bested West Des Moines Valley High School’s Ross Brown in the final round on a 3-2 decision. Congratulations to both debaters!
The final round was adjudicated by John Scoggin, Ajay Ketkar, Ankur Mandhania, Ryan Lawrence, and Sharmi Doshi. (Lawrence and Doshi dissented.)
Jordan is coached by Dan Meyers and Mike Spirtos; Ross is coached by Dave McGinnis and Marcus Moretti.
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE
TRIPLES
(1) Meadows JL def. (64) Bellarmine KV (Kyle Vandenberg)
(2) Torrey Pines CS def. (63) James Logan KA (Kian Azimpoor)
(62) Palo Alto NB def. (3) Lone Peak OG (Oliver Gappmeyer)
(4) Loyola AB def. (61) Green Valley DK (Dylan Kama)
(5) Glenbrook North PD def. (60) San Marino NZ (Nabeel Zewail)
(6) Torrey Pines IG def. (59) Bainbridge LG (Lauren Greenawalt)
(7) West Des Moines Valley RB def. (58) Monta Vista DK (Daniel Ki)
(8) Pinewood CK def. (57) Cherry Creek RS (Ryan Streit)
(56) Torrey Pines NK def. (9) Brentwood CW (Cory Wynn)
(10) College Prep MD def. (55) James Logan DB (Diana Brooks)
(11) Loyola AS def. (54) Albuquerque IEK (Ian Erickson-Kery)
(53) Annie Wright SV def. (12) Centennial PJ (Paige Joki)
(13) Rancho Bernardo PK def. (52) Bellarmine MD (Michael Dittmer)
(14) Mercer Island SA def. (51) Claremont MZ (Maddie Zhu)
(50) Mountain View NN def. (15) University JT (Josh Tupler)
(49) College Prep AK def. (16) Indian Springs JL (Jeff Liu)
(48) Palo Alto AA def. (17) Kingwood NG (Neil Grigg)
(18) Saint Louis Park CT def. (47) Loyola BO (Bob Overing)
(19) Indian Springs LL def. (46) Palo Verdes Peninsula HZ (Henry Zhang)
(20) Brentwood KAN def. (45) James Logan DS (Demetria Su)
(21) Palo Alto LC def. (44) Harker CL (Connie Lu)
(22) Meadows NS def. (43) Lynbrook AA (Athanasia Amberiadis)
(23) Esperanza JP def. (42) Cherry Creek DL (Daniel Lipson)
(24) Monta Vista HA def. (41) Bellarmine MaD (Matt Delateur)
(25) Bellarmine BP def. (40) Loyola ABi (Adam Bistagne)
(26) Green Valley RM def. (39) West Des Moines Valley CM (Chris Miller)
(27) Presentation EP def. (38) San Marino AS (Andrew Szeto)
(37) Mercer Island LT def. (28) Harvard-Westlake HK (Haleh Kanani)
(29) Albuquerque NW def. (36) Saint Ignatius Prep ML (Michael Lin)
(35) Bainbridge JM def. (30) College Prep SS (Sarah Sachs)
(31) Meadows RF def. (43) Los Altos SB (Saleil Bhat)
(32) Bellarmine TR def. (33) San Marino KW (Kevin Wu)
DOUBLES
Glenbrook North PD def. Mercer Island LT (Lizzie Tao)
Torrey Pines IG def. Presentation EP (Emily Purvis)
West Des Moines Valley RB def. Green Valley RM
Bellarmine BP def. Pinewood CK (Catherine Kong)
Palo Alto NB def. Bainbridge JM (Jimmy Mooney)
Loyola AB def. Albuquerque NW (Nina Wexelblatt)
Meadows JL def. Bellarmine TR (Tim Reynolds)
Torrey Pines CS def. Meadows RF (Ryan Fink)
Torrey Pines NK def. Monta Vista HA (Hari Alladi)
College Prep MD def. Esperanza JP (Justin Pearce)
Loyola AS def. Meadows NS (Nate Socolof)
Annie Wright SV def. Palo Alto LC (Lucas Chan)
Brentwood KAN def. Rancho Bernardo PK (Paras Kumar)
Mercer Island SA def. Indian Springs LL (Larry Liu)
St. Louis Park CT def. Mountain View NN (Nikhil Nag)
Palo Alto AA def. College Prep AK (Alexandra Kennedy)
OCTAS
Torrey Pines NK def. Bellarmine BP (Ben Perotin)
Glenbrook North PD def. Annie Wright SV (Sonia Vora)
Loyola AB def. Brentwood KAN (Kyle Allen-Niesen)
Mercer Island SA def. Palo Alto NB (Nikhil Bhargava)
Meadows JL def. Palo Alto AA (Avi Arfin)
Torrey Pines CS def. Saint Louis Park CT (Catherine Tarsney)
Torrey Pines IG def. Loyola AS (Andrew Seber)
West Des Moines Valley RB def. College Prep MD (Michelle Deloison-Baum)
QUARTERS
Torrey Pines IG def. Mercer Island SA (Steven Adler)
Loyola AB def. Glenbrook North PD (Patrick Donovan)
West Des Moines Valley RB def. Torrey Pines CS (Colin Scott)
Meadows JL def. Torrey Pines NK (Naveen Krishnamurthi)
SEMIS
Meadows JL def. Loyola AB (Andrew Blay)
West Des Moines Valley RB def. Torrey Pines IG (Ilya Gaidarov)
FINALS
Meadows JL def. West Des Moines Valley RB (Ross Brown)
CHAMPION
Meadows JL (Jordan Lamothe)
Popularity: 17% [?]
test
Posted from: 69.163.185.110
February 13th, 2010 01:49
[...] California Invitational (Berkeley) — Live Coverage Harvard National Invitational — Live Coverage Harvard Round Robin — Finals: Walt Whitman’s Ben Lewis defeated Greenhill’s Tanya Thanawalla on a 4-1 decision. UPenn Liberty Bell Classic — Live Coverage [...]
Posted from: 125.131.152.14
February 13th, 2010 20:22
Results anyone?
Posted from: 136.152.179.174
February 13th, 2010 20:56
It’s only been two rounds.
confirmed:
Brentwood CW 2-0
Newark Memorial KG 2-0
PV Peninsula DT 2-0
Posted from: 136.152.179.118
February 14th, 2010 00:26
A winning combination:
1. Wifi available throughout campus,
2. Parings posted online upon their release, and
3. Twitter updates being sent out as soon as pairings are released.
Simple, but this is the only tournament I’ve attended that has done this. Kudos.
Posted from: 136.152.179.118
February 14th, 2010 00:27
They’re being posted here, by the way: http://cndi.wikispaces.com/2010+Cal+HS+-+LD
Posted from: 204.251.204.204
February 14th, 2010 00:51
harvard has pairings online and results.
Posted from: 209.125.10.3
February 14th, 2010 01:33
Anyone know if IE’s are being power protected?
Posted from: 75.30.75.18
February 14th, 2010 04:35
power match or power protect?
Posted from: 140.247.229.112
February 14th, 2010 09:12
Twitter updates are great; a lot of Northeast tournaments do that. I’m also enjoying the wifi access here in Massachusetts — impressively fast!
Good luck to all debating out west.
Posted from: 66.27.125.208
February 14th, 2010 15:33
can ppl please stop giving double 30s every single round…. Seriously, 2 flights of double thirties Sojee Hahn… I’m sorry, I don’t mean to call you out, but this is very irksome to me bc it screws the spks for the rest of the pool… How the hell do you get 2 back to back flights were all 4 debaters give absolutely perfect speeches… c’mon, can we please start giving real speaker points?
btw, it’s rather nice that Cal posts ballots. More tournaments should do this.
Posted from: 69.163.185.110
February 14th, 2010 17:25
[...] California Invitational (Berkeley) — Live Coverage Harvard National Invitational — Live Coverage Harvard Round Robin — Finals: Walt Whitman’s Ben Lewis defeated Greenhill’s Tanya Thanawalla on a 4-1 decision. UPenn Liberty Bell Classic — Finals: Hendrick Hudson’s Alli Gofman defeated Monticello’s Dan Cook on a 3-0 decision. [...]
Posted from: 99.57.188.93
February 14th, 2010 20:22
Monta Vista PS is 5-0 confirmed.
Posted from: 99.57.188.93
February 14th, 2010 21:08
Monta Vista EN is 5- 0
Posted from: 136.152.166.172
February 15th, 2010 01:19
PV Peninsula HZ 5-1
PV Peninsula DT 4-2
Posted from: 173.25.243.198
February 15th, 2010 01:26
The Valley contingent of 3 is a collective 15-3 in prelims, with Ross Brown going 6-0, Chris Miller 5-1 and Matt McCune 4-2. Good weekend, guys! Gluck with trips and dubs.
I gotta say this is a high point in an incredible run for Chris Miller – who only decided to do LD debate *at all* in November.
And that’s a great result for you, too, McCune. Your sticktoitiveness impresses me and all that hard work is paying off.
Posted from: 97.116.6.26
February 15th, 2010 01:34
Good going, Valley; good coaching, Dave!
SLP CT is 5-1.
Posted from: 12.104.12.83
February 15th, 2010 01:54
Congrats to Team Valley and coaches Dave and Marcus — that is an exceedingly impressive combined win count.
Posted from: 173.13.141.202
February 15th, 2010 02:07
Meadows JL 6-0
Meadows NS 5-1
Meadows RF 5-1
Meadows JG 4-2
Posted from: 173.13.141.202
February 15th, 2010 02:26
I love my baby mama, ill never let her go
Posted from: 173.13.141.202
February 15th, 2010 02:32
Losing my sight, losing my mind, wish somebody would tell me I’m fine
Posted from: 173.13.141.202
February 15th, 2010 02:34
WAKE ME UP WAKE ME UP INSIDE
Posted from: 173.13.141.202
February 15th, 2010 02:42
Has anyone seen my brother?
Posted from: 173.13.141.202
February 15th, 2010 02:52
Congratulations to my Valley kids on what appears to have been a great four years!
Posted from: 207.215.104.130
February 15th, 2010 03:07
Elim Qualifiers:
http://cndi.wikispaces.com/file/view/Cal2010+-+Varsity+LD+Elim+Qualifiers.pdf
Posted from: 97.116.6.26
February 15th, 2010 03:15
http://cndi.wikispaces.com/2010+Cal+HS+-+LD
Qualifiers for Elimination Rounds
Albuquerque Academy IE (lan Erickson-kery)
Albuquerque Academy NW (Nina Wexelblatt)
Annie Wright School SV (Sonia Vora)
Bainbridge High JM (Jimmy Mooney)
Bainbridge High LG (Lauren Greenawalt)
Bellarmine Cp BP (Ben Perotin)
Bellarmine Cp KV (kyle vandenberg)
Bellarmine Cp MD (Michael Dittmer)
Bellarmine Cp MaD (Matt Delateur)
Bellarmine Cp TR (tim reynolds)
Brentwood CW (Cory Wynn)
Brentwood KA (Kyle Allen-niesen)
Centennial Hs PJ (Paige Joki)
Cherry Creek DL (Daniel Lipson)
Cherry Creek RS (Ryan Streit)
Claremont Hs MZ (Maddie Zhu)
Cps AK (Alex Kennedy)
Cps MD (Michelle Deloison-baum)
Cps SS (Sarah Sachs)
Esperanza Hs JP (Justin Pearce)
Glenbrook North PD (Pat Donovan)
Green Valley Hs DK (Dylan Kama)
Green Valley Hs RM (Reed Mcginley-stempel)
Harker CL (Connie Lu)
Harvard-westlake HK (Haleh Kanani)
Indian Springs JL (Jeff Liu)
Indian Springs LL (Larry Liu)
James E. Taylor Hs KA (Kian Azimpoor)
James Logan DB (Diana Brooks)
James Logan DS (Demetria Su)
Kingwood Hs NG (Neil Grigg)
Lone Peak OG (Oliver Gappmayer)
Los Altos Hs SB (Saleil Bhat)
Loyola High School AB (Adam Bistagne)
Loyola High School AS (Andrew Seber)
Loyola High School BO (Bob Overing)
Loyola High SchoolAnB (Andrew Blay)
Lynbrook Hs AA (Athanasia Amberiadis)
Mercer Island LT (Lizzie Tao)
Mercer Island SA (Steven Adler)
Monta Vista High DK (Daniel Ki)
Monta Vista High HA (Hari Alladi)
Mountain View Hs NN (Nikhil Nag)
Palo Alto High Schoo AA (Avi Arfin)
Palo Alto High Schoo LC (Lucas Chan)
Palo Alto High Schoo NB (Nikhil Bhargava)
Pinewood School CK (Catherine Kong)
Presentation Hs EP (Emily Purvis)
Pv Peninsula Hs HZ (Henry Zhang)
Rancho Bernardo Hs PK (Paras Kumar)
San Marino Hs AS (Andrew Szeto)
San Marino Hs KW (Kevin Wu)
San Marino HsNZ (Nabeel Zewail)
St Ignatius Prep ML (Michael Lin)
St. Louis Park CT (Catherine Tarsney)
The Meadows School JL (Jordan Lamothe)
The Meadows School NS (Nate Socolof)
The Meadows School RF (Ryan Fink)
Torrey Pines CS (Colin Scott)
Torrey Pines IG (Ilya Gaidarov)
Torrey Pines NK (Naveen Krishnamurthi)
University School JT (Josh Tupler)
Valley High School CM (Chris Miller)
Valley High School RB (Ross Brown)
Posted from: 169.229.106.113
February 15th, 2010 03:19
when are they going to release brackets?
Posted from: 209.125.10.3
February 15th, 2010 03:38
Does anyone know what speaks it took to break?
Posted from: 125.131.152.14
February 15th, 2010 08:55
Congrats Mike.
YEEEEE. Yo time is here.
Posted from: 97.116.6.26
February 15th, 2010 12:12
Triples pairings posted: http://cndi.wikispaces.com/2010+Cal+HS+-+LD
Posted from: 99.23.4.152
February 15th, 2010 12:56
congrats to Kian on the break
Posted from: 136.152.167.88
February 15th, 2010 13:18
Meadows JL def Bellarmine KV
Meadows RF def Los Altos SB
Palo Alto NB def Lone Peak OG
Bellarmine BP def Loyola AdBi
Torrey Pines IG def Bainbridge LG
Torrey Pines NK def Brentwood CW
Abq NW def ???
Posted from: 136.152.167.64
February 15th, 2010 13:56
Palo Alto AA def. Kingwood NG
2-1 (Miaskiewitcz, Kingshott, *Norris)
Posted from: 75.72.252.231
February 15th, 2010 14:12
St. Louis Park CT def. Loyola BO 3-0 with that same panel.
Posted from: 69.137.50.51
February 15th, 2010 14:12
Some trips
Loyola AnB def. Green Valley DK
2-1 (Meyers, Switala, *Zhou)
Green Valley RM def. Valley CM
2-1 (Spirtos, Lawrence, *Mandhania)
Posted from: 136.152.167.179
February 15th, 2010 14:22
Indian Springs LL def. PV Peninsula HZ [2-1] *Moorehead
CONGRATULATIONS HENRY ZHANG FOR GOING 5-1 AS A FRESHMAN AND PICKING UP A BALLOT!!!
Posted from: 136.152.167.26
February 15th, 2010 14:29
Rancho Bernando PK def. Bellarmine MD – 3-0
Mercer Island SA def. Claremont MZ – 3-0
Mercer Island LT def. Harvard-Westlake HK
Posted from: 76.21.3.126
February 15th, 2010 16:01
Congrats to Michael Lin (St. Ignatius ML) on the break – Also congrats to Aidan Fox (St. Ignatius AF) for going 4-2
Posted from: 69.181.58.33
February 15th, 2010 17:10
glad i actually apparently judged someone that cleared at the end of sunday. thanks tab. i almost killed myself after the 20-20 round you gave me. or the 20-24 low point win round.
Posted from: 75.25.136.243
February 15th, 2010 17:38
Congrats to Palo Alto’s Nikhil Bhargava and Avi Arfin on completing their quals to the TOC. Well deserved.
Posted from: 136.152.167.19
February 15th, 2010 17:44
HUGE congrats to Steven Adler and Ben Perotin on completing their quals!! The bids are well deserved and long-overdue.
Posted from: 136.152.178.136
February 15th, 2010 18:29
Congratulations are very much deserved to a host of people for bidding and qualling, including Stephen Adler, Ben Perotin, and Sonia Vora.
But above all congrats to Nikhil and Avi!!! I’m so glad this has all worked out for you nikhil (especially because i’ve finally stopped impeding your progress in elims =D). And AVI way to be a BEAST and qualling within one week with an advocacy that you truly believe in!
Posted from: 140.180.18.3
February 15th, 2010 18:41
Major congrats to both debaters from PV Peninsula who made a phenomenal showing at Berkeley as freshman. Both of you guys have made incredible progress since the start of this topic and there is no doubt you will continue to go far next year!
Great job to Henry for going 5-1 as a freshman taking a ballot in triples. And of course, Dan for nearly making the break as a 4-2!
Posted from: 76.21.6.254
February 15th, 2010 19:06
Major congrats to Avi and Nikhil! You guys are such beasts!!!!
Posted from: 173.26.1.25
February 15th, 2010 19:08
hit em up ross
Posted from: 69.181.67.29
February 15th, 2010 19:21
A HUGE congrats to both avi and nikhil for bidding, and to Lucas to making it to yet another bid round.
You guys are awesome! =]
Posted from: 24.214.64.75
February 15th, 2010 19:34
Any news on octas?
Posted from: 12.50.92.130
February 15th, 2010 19:40
Congratulations to Michelle for bidding. You seriously are far too underconfident and I hope this reaffirms the fact that you are a great debater!
And per usual, congratulations to Catherine who is rocking it.
Posted from: 69.163.185.110
February 15th, 2010 20:13
[...] California Invitational (Berkeley) — Live Coverage Harvard National Invitational — Finals: Walt Whitman’s Perry Green defeated Harvard-Westlake’s Jake Sonnenberg on a 6-1 decision. Harvard Round Robin — Finals: Walt Whitman’s Ben Lewis defeated Greenhill’s Tanya Thanawalla on a 4-1 decision. UPenn Liberty Bell Classic — Finals: Hendrick Hudson’s Alli Gofman defeated Monticello’s Dan Cook on a 3-0 decision. [...]
Posted from: 76.73.41.50
February 15th, 2010 20:17
Meadows JL def. Palo Alto AA
real debate is coming back.
Posted from: 136.152.156.109
February 15th, 2010 20:41
Torrey Pines IG def Mercer Island SA 3-0
Valley RB def Torrey Pines CS 3-0
Posted from: 136.152.166.36
February 15th, 2010 20:56
Semis:
Meadows JL vs.Loyola AnB
Torrey Pines IG vs. Valley RB
Posted from: 136.152.179.79
February 15th, 2010 21:29
San Marino MC man, what the heck? Only 4-2 this time?
Posted from: 97.116.6.26
February 15th, 2010 22:11
Congrats to Catherine on earning her 11th bid, tying the record for bids earned in a season … wow!
Posted from: 136.152.167.128
February 15th, 2010 22:12
Meadows JL def. Loyola AnB
Posted from: 207.151.254.13
February 15th, 2010 22:29
“Meadows JL def. Palo Alto AA
real debate is coming back”
So is douchiness, apparently…
Posted from: 173.26.1.25
February 15th, 2010 22:32
THERE WILL BE BLOOD
Posted from: 68.38.217.209
February 15th, 2010 22:40
AT 53
I thought the record was 13 and set by Joshua Nadir.
Posted from: 97.116.6.26
February 15th, 2010 22:52
Alex, going by this: http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2007/11/28/ask-cruz-volume-ii/
Posted from: 68.38.217.209
February 15th, 2010 22:53
I stand corrected.
An amazing achievement.
Posted from: 99.25.36.37
February 15th, 2010 23:14
Sorry and Congrats to James Logan PR for going 4-2 and having higher speaks than several people in the breaking pool, yet somehow not clearing.
Posted from: 74.63.93.191
February 15th, 2010 23:30
meadows jl def. valley rb 4-1 *ketkar
Posted from: 70.149.108.8
February 15th, 2010 23:35
Congrats Mike for coaching your kid to the same accomplishment you made 3 years earlier.
Posted from: 70.173.215.115
February 15th, 2010 23:37
Congratulations to Jordan LaMothe for representing the Golden Desert District of Nevada! :)
Posted from: 66.191.157.67
February 16th, 2010 00:09
Congrats to another outstanding performance by spirtoss and his gang LOL.
Posted from: 66.191.157.67
February 16th, 2010 00:09
*spirtos
Posted from: 71.146.88.51
February 16th, 2010 00:54
Congrats to Gabe Bronshteyn (Monte Vista GB) for his third jv final round appearance at an invite and 2nd time winning it!
Also congrats to everyone in varsity who cleared and to Jordan for winning.
Posted from: 75.3.205.118
February 16th, 2010 01:33
Congrats to
-Ilya for sems and another bid. Again, sorry you didn’t get what you wanted.
-Colin and Naveen for quarters, you guys are frickin awesome.
-Nikhil B. on another bid, Avi for the qual, and Lucas for another bid round., as well as the rest of Palo Alto.
-Daniel on triples.
-Jordan on the win and Nate for doubles.
-Adler for qualling.
-Reed, Nikhil N. and Paras on the bid rounds.
-everyone else who cleared. :)
Posted from: 24.7.64.255
February 16th, 2010 01:42
much love to daniel ki for being so boss
respect to avi
Posted from: 99.151.9.87
February 16th, 2010 01:51
Big ups to Carl Shan and Pargat Singh on taking the Public Forum title. From winning a parli tourney earlier in the year to just being bosses in general, this win was well deserved! Congrats to everyone!
Posted from: 98.196.20.115
February 16th, 2010 02:09
Congrats to Jordan and Ross on the finals appearance.
Posted from: 69.181.58.33
February 16th, 2010 02:15
“Palo Alto AA def. Kingwood NG
2-1 (Miaskiewitcz, Kingshott, *Norris)”
Who filled in as me to judge outrounds?
Posted from: 76.88.18.34
February 16th, 2010 02:25
Ilya G. is a boss.
Posted from: 75.18.198.103
February 16th, 2010 02:40
Congrats to Michelle D-B for bidding. You do so much work that everyone appreciates and this bid is beyond well deserved.
Posted from: 66.104.252.226
February 16th, 2010 03:00
@greg in post 71
The pairings said you were on the panel, I guess the ballot got pushed to someone else and I was never told otherwise, my bad.
@spirtos
the decision was a 3-2 for jordan (j. scoggin, mandhania, ketkar, *lawrence, *?)
Posted from: 66.104.252.226
February 16th, 2010 03:02
meadows jl def. valley rb 3-2 (scoggin, ketkar, mandhania, *lawrence, *doshi)
Posted from: 66.27.125.208
February 16th, 2010 03:05
at 60… that would be a tab error and should have been brought to their attention as soon as breaks were announced.
Posted from: 166.137.137.11
February 16th, 2010 03:14
To whoever posted as me saying the result: really?
And I’ll post a longer response later, but congrats to Ross and Jordan.
Posted from: 67.188.192.227
February 16th, 2010 03:22
i’m really glad that we had a solid size crowd for finals – not only was it a damn good round, making it a proper ending to an octas bid tournament, but it also gave kids the opportunity to see one of the best 2ARs i’ve seen in a while. congrats to jordan, you really blew me away.
congrats as well to all the cps kids – you’re a pleasure to coach, and remind me every time i see you why it is i love the game. special congrats to sarah for clearing as a sophomore, alex for managing to clear as a 4-2 and getting another bid round under your belt, and of course michelle for the well-deserved bid. you’re a great kid, and you really earned this one!
Posted from: 74.63.93.146
February 16th, 2010 03:36
I found it particularly offensive that Avi prevented a girl from getting a bid to the TOC. Clearly, Avi has other motives other than spreading his “message”.
So Avi, you’re an asshole. I don’t know how you can sleep with yourself at night. You’ve run this case numerous times and you have caused the attention that you begged for. Your message has been sent, heard, and overdone.
Do us all a favor, and “man up” (for lack of a better term) and debate the topic.
Posted from: 207.151.254.13
February 16th, 2010 03:51
@ 79
Alex was already qualified prior to her round with Avi
So…um stop being an asshole?
Posted from: 68.164.187.157
February 16th, 2010 04:27
I know I’m being pedantic, but no one is really guaranteed entry to the TOC until they have 3 bids. The TOC website reads:
Applications are accepted based on the following criteria:
* Having three or more qualifying legs guarantees admission into the Tournament.
* Participation in elimination rounds of the 2009 TOC tournament guarantees admission, provided that the application is submitted by Monday, February 1, 2010.
* Having two qualifying legs guarantees admission into the Tournament, provided that there are seventy or fewer fully qualified entries. If there are more than seventy entries, the TOC Advisory Committees shall examine and rank the two-qualifier applications for their respective events and the Tournament Director will admit the most qualified entries.
Given that Alex’s second bid was earned in the quarters at the “controversially elevated to quarters status at the last minute due to error” Golden Desert Invitational, it’s not crazy to think that her 2 bid application might be among those rejected.
Additionally, there are a large number of women debaters with single bids who will be applying through the at-large process. Anyone who supports the idea that something should be done to address the under-representation of women at the TOC has to face the fact that each additional qualified male debater trades off against the possibility of a woman debater receiving an at-large. You can’t get around the fact that the under-representation of women is also the over-representation of men.
All of that aside, I hope folks will stop the name calling. While Avi’s implementation of his argument makes makes me angry, I cannot support name calling in this forum. I think that Avi is sincere…but still hopelessly wrong. My social location (female coach of 80% female LD squad) gives me a perspective on Avi’s strategy that he simply doesn’t have.
Posted from: 69.181.58.33
February 16th, 2010 05:08
wow, scanned ballots. i hope people see those 20-20 speaks with an incoherent rant as an rfd and make sure to strike me at toc.
Posted from: 71.198.24.156
February 16th, 2010 05:16
What if Alex had zero bids or one bid?
What if a girl running Avi’s case had prevented another girl from bidding or qualling?
To what degree does a debater need to express sincerity about his or her argument in order to run it? Should he or she have to lose as a self-sacrifice?
Is exposing the problems of debate enough? Who will expose entrenched disadvantages within debate otherwise, and how should they do so?
Posted from: 24.5.241.146
February 16th, 2010 05:48
I think the most compelling argument is that debaters would actually brainstorm solutions and think critically with Avi if he conceded the ballot. Also, I believe conceding the ballot would cause even MORE publicity than his winning has. An instructive example of both these points is Amanda Liverzani’s cases at Greenhill in 2004. She ultimately conceded the ballot, and got a ton of publicity, and a VBD interview:
The following is an excerpt of an interview with Amanda Liverzani in 2004.
Jon Cruz. “Discussing What She Believes In”. 10/4/2004
http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2004/10/04/discussing-what-she-believes-in/
“[Jon Cruz asked:]
JC: Once you started forfeiting rounds and held discussions instead, what was the climate? Was it awkward? Or were people receptive?
[Liverzani responded:]
AL: I don’t think it could have gone any better. At Greenhill, I debated ten rounds. At the round robin, I debated three. None of those rounds were as successful in sparking discourse and thought on the subject as my round with Hirsh [Jain].
How so?
Prior to that round everyone had been approaching my case in that adverserial context…not thinking about the actual issues behind it. I can really say that I had an effect on people in that room once they realized how serious I was about the subject.
Hirsh, the judge, and I engaged in a genuine discussion on feminism, rape, sexism in society. Not only did I get my views out there, but I learned from the two of them as well.”
Posted from: 75.25.136.243
February 16th, 2010 10:23
A few people have brought up Amanda Liverzani’s performance at the Greenhill RR. I debated Amanda at the RR that year, though she didn’t concede the ballots for a discussion in our round. (As I recall, it was our round that caused her to change her approach; she forfeited every subsequent round). I think it’s worth pointing out how weak the analogy to Avi’s performance is.
The format of a round robin is very different from the format of a tournament. Amanda was guaranteed a fixed number of rounds with big-name debaters and judges; losing the ballots in one round did not preclude her from going on to debate the next. At a tournament, this isn’t possible. Should Avi have conceded his prelim rounds for the sake of discussion? Somehow, I don’t see his advocacy getting much attention if it’s read to a parent and a novice in the 0-6 bracket.
The atmosphere at the Greenhill RR is also unique. There was no real time pressure during the RR, and back then debaters weren’t rushing off to write new cases or prep each other out between rounds. And as is often the case at these venues, most of the competitors (and many judges) were already friends or acquaintances, which made discussions easier and more productive. Given the competitive atmosphere of tournaments, I highly doubt you would get the same results from conceding ballots and asking to talk things out.
Also, recall that Amanda started conceding rounds the day AFTER she reached semifinals of the Greenhill tournament running the same case but asking for the ballots. While I’m sure Hirsh and Chris Castillo learned a lot from their sit-down during the RR, Amanda’s advocacy clearly reached a far bigger audience during the tournament, because … she kept winning rounds.
Posted from: 71.130.11.151
February 16th, 2010 10:53
This may be a bit late, but congratulations to everyone who made it to elims this weekend. I’ve met quite a few of you in prelims, and there’s no doubt that you guys deserved to break.
Specifically, congratulations to Avi who finished his qual in possibly the shortest amount of time humanly possible while running the same darned case for every round up to that point. Also, congratulations to Jordan, because as I’ve told him, it’s always those polite, chill debaters that end up being super-beast.
Posted from: 68.164.187.157
February 16th, 2010 12:05
There is at least one other salient difference between Amanda’s and Avi’s performances. That difference is Avi’s willingness to deploy his argument against the very people he champions. He may believe that it is worth sacrificing a few women debaters to save more, but this is only justified when doing so is the only solution. By analogy, when someone is holding hostages it is wrong to storm the building (risking the lives of the hostages) before trying to negotiate. Had Avi attempted to bring this issue to light in other ways before turning to this strategy, I would be far less troubled by his actions. Avi’s rush to use this strategy without first exploring alternatives makes it appear that he was looking for an argument to make in debate rounds rather than a way to improve the lot of women debaters in our community.
There are parts of my reaction to Avi’s use of his argument against women debaters that I cannot explain very well because they are visceral. I will, however, try. First, when Avi uses this argument to beat women debaters I cannot help thinking that he is, in essence, saying, “I’m doing it for your own good.” If some women debaters need to sacrifice for the good of women debaters generally, this ought to be their choice. They should not be forced to sacrifice more because they are already treated unfairly. The price should be paid by those who receive unfair advantage rather than those who suffer its effects.
I wonder if people would be comfortable with Avi’s strategy if the issue were race. Imagine that my debaters argued in every round that they should win because we need to address the under-representation of African Americans at the highest levels of debate competition. Would you be comfortable with my white and Asian prep school kids beating an African American team from a UDL on this argument? Even if my debaters really believed in their project, I wouldn’t be comfortable with it.
I am also disturbed by the position that Avi’s arguments put his women opponents in. Are they supposed to argue that they do not face discrimination in debate? Should they have to take a loss if they agree with Avi? Should they even have to discuss this issue if they don’t want to? If women do face discrimination in debate, should they be forced to talk about it even when they find that discussion painful?
Posted from: 138.28.136.162
February 16th, 2010 12:36
congrats to ross and jordan
Posted from: 205.170.14.5
February 16th, 2010 13:07
would someone possibly explain what avi did in the round for those that didn’t see?
Posted from: 68.164.187.157
February 16th, 2010 14:00
You’ll find it all here:
http://forum.lddebate.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=575
Posted from: 99.49.115.187
February 16th, 2010 15:27
Congrats to Ben and Avi on the qual!
Posted from: 75.6.226.87
February 16th, 2010 16:47
@ anon 79:
With all respect, if you think he’s being disingenuous, take it up with him personally; I believe you referred to that (rather ironically) as “man[ning] up.” From personal experience, I know that you’ll find that Avi’s really not a hard guy to talk to.
If you are unable to do that, at least state your disagreement respectfully, especially when it’s in a public sphere, and with at least a name, not behind a veil of anonymity.
Many debaters like to pride themselves on intelligence, looking at issues more objectively, and learning the skills to resolve disputes in a more organized and beneficial fashion than others. It saddens me when some of those same debaters resort to hyperbolic rhetoric and ad hominem attacks.
Posted from: 167.142.64.26
February 16th, 2010 17:09
@79:
I, for one, find it hard to imagine how Avi would *avoid* sleeping “with himself” at night.
If you’re going to be rude, at least get your idiom right.
Cheers,
An English Teacher
Posted from: 96.229.128.173
February 16th, 2010 17:32
+ 1 to McGinnis
congrats to jordan, pat, ross, ilya, colin, alex, cory, seber, nikhil, oliver, kyle allen-neeson (sp?), bob overing, adam bistagne, and everyone else who cleared, got the 4-2 screw, or bid, yall did great this weekend, it was a fun tournament indeed, and a great way for me to remember my final berkeley. cheers, and i’ll see yall at ToC
Posted from: 207.151.254.106
February 16th, 2010 17:35
I’m officially declaring Dave McGinnis the winner of this thread
Posted from: 151.198.125.42
February 16th, 2010 19:11
http://www.bringvictory.com/
might be helpful in resolving this problem.
Posted from: 136.167.142.27
February 16th, 2010 19:20
damn. i need to learn not to click links.
Posted from: 173.26.1.25
February 16th, 2010 20:32
rick rolling is a dead meme. stop it. find me at TOC, i will fight you.
Posted from: 67.188.192.227
February 16th, 2010 20:52
between matt and dave, the valley ownage of this thread is quite incredible.
Posted from: 75.167.92.139
February 16th, 2010 21:01
comments 19-23 further ankur’s statement
Posted from: 71.37.39.220
February 16th, 2010 21:53
Congratulations to Lauren Greenawalt, Paige Joki and Daniel Ki for breaking. Also, to Lizzie, Jimmy and Lucas for dubs and Steven for finally qualling. I’m so glad Washington is finally making a comeback!
Posted from: 68.181.252.162
February 16th, 2010 22:21
Congrats to the Loyola crew for another awesome showing, especially to Bobby for repping Timanthians.
Congrats to Tara Kawai-Daniels and Monica Amestoy for breaking to octas and dubs respectively at their third tournament ever in JVLD. Congrats to Tara again on also being 11th speaker and 6th seed. Congrats to Jenna on going 4-2 but just missing out on speaks. The FSHA crew is awesome, and people are going to start hearing about all of you in a couple short years.
Congrats Avi on the homie qual, Naveen the Pimp, and Lauren G on your awesome performances this weekend. Lauren, your round is my favorite round ever.
On the Avi issue, I don’t know whether or not debate rounds are necessarily the appropriate forum, but it’s been pretty successful in at least spurring discussion so far. I think successful enough for Avi to start debating the topic. Naveen, maybe you can start prepping racism.
Posted from: 98.195.165.248
February 16th, 2010 23:05
congrats to cory, alex, seber, blay, and nina
special congrats to Michelle on the bid and Perotin on the qual, way to rep babb/tyger
i have discussed avi’s advocacy with numerous poeple, and have read the vbd and lddebate.org forum discussions on it and it seems to me that he isn’t increasing a discussion of the lack of females in debate or gender biased argumentation and speech structure: the discussion is about whether or not people think avi is sincere or a jerk, whether or not he should be granted ballots off his advocacy, and questions about what he would do in specific scenarios (i.e. “would you concede to a girl if it meant her qual to toc?”). Is it just me is his success not gaining the affect its supposed to AT ALL?
Posted from: 67.180.151.98
February 17th, 2010 00:10
props to seber, blay, cory, paras, and catherine, and especially the mdb and kyle on their first of many bids.
my biggest frustration with avi’s position is along the lines of nick’s point. almost all of the discussion that has resulted from this position/its success (that i’ve seen) has been focused on how to beat this case on the flow, how sincere avi is, etc. i literally have not heard a single discussion in or out of round about how this case made someone start recruiting more women to a debate team or start helping women get to the toc. while i agree that avi’s success has brought more publicity to his position and arguments, all i’ve seen is pretty negative feedback that distracts from the substance of avi’s position.
Posted from: 71.178.181.208
February 17th, 2010 00:46
major congratulations kyle! $
Posted from: 67.9.151.90
February 17th, 2010 00:57
congrats on the bid kyle. it’s definitely well-deserved, as is this: $
Posted from: 76.212.200.73
February 17th, 2010 01:17
First major congrats to Chris Leigh from La Costa Canyon on making JV finals!
Also congrats to Avi on qualling. Regardless of the position, I find it impressive if anyone can post a case on the internet, use it every round, and still win with it despite the fact that every one knows he will be running it and know exactly how.
Posted from: 98.225.17.58
February 17th, 2010 01:34
Washington is coming back. And it is good.
Congrats to my team mate the Big Adler for finishing his qual. We all knew it was coming eventually.
A big shout out to Annie Wright Sonia Vora for bidding, you deserved it!
And to my Bainbridge family: Jimmy Mooney and Lauren Greenawalt great job on the break(s)!
Posted from: 71.227.128.37
February 17th, 2010 02:29
first to my washingtonians: grats to james p mooney IV on the break, adler on the qual, sonia on the bid, and lil tao on the break! i will miss you all next yer and have enjoyed being able to debate you and get to know you over the past few years. extra love to james.
corywynn- you broke- even though you dressed like an eskimo. yay.
loyola- congrats. seber and blay are homies. bobbybowtie and the adorable one are small but apparently good at debate. that’s cool to know.
and finally to the lovely little lab of PDVE, RL and diehl from sesh 2 in 08:
naveen the pimp- you are a pimp. nuff said
avi- those who matter know that you are genuine about your position. and i do believe that it increases discourse- it certainly had by team talking. nice job on qualling.
tim- you are a legit judge.
Posted from: 68.171.235.112
February 17th, 2010 02:31
I heard about a coach who had a conflict of interest during an out-round so he “hid” and I just think that’s awesome to show that kind of integrity. I admit, I probably don’t have all the facts but doing the right thing, in the face of all the pressure to win, sets the best kind of example for these kids. What an awesome community to be a part of!
Posted from: 71.105.74.22
February 17th, 2010 03:36
@110
I think you are talking about Cameron in terms of the bid round between Paras and I. It was the worst possible situation in terms of coaching, and while he wasn’t exactly hiding, he certainly didn’t help either of us gain any sort of advantage over the other.
Congrats to Fink on the bid round, you have gotten really good really fast. Congrats to Haleh on breaking at what I heard was your second tournament, very impressive, congrats to Blay on another good tournament, luckily this time I hit you after the bid round.
Congrats to mr. cory wynn for another solid tournament, and thanks for dragging me out of bed at 5:30 to go running, it really did end up helping me before rounds.
Paras, our round was really fun, and it sucked that it had to happen this way.
Posted from: 4.59.1.2
February 17th, 2010 04:19
Congrats to the WA squad for a great weekend.
Lizzie, you’ve come so far in the past few months and will bid in no time. Breaking at VBT, Stanford, and Berkeley is a great achievement; next year you’ll be bidding at the three of them.
Sonia, congrats on bidding! That plus two lost bid-rounds is beginning to sound like a very solid at-large application. Domination Station (and Mr. McCool) would be very proud.
Congrats to Jimmy on the bid round, Paige on breaking, and Lauren to clearing despite debating at maybe three tournaments all year. You’re a boss.
Also, congrats to everyone else who broke/bid/qualled this weekend, but specifically Paras for staying tough despite another 2-1 bid round loss and Jordan for winning the tourney.
Gans and Wes, the complaints about being tired/hungry paid off. And I know you guys secretly enjoyed them anyway.
While I obviously hope that Berkeley regains a seventh or eighth round for next year, I felt that tab did a great job running the tournament with their limited rooms and resources. The online ballot posting was really helpful, and rounds were always on-time. Plus Telegraph Ave is always awesome.
Posted from: 24.161.175.30
February 17th, 2010 04:32
@110: Echoing Kyle, don’t really know if you are talking about Kyle and I. Thanks to Cameron for being chill about it though–I can only imagine how much that must have sucked for you.
Congrats to Kyle for bidding. You are going to be realllllly good by the time you are a senior.
Many other people deserve congrats, and I’m sure I will forget a lot of ppl, but congrats to: Torrey Pines (shit, you guys are good haha), michelle (1 and counting), avi, adler on qualling, justin pearce on breaking and being so close again, and to maddie zhu for completing what was a very good circuit career.
Oh, and god bless crepes.
Posted from: 76.121.231.19
February 17th, 2010 04:58
Huge congrats to Adler on finishing the qual and to Lizzie for breaking to the bid round. Love that Norcal swing!
Big ups also to Sonia, Jimmy, and Lauren for reppin’ Washington strong this year. It’s great to see. Thanks to tab, especially Jennie Savage for running LD like the champ she is, and Greg Achten for being so responsive and understanding. Y’all once again reminded me why Berkeley is my favorite tournament of the year.
Finally, I was given the honor of watching the Alex/Avi doubles round. Thanks for a thoughtful and heartfelt discussion about debate and gender. A full RFD follows, and I hope we can continue the conversation elsewhere, either on .org or in person at the TOC.
Posted from: 76.121.231.19
February 17th, 2010 04:59
MY RFD FOR THE ALEX/AVI BID ROUND:
Along with Wesley Craven and Alex Smith, I was one of the three judges in the Alex/Avi bid round. This was the first time I’d seen the case, though of course I’d heard about it beforehand. I agree wholeheartedly that there are few too few women and girls in debate and that the culture is often hostile to them. Further, I’m extremely proud that fully 50% of my squad at Bainbridge was girls, as are two of my five LDers (and three of our top six policy debaters) at Mercer Island.
Alex and Avi didn’t debate the case; Alex quickly agreed that Avi’s position is important and spent the rest of the debate arguing that a win by her would go further toward solving the problem than a win by Avi. Alex presented several excellent arguments, including:
1) Advancing to deep outrounds gives her more practice against good competition and the consequent improvement; it also reinforces the fact that girls can compete at the highest levels and gives her credibility as a role model for others.
2) A concession by Avi would bring the same attention as a win, or perhaps more. In making this point Alex also cited the Amanda Liverzani interview and round robin experience noted above.
Alex also expressed frustration and regret that people wanted her to win only to see Avi lose, and concern that Avi losing would be seen by some in the community – such as the (of course anonymous) idiot @79 – as a “return to real debate” and permission to sweep these very real issues under the rug yet again.
Avi refused to concede, and because I was forced to vote, I considered the arguments in-round as well as my own feelings about the issue – since it was impossible not to intervene here – and ended up voting for him. First, I don’t believe that giving Avi a loss allows his position the same power as a concession. I also believe his point that even adversarial rounds are steps forward because they force more people to listen and perhaps open their minds. Finally, I feel that qualifying to the TOC with this case does much to further the cause. Now that Avi has gotten his ultimate soapbox, though, I strongly encourage him to concede every round at the TOC and actually use his time talking about the issue instead of just saying that we ought to talk about it. To my mind, any other decision would be disingenuous at best and a huge sucker-punch to female debaters at worst.
That said, had I felt that Alex’s qualification to the TOC was in any way in doubt, I would have voted for her in the round. I was able to overlook the fact that Avi’s win came over a girl solely because the four potential additional rounds Alex would have at Berkeley seemed to mean less in the long run than the benefits that would come to female debaters if this case (and someone who truly believed in its message, obviously) qualled. The idea that the Golden Desert bid might not hold up was never mentioned in round, and had it been, I absolutely would have voted the other way. Alex and Lexy, if the TOC denies your two-bid application, I will gladly write letters or otherwise lobby in whatever ways you think would be most effective to support your at-large bid.
Finally, while I think that Avi is sincere in his feelings, though perhaps a bit misguided in his approach, I agree with Alex that this shouldn’t be the point. We should all try to examine our contributions to the game and see how to make it better for girls and women. The under-representation may be bad for competitors, but it’s even worse for judges. By my count (excluding quarters, which weren’t posted online?) only four female judges were used from doubles on. This isn’t tab’s fault: they’re responding to debater prefs. Of the few women involved in the activity as judges, why aren’t more earning 1s from debaters? And why aren’t more women, especially former debaters, choosing to stay in the activity as coaches? Or if they’re trying, why aren’t they being hired? For more interesting data on this issue, read the TOC study posted on VBD here:
http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2009/09/29/female-representation-at-the-toc/#more-9992.
Posted from: 66.27.125.208
February 17th, 2010 06:24
one thought that I had about Avi’s critique would be to give your opponents an offer: Offer to concede the round and have a round table discussion about the issue, but the opponent has to read the critique in the next round and make the same offer to his/her opp. If they refuse then debate the round, if they agree then the critique gets out there and more people get on board.
Posted from: 66.27.125.208
February 17th, 2010 06:26
obviously that only works in outrounds
Posted from: 128.36.76.173
February 17th, 2010 10:56
I find it interesting that no one has really engaged with Lexy’s point (Lexy, I will send you a personal e-mail about it in fact) . Lexy touches on some critical questions, ones which are far more disturbing (but politically important) than the facile question of whether or not there is descriptive representation of women (or any other marginal group).
To what extent is this kind of position harmful to its actual cause? There’s a TON of literature on it (hell, I have to write pages and pages about it for the thesis I’m writing).
I’ll give Avi credit, he’s doing this in a much more honorable way than folks like the Louisville team (which had no problem calling “standard” black policy debaters as “not down with the black cause”) or Liversani’s critique (which in some rounds ignored legitimate critiques of essentialism). Lexy’s questions are serious concerns that frankly, have much bigger impacts than winning ballots in a debate round.
The fact that criticism of Avi’s case is just seen by some posters as “not engaging the substance” is *exactly the problem.* It’s a call for preemptive censorship that presumes that there is only certain ways of responding that engage the substance of the issue and some ways (criticism or arguing that debating the topic is more important) that don’t.
Frankly, (and again kudos to Avi for being one of the few debaters who has the maturity to realize this), when one plays this game of personal politics one of the costs is having one’s integrity question, one’s motivations questioned, etc. And I’m glad those questions are asked, for too often people look at these advocacies not as appeals for social justice but instead as objects to be deployed at the will of the dominant culture.
That all said, I’d like to see people focus their effort on a form of praxis which helps women cross the divide and overcome gender oppression in debate (and other places). It’s one thing to get all excited about whether or not winning ballots will “further the cause” but that does nothing for those women (or any other marginal group) who lack the access or equitable treatment needed to find their own voice in debate.
Posted from: 128.36.76.173
February 17th, 2010 11:02
I would also add that there is value in women/african americans/any other marginal group in debating in the current style and winning when doing so. Far too often, such work isn’t seen as consistent with some essentialized notion of gender or racial performance. (I could give stories about my own experiences in this regard, but I’ll resist)
This is another concern I’d add to Lexy’s: in saying that debating the topic is not relevant to addressing issues of social justice, are we also saying that those individuals who do so (and succeed despite the marginalization involved) aren’t “authentic?” Again, Louisville had no problem saying this (see the book Cross-X). Again, it seems to devalue the efforts and the agency of those who beat the odds to do so.
For example, if the “standard” mode of “black liberation in debate” becomes known as only playing hip hop in the 1ac…we are in a world of trouble.
Posted from: 128.36.76.173
February 17th, 2010 11:07
in post 119 “only” should have been “requiring”
Posted from: 68.164.187.157
February 17th, 2010 12:05
Thank you AB! It is very interesting to me that thus far not a soul on this thread has addressed the concerns I articulated @87. All the focus seems to be on Avi, and none on the women against whom he has run this position.
Thus far in the conversation, no one has even begun to ask the questions we need to answer in order to attack this problem.
1. What IS the problem?
2. What CAUSES the problem?
3. How can we ADDRESS the problem?
The answers to 1 and 2 are critical to answering the third question. Though the answers may seem obvious to some, this issue is far more complicated than most acknowledge it to be.
1. What IS the problem? We know that women are underrepresented in the highest levels of competition compared to men. We have some anecdotal evidence that women make up a higher proportion of competitors and winners at lower levels of competition. I also believe, based on 30+ years of observation of this activity, that women make up a greater proportion of participants (at all levels) in LD than in Policy Debate. Clearly we need more data. We need to know if women are leaving debate after the novice/JV years, or if they continue to compete, but not at the highest levels. We need to know if women win more at lower levels of competition. We need to know if women choose different tournaments than male competitors (local and regional vs. national, non-TOC vs. TOC, etc.). We need to know if women win awards at rates in keeping with their representation in the pool of competitors. This data collection is critical to figuring what the problem is.
More on 2 and 3 in a bit.
Posted from: 74.248.170.56
February 17th, 2010 12:46
It’s interesting to see judges voting on something that is not an actual advocacy. God knows why, but at west coast tournaments people love to check in on bad arguments. By bad arguments here I mean the framework, not the actual substance of the case. I have no idea how this case wins. What’s the deal here, do people just not know how to answer this type of case on a framework level? Either way, good luck getting away with this at TOC. It’s cool that Avi pointed out that women are underrepresented in debate, but come on, tell me something I don’t already know. There’s been discussion about this case since VBT. Exactly how does the “vote for me to get me into more outrounds so I create more discourse” argument function when everyone is already talking about this? How much comparative advantage is there at that point? In my opinion, certainly not enough to justify a girl losing to it. In this case, a lot of the discourse has shifted from female representation in debate to how unnerved many people are that Avi won his doubles round with this position. At a certain point, I question any “raise awareness” movement. For instance, I don’t feel like I’m accomplishing anything if I join a facebook group that says I should invite more people to raise awareness about Darfur. It’s obvious that we see less women at the highest levels of debate. Now what are you doing to fix it? Maybe if all women just lost to this position in doubles, then they won’t get any bids, and there will be much awareness about women in debate (!!) when none of them are at TOC. Let’s stop voting for this and reward kids who do topical prep.
Posted from: 128.12.32.108
February 17th, 2010 13:09
Wade speaks the truth
Posted from: 128.135.219.40
February 17th, 2010 13:14
+1 to wade
Posted from: 205.221.0.3
February 17th, 2010 13:30
I agree with everything Lexy says.
Also, I agree with Wade.
Micropolitics aside, I just don’t understand why this argument is at all debate-functional. It’s ridiculous that one debater gets to propose an alternate topic and then adopt the obviously correct side. It makes so little sense that it blows my mind. This is why we have topics: they are worded at least with an eye toward providing an equitable division of ground. If one kid wanders into the round and runs a case that says “Genocide is bad,” do we then expect his opponent to refute that position?
Presumably, the kid really does think that genocide is bad. There are certainly issues of genocide that are ignored in society, which could benefit from more attention. You can’t accuse the kid of being “insincere,” nor can you assert that the issue raised is unimportant. But that’s the point – debate isn’t supposed to be a competition over who can raise the most relevant social issue; it’s a competition that develops students abilities to address social issues by testing their critical abilities within the parameters of pre-defined topics.
Also, Avi’s position is non-universalizable. If everyone did what he is doing – if everyone decided to forego topical prep in favor of advocating the obviously correct side of whatever social issue they found the most personally relevant – debate would be dead. It would be impossible to prepare for competition. It would be impossible to teach novices how to debate, or to motivate them to be involved. It would be impossible to adjudicate rounds based on anything but raw persuasiveness. Debate would become OO. Avi’s decision to run this case positions him as an exception to the rule, and that’s not something to be lauded – it’s something to be discouraged and guarded against.
But what gets me the most is the assertion that Avi is just suddenly bringing this issue to the forefront, that somehow it’s been ignored previously. That’s ridiculous. This issue has been an ongoing topic of conversation for many years, the subject of many public discussions and innumerable private discussions, and is at the front of the mind of any good coach. Coaches across the country put in hours and hours of time every week facilitating actual competitive opportunities for female debaters, advocating for female debaters, coaching and mentoring female debaters. This is a monstrously difficult problem but the solution, if there is one, is in action, not just words, and certainly not in a competitive position. I honestly don’t know why women are underrepresented in the activity; but I do know that it’s not because there aren’t enough gender representation K’s being run in LD.
If, rather than run this case at Stanford and Berkeley, Avi had foregone entry into those tournaments and instead coached the female JV students from his team, he would have done vastly more to promote the success of women in debate. I recommend that as a more substantive future approach to resolving this problem.
Posted from: 67.9.151.90
February 17th, 2010 13:35
does the stanford/berkeley version of the case have the line about the judge voting for the position that they personally feel deserves to be replicated? it’s surprising to me that this position is winning so many rounds (i.e., passing that test) given how much distaste there seems to be for it.
Posted from: 68.164.187.157
February 17th, 2010 13:40
2. What CAUSES the problem?
Say that our data gathering in answering question 1 shows that women debaters leave the activity before their junior year at higher rates than do men. There are numerous possible causes for this. Women may leave debate because they care more about their grades and find that the time commitment required to be competitive at the highest levels trades off against school work. They may leave debate because they have more other options for extra-curricular activities than do male debaters (women may not have the opportunity to play football, but male students risk a great deal socially when they participate in dance, chorus, cheerleading, and other stereotypically feminine activities). Maybe women debaters’ families are more protective and less supportive of the overnight travel that is necessary to be successful in debate at the regional and national level. Maybe heterosexual female debaters leave the activity because the males in debate are not attractive to them. Maybe gay female debaters leave the activity because there are not enough women in the activity for them to find potential partners. Maybe women debaters leave the activity at a disproportionate rate because women are underrepresented in the coaching ranks, especially at the national level (probably a result of being responsible for caring for young children, which may also explain why gay male coaches appear to be overrepresented at the highest levels in the activity). Maybe women debaters leave the activity because they are harassed or made to feel unwelcome. Maybe they leave because judges discriminate against them. Maybe they leave because they don’t like speed. Maybe they leave because they don’t like the topics. Maybe they leave because their parents don’t want to pay for travel. Over the years I’ve lost women debaters for most of these reasons, but I’ve also lost male debaters for many of them.
What if the data show that women stay in debate, but that they do not win enough to reach the highest levels? We still need to know why this happens. Do women debaters spend less time working on debate? Do they tend to come from teams with fewer resources? Do they make different arguments? Are judges swayed by the timbre of male debaters’ voices? Do aggressive women debaters lose speaker points because judges think they are being “bitchy”? Does the disproportionately make judging pool skew results in favor of male competitors? Are women debaters excluded from evidence sharing and prep outs due to male cliques?
I believe that a serious study of this issue would reveal a wide range of causes for the lack of women at the highest levels in LD debate. Regardless, we cannot begin to solve the problem until we figure out what exactly it is, and what its causes are.
Posted from: 128.135.219.40
February 17th, 2010 14:18
On a lighter note:
Congrats to the CPS girls. Sarah you have improved quite a bit from SNFI. AK and MDB good work on clearing.
Pat sorry it wasn’t as deep of a run as you wanted.
Ilya-Way to dominate Cali. No one has realized you back to back semis performances. But they’re impressive.
Colin- Good job. You’re quite good, and really impressed me in rd3.
Loyola- good as always, keep rocking Realism.
Fink- good bid round showing and you got a ballot off colin. If not this year, you’ll be at TOC next time around
Nikihl- If only round 6 worked out better, you would have bid for sure.
Lastly, to JL. 24-1 in two years. 6-0, 1st seed, 1st speaker. You wrecked the tournament. Way to go
Posted from: 207.151.254.106
February 17th, 2010 14:23
This is just sort of a loosely organized collection of my thoughts on the issue of Avi’s critique.
First of all, I’ve judged this position three times now and have voted for it three times. To answer Wade’s question of why judges keep voting for it, I can say from my experience that I have voted for it every time I’ve seen it because I have yet to see a debater make particularly good responses to it (despite having judged two very good debaters against it). Interestingly, I have not seen anyone run anything resembling topicality nor have I seen anyone take issue with the fact that the case is non-topical. Go figure.
Second, I support the intentions that Avi has and I do believe he is being sincere. I remain unconvinced that his critique is a panacea that somehow resolves all of the inherent gender discrimination in the activity. I think the jury is still out in terms of whether or not this position facilitated any noticeable change in the debating community.
Third, I do not think this criticism is perfect, and I do think there are a number of flaws with it. If the solvency mechanism is largely dependent upon the value of subverting gender norms (which it is), then I agree with Lexy and others that a really good way to subvert gender norms is to reward female debaters who do not debate in a fashion that we traditionally associate with female debaters.
I also think the fact that Alex had to hit this case in a bid round is rather unfortunate. Alex is a great example of a successful female debater who does not debate in the more traditional, more passive style that is traditionally associated with females (the same applies to her predominately female teammates).
Fourth, I think that one way that real change can be afforded in the debate community is if coaches not only take more female debaters under their wings, but also encourage them to debate in a way that is not-traditional for a female debater. I attempted to do this this year as a coach (I coached a woman who is hardly the stereotypical female debater that Avi describes in his criticism)It is clear that more women need to be included in this activity. However, female debaters also need to be able to easily shed the harmful stereotype that they are unassertive and uninteresting compared to their male counterparts.
Finally, I for one am glad that Avi’s criticism will be at least featured at the TOC. However, I would agree with Jeff Gans that there could be value in conceeding rounds at the TOC. If Avi goes 12-0, this case will get tons of attention. If he deliberately goes 0-7, this case will also get tons of attention. The latter is far easier to accomplish than the former.
Posted from: 68.164.187.157
February 17th, 2010 14:51
3. How can we ADDRESS the problem?
This, of course, depends on what the problem’s causes are. Additionally, there is not likely to be a single solution to a complex problem with many causes. I would caution everyone that many of the possible actions to address the problem are likely to be unacceptable to the community.
How can we address the lack of women judges at the highest levels of competition? The easiest way to do this is to require that women be represented on panels wherever possible and get rid of MPJ. When the women judges who do show up are underutilized, it’s probably because at least one of the debaters in the round did not prefer them. The college community used MPJ before we did, and they have been struggling with this issue for years. We need to decide if having women in the back of the room is more important than giving debaters the judges that they prefer. I’m betting that some of the folks who are the biggest fans of Avi’s position are also the staunchest advocates of MPJ.
How can we address the lack of women coaches and directors in the activity? This could be addressed with greater resources, but that’s just pie in the sky as far as I’m concerned. Women might join and remain in the coaching ranks longer if they had more assistants and co-coaches who could share the travel burden, but I don’t see this happening. The other option is to adopt a limited season or limit teams to a small number of travel tournaments and/or limit the distances they can travel. There are states that have these policies, and it would be interesting to see if women make up a greater proportion of the coaches and debaters in those states. I expect that this option would be highly controversial. Are we willing to have LESS competition and potentially not develop our top debaters to as high a level as we do now in order allow women debaters to succeed at a greater rate on the limited schedule? I’d also bet that the biggest fans of Avi’s position would be horrified by Kansas-style travel restrictions.
What if we learn that women debaters (with exceptions of course) tend not to like speed? Should we use speaker points to slow down debates? Should we refuse to read evidence after debates?
What if we learn that judges are less likely to vote for women debaters even when they make exactly the same arguments as male debaters? Suppose we show judges animated debate videos where the speeches are identical and only the gender of the debaters changes (like the resume and race studies) and the judges still favor the male debaters. I would love to do a study like this, and I have a sad feeling I know what we would find. Should we go back to the early days of Should we bow to the inevitable and have separate divisions for women and men? This is not as far fetched as it may sound–as recently as 1981 I competed at NFL in Girls Extemp. Does this mean we should reserve a certain number of slots at the TOC for women debaters? If so, how should reserving these slots interact with protecting opportunities for other marginalized groups in debate? What if reserving a number of the entries at the TOC for women debaters ends up excluding male African American or low income debaters?
I have no suggestions for how to make the male debaters in the activity more attractive to straight female debaters. I suspect that this is a lost cause (though shampoo might help).
Ultimately, though there are probably some things we can do to promote the participation of women at the highest levels of debate, I seriously doubt that we want to do or will do the things that might most expeditiously improve the situation.
Posted from: 4.59.1.2
February 17th, 2010 15:26
I also wanted to specifically mention the programs at Harvard-Westlake and Palo Alto.
Peter, Bietz, and Tara, thank you for all your help over the summer and so far this season. You guys are emerging as one of the strongest teams on the circuit, and I have no doubt that you’re going to be winning everything in a few years. Congrats on the continued success.
Jennie, Nadia, and Ben, thank you for helping me out this year as well. I really appreciate letting me tag along with you guys at Greenhill when I was there without a team, and without you guys, I likely would not have attended. To Jennie in particular, I still remember you judging me last year in trips of Berkeley when I got wrecked by David McNeil and encouraging me after the round to go to VBI and get involved in national circuit debate. Without that nudge, I likely would not have. Congrats to Avi on the qual, Nikhil on the third bid, and Lucas on yet another bid round. I know youu’ll pick one up at Harker to clinch the at-large. You definitely deserve it.
Posted from: 158.130.243.226
February 17th, 2010 16:28
I stopped posting on VBD awhile ago, but when I heard about the discussion over Avi’s case, I felt compelled to not only take a peak at the thread, but also read the case itself. After examining both, I felt like I had to post. So here goes.
I’m not going to claim I’m an expert on the issue of gender underrepresentation in debate. However, as a female who competed at the TOC multiple times, I certainly think I can speak from a better position than many people talking about this case. I’ll be honest: when I initially read the case, I felt completely hurt. I don’t think people are paying enough attention to Lexy’s second post, because she’s 100% correct. My initial reaction to the case ABSOLUTELY was that, when run against women, the case says “I am doing this for your own good.” To me, the case was a paternalistic slap in the face, and I’d further agree with Lexy that it puts women in an extremely uncomfortable position. I honestly don’t know what I would have said to the case (since, as Lexy points out, all of the argumentative options are a bit unpalatable), but I certainly commend Alex Kennedy for not losing her cool.
This isn’t because I don’t agree that women are underrepresented in debate. When I competed, I was one of very few women competing at the highest level, and I was always judged by more men than women. But was there any point at which I would have wanted a man like Avi to step in and “help” me? Absolutely not. I’ve said this on multiple other threads discussing gender in debate, but at no point during my four-year debate career did I *ever* feel that the gender imbalance was due to how women were treated, or how far they could possibly go in the activity. Lexy went into much greater detail than I will on this, but there are obviously MANY explanations for why women quit debate in greater numbers, but until we have definitive data, I think it’s absolutely insulting (to men and women) to claim that women are intentionally pushed out of the activity. I have my own personal explanations for why women aren’t as competitive in debate; I won’t share them because this post is already long (although I have posted about them in length on other threads), but I can promise that they have nothing to do with women being uncomfortable with men in debate/having an inability to interrupt men in CX, etc. And these are explanations I’ve actually gathered from women–I’m not sure if Avi did this, but I’m skeptical. Bottom line: Lexy’s right–until we have actual data on the cause of the problem, cases like this are unproductive and inaccurate.
Dave, Lexy, and Wade’s posts are certainly more coherent than this one will wind up being, and I’ll leave it to them to illuminate the strategy/debate-related problems associated with this position. Suffice it to say, there are many. But as a woman in debate, I simply feel compelled to say that this has to end. Yes, there is a problem. And perhaps we should do something about it, once we figure out where the problem is coming from. But making women feel uncomfortable in a debate round, and manipulating judges to vote, for the sake of further “discourse”, for a position that discusses an issue that has already been discussed on hundreds of other threads, on hundreds of debate teams, at Stacy Thomas’ Lone Star RR, and by thousands of debate coaches across the country, is NOT the correct solution to the problem. Obviously, I know that more discussion is always good, but Dave’s right–in its attempt to facilitate more “discussion,” this case implicitly insults the hundreds of people who are already ACTIVELY trying to get more women involved in debate.
As a woman in debate, I would encourage all of those who think that this case is cool, or whatever, to stop running/voting for it, and instead actually do something about your convictions. There are many organizations that try to increase diversity in debate. As the director of one such organization, I think I can speak with authority when I say that we’d much rather see people actually doing something about the problems that they perceive as opposed to using those issues to pick up ballots.
Posted from: 173.13.178.36
February 17th, 2010 16:37
It frustrates me that no one is addressing how we might go about solving this problem. If we cannot do anything to improve the lot of women debaters (or we are simply unwilling to do so), Avi’s project is just a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing. Even worse, when he beats women debaters with his argument, he exacerbates the very problem he is concerned about. Unless his project generates change, it harms the position of women debaters.
I’ve suggested a few possibilities earlier in this thread, but here’s another. TOC committee members could move the women in the at-large pool to the top of their rankings. As I am in the position to do this, I’d love to hear what supporters of Avi’s argument think of this option. I’d also be interested to hear how you think I should weigh being a woman debater vs. being a debater who cannot afford to travel vs. being a debater from an underrepresented minority group.
Posted from: 152.117.243.198
February 17th, 2010 16:43
Washington state is coming back and it is awesome!
Congrats to multiple people:
First, Congratulations to Lizzie Tao for breaking and making it to the bid round. You are awesome and you have a great rest of this year and next year ahead of you! I can’t wait to see how that will go for you!
Steven Adler: YOU QUALLED! And it was long overdue! I am so glad and you had an awesome run this weekend! CONGRATS!
Sonia Vora: You rock. Congrats on bidding and I hope you put in an app for that at large bid!
Lauren Greenawalt: Way to go this weekend! I definitely enjoyed judging you (for the first time, actually) and great job on the break!
Jimmy Mooney: You had an awesome round, and I really enjoyed watching you debate that round! You rock and congratulations. I look forward to hopefully seeing you debate one more time this year.
Paige: You may not be Washington, but you’re awesome anyways! Congratulations on trips!
Oliver Gappmayer: You are a little washington at heart! Congrats on trips and I enjoyed judging you and seeing how far you’ve come! You’re a rock star.
Also, a special shout out to Eric Cahoon from Tahoma. Even though he didn’t break he took 15th speaker! Awesome job.
Thanks to tab and everyone on staff at this tournament. Everything ran smoothly and you hosted an awesome tournament!
Posted from: 71.84.43.236
February 17th, 2010 17:52
I’m surprised this has not been posted:
Doubles
Glenbrook North PD def Mercer Island LT
Torrey Pines IG def Presentation Hs EP
Valley High School RB def Green Valley Hs RM
Bellarmine Cp BP def Pinewood CK
Palo Alto High School NB def Bainbridge High JM
Loyola High School AnB def Albuquerque Academy NW
The Meadows School JL def Bellarmine Cp TR
Torrey Pines CS def The Meadows School RF
Torrey Pines NK def Monta Vista High HA
Cps MD def Esperanza Hs JP
Loyola High School AS def The Meadows School NS
Annie Wright School SV def Palo Alto High School LC
Brentwood KA def Rancho Bernardo PK
Mercer Island SA def Indian Springs LL
St. Louis Park CT def Mountain View Hs NN
Palo Alto High School AA def Cps AK
Posted from: 71.84.43.236
February 17th, 2010 17:55
Octas:
Torrey Pines NK def Bellarmine Cp BP
Glenbrook North PD def Annie Wright School SV
Loyola High School AnB def Brentwood KA
Mercer Island SA def Palo Alto High School NB
The Meadows School JL def Palo Alto High School AA
Torrey Pines CS def St. Louis Park CT
Torrey Pines IG def Loyola High School AS
Valley High School RB def Cps MD
Posted from: 71.84.43.236
February 17th, 2010 17:57
Quarters:
Torrey Pines IG def Mercer Island SA
Loyola High School AnB def Glenbrook North PD
Valley High School RB def Torrey Pines CS
The Meadows School JL def Torrey Pines NK
Semis:
The Meadows School JL def Loyola High School AnB
Valley High School RB def Torrey Pines IG
Posted from: 199.111.185.12
February 17th, 2010 18:09
I’ve thought about this case a lot now, because it’s talking about people like me – female debaters who competed at the national circuit level. Since this case received the second bid at Berkeley, I have actually been more upset by this case than when it was first run at VBT. I’ve tried to isolate the reasons why this is the case, and here is what I’ve come to.
1. Sincerity
Avi would not keep running this case if it didn’t keep winning. I strongly dislike the notion that he is running this case only to help women in some way – excuse me, but every female I’ve talked to about this case has felt more victimized and offended by the case than gender bias in debate. I would like him to acknowledge that this case is being done for the ballots as much is the cause. If this were not the case, then he should have been 0-6 at Berkeley because he should have conceded every round to talk about these issues since he chose not to debate the topic.
2. People answering the case
Okay, so I haven’t seen this case debated, but I don’t understand how it can keep winning rounds. If you read the case (and I’m sure you all have), there are a lot of internal contradictions. Some have been expounded on lddebate.org but I’d really like to know why no one has pointed out that Avi asks the judge to vote for the position that should be “reproduced” and then argue all of Dave’s reasons why this case can’t be universalized. So here’s my plea to the circuit debaters out there who might debate this case at TOC or elsewhere – instead of focusing on the implications of the arguments, focus on dismantling the case itself. It’s really not that hard. Don’t get drawn into the hype.
3. The case itself
I can’t identify with this case, and I think that’s what annoys me the most. The evidence in the case is terrible. I already pointed out it’s about college policy debate in the 80’s. But besides that, my big issue is that none of that evidence describes ANY of my experiences with the gender bias in debate. I don’t think Avi has a very good sense of what it’s like to be a female debater today. Trust me, it’s not difficult because the boys might cut you off in CX. It’s difficult because you essentially have to choose between being feminine or being masculine in each round. You can debate “like the boys” – engage in policy style argumentation, K’s, theory, etc. or you can debate like a good girl, and talk soft, talk slow. The only time I ever chose to act more “feminine” was in front of traditional judges because that was necessary in order to get their ballot – they wouldn’t like a girl who was too loud or too much like the male opponent.
Now why is this discourse not happening? Because we’re all too caught up in the theoretical legitimacy of this case, or how to beat it. This discussion is not going to be resolved, ever. There are no easy answers. Lexy posts so many reasons why females might be leaving the community. I have no idea why some females leave and others choose to say. I heard a compelling theory last night of why this might be the case, but there’s no way to prove it true or false. As Avi says in case, the round is only 26 minutes. Nothing you say in the round will affect the use of sanctions, but equally nothing you decide in the round is going to make more females stay in debate or participate more. Actually, it might be that females decide to leave the activity as a result of cases like these – kritiks that destroy the notion of what debate is supposed to be. This case is an example of debate as a game at its worst – everyone is so concerned about beating the case, they’re neglecting the true issues at hand.
Posted from: 68.117.49.61
February 17th, 2010 18:36
I agree with a lot that has been said here. I talked to Fresca about this last night and I think she makes good points. I think it is telling that I have yet to talk to a female debater that likes this position.
However, I do not think anyone has really touched on the reason why I think this case is extremely problematic. Independent of whether the case is good for the cause of promoting more women in debate or not, I have a problem with voting against a debater because they happen to hit this position.
No matter what we think of this issue it is in no way the fault of the individual debater that hits this case that women are underrepresented in debate. I find it extremely troubling that a kid should have to pay hundreds of dollars to fly across the country and spend countless hours preparing only to lose because of a problem that they had no hand in creating. If I were put in that situation I would wonder whether all of the trouble was really worth it. In an activity that constantly struggles with trying to improve access how can we justify this kind of behavior?
I do not blame Avi for doing what he is doing. He is a kid and he is either doing what he thinks is best or he is doing what he thinks is necessary to win. I do not blame him for either. I have a problem with the adults that have been encouraging and/or voting for this position. I think an apology is owed to the debaters who have had their opportunity to break/bid/win taken from them just because they were unlucky enough to hit this position. One of the goals of trying to improve the representation of female debaters is obviously fairness (among others) but what is more unfair than a kid losing because of a problem in the community that they should in no way be held responsible for. This is even more true when we end up punishing girls.
Posted from: 128.84.173.234
February 17th, 2010 18:40
The more you speak/post about the case the bigger his impacts get for the TOC. Read Dave’s post and some on lddebate.org and you should already have enough answers to destroy this case in a “flow” judges mind. If he had the resources or strength of evidence as Towson does for its position this case could be very threatening. However, (from the perspective of a ld debater/ now a college policy debater), the case is severely underdeveloped in terms of framework (few warrants for his interp of the role of the ballot) and the alt/alt solvency (r u kidding!! with some mediocre argumentation you could probably convince me that this is just a non-unique disad).., in addition to having some rlly crappy pieces of evidence (the being cut off in cx arg should generate almost no offense). This is not a personal attack on him or these types of cases, but an indict of this specific case and the manner in which it is being run. If you are going to run this at the TOC you can find much better evidence by getting in contact with a policy team with decent back-files.
Posted from: 24.158.12.82
February 17th, 2010 19:11
I’d rather not get mired in a position or rounds that I wasn’t around for but I wanted to add some anecdotal and logistical assistance. Here’s my own little Malcolm Gladwell ala Outliers to our problem. It’s all correlation but an interesting theory.
First, it’s important to remember that no-so-long-ago, most of the major LD programs and the powerhouse programs had female coaches and female directors. Early LD programs were started and maintained by strong women (Bailey, Dukes, Coody, McCall, Wycoff, Funke, LaMendola, Berger, King, Boyd, etc). Few, if any of those programs, met replacement rates and many failed to produce female replacements. This meant that the products of the early era of coaches by and large produced a disproportionate number of male coaches and judges.
As such, the current ratio of male to female coaches is very high and will require that the current generation of coaches (both male and female) boost replacement rates significantly.
Having coached a disproportionate number of female debaters in my career, I can offer some anecdotal insight. I don’t believe I coached a male debater until the Tim Hogan/Chris Bentley years and even so, women dominated that class of kids. There are myriad factors that will make any individual regardless of gender decide not to continue in debate, the truth of the matter is that increasing the overall population of debaters and encouraging coaches to encourage their debaters to give back by judging and coaching the activity. Not everyone needs to be a lifer but everyone needs to give back. More women, people of color, and other groups of individuals will stay part of the activity if they see their friends, colleagues, etc staying in the activity after graduation. Younger women need more female role models at camps, at tournaments, and as coaches. I think that’s true for any other group of people.
For several years at Iowa, we hired a staff almost exclusively of women based on this philosophy. And while we continue to believe in that vision, there are certainly a lot of different opportunities in college and beyond that preclude anyone from working at camps. However, I do think that it is important as camp directors that we make a concerted effort to hire and train but most importantly retain young women to continue to be positive role models in the community. I agree with Lexy on the pref situation and would suggest that tournaments strive to provide more opportunities for diversity among panels. A 2-2 woman is preferable to a 2-2 man. The TOC Advisory Committee can start at the top.
I hate putting my logistical answer at the bottom but I do think there is a way to get at least a start at studying some information. Right now, there is the functionality with the NFL points application for coaches to record the gender of their students. If coaches would go in and provide this information, we could provide this information to individuals willing to do all kinds of studies. There is also a space for ethnicity so different types of studies can be done. We would then also have the ability to query our database to find out information like how many women leave the activity before their junior year etc. Currently there are 97.986 active students and 112,530 total current students, which means we could obtain a tremendous amount of data to do a good sampling. If all coaches were to provide this information, we’d have a first step in better understanding what we face as a community and start to form coherent statements about what needs to be done to change it.
Posted from: 151.198.125.42
February 17th, 2010 19:14
Why weren’t these issues brought up when Avi first announced he was running this case? These issues were only brought up after he bid with this. I have two thought about that,
A. This proves that more attention is brought to his position when he succeeds, I.E. @ vbt he failed and nobody paid that much attention, yet after he succeeded with the case more people began to talk about the case.
B. I am befuddled as to why, if this case is such a horrible atrocity, nobody bothered to bring up these issues until well after he stopped females from bidding.
This is not to say I disagree with the previous posters, I’m just befuddled.
Posted from: 24.158.12.82
February 17th, 2010 19:24
Lexy, I didn’t see your post @133 before posting so I hope to have started a conversation on moving forward with solutions from tournaments, camps, and how the NFL can help with studies.
Also, I agree that anyone worth their salt as a TOC at large should at least make the arg to be put at the top of the list. In my mind a female at large is a higher priority than a male at large if they are equally qualified. I’ve seen the argument (and buy it) that a younger female at-large (frosh/soph) is more important than a junior male at large.
Posted from: 68.164.187.157
February 17th, 2010 19:36
@Cherian
I’m not even sure how I feel about systematically moving women debaters to the top of my at-large rankings. I’ve certainly never done so in the past, and I admit that the idea makes me uncomfortable. At the same time, I think it is telling that none of the defenders of Avi’s project have spoken out in favor of any of the concrete suggestions I’ve made (most of which make me uncomfortable). They seem excited about talking about the problem (and getting ballots by talking about the problem), but they are deafeningly silent on the subject of concrete proposals to address the problem that might ultimately threaten their own interests or change the nature of the activity.
Posted from: 209.117.47.253
February 17th, 2010 19:43
+1 to Fresca.
I’ve discussed this position with her and just to reiterate a formerly noted position, I think that the case is extremely patronizing. As well intentioned as it is (I don’t doubt the sincerity at all), I think that a male trying to stand up for a female, especially when it’s against a female, is irritating. I also think that Lexy poses many questions that are really at the heart of this issue, and further investigation into those dilemma are probably what is necessary to actually solve these issues with female representation in debate.
From a female perspective though, I’d like to see more female coaches in debate. I know that having one this year is really fantastic for me (props Danielle) and I think fostering more female role models might help retain girls in the activity. Interesting note, my team (local Barrington team) has a female majority and it may be because we’ve always had a female captain or at least a female sponsor in charge of our team.
Posted from: 65.88.9.138
February 17th, 2010 19:44
I am intrigued by this conversation.
I have not judged, nor heard, Avi run this case.
I do have an opinion about it, but will remain silent (for once) to allow others to comment on the merits of the position.
We can all agree with the premise that more women in debate is a good thing. Many people have argued persuasively that Avi is genuine in his advocacy. That said action speaks MUCH louder than words so I have a modest proposal.
Avi, would you agree to give your spot at the TOC to a female debater who has the best record that DOESN’T have a bid to allow an underserved population to attend TOC? The committee could take applications from all young women who are without a bid and give your spot to her. EVERYONE attending TOC would know about the gesture. While unconventional, I am sure the committee would approach the TOC powers that be given the importance of increasing female representation at TOC and ask for a one year exception (for one debater) for the need to have a bid?
This seems a very genuine “micro political” move that doesn’t seem as adversarial as 7 debates hearing the case AND arguably, placing many females in the zero sum situation of having to lose to the position at TOC.
The advantage is that one woman gets to debate at TOC who wouldn’t be there as is. You could even come to TOC to speak about the issue and generate support. I assume that wins, particularly against women, would not help your cause. The sacrifice one for the benefit of others seems to be a strange form of logic at the TOC uniquely.
What say you sir?
By the way, I am not baiting anyone, I am dead serious…
Posted from: 24.158.12.82
February 17th, 2010 20:04
+1 AT.
@Lexy, I’m not suggesting that the committee be required to place women higher. I personally would if I were on the committee. Rather, I think if you’re an at-large, you should make that argument in your application and let the chips fall where they may. If you make a good case, the committee will consider it.
I’m not sure any of the solutions or strategies I outline in 141 will work entirely but anything of this caliber is piecemeal.
Posted from: 192.195.154.182
February 17th, 2010 20:36
@142
Generally people don’t get together and decide to vote against a debater’s position before it is run at a tournament, or at the very least I’m not invited.
Posted from: 71.84.43.236
February 17th, 2010 20:50
I find Mr Timmons’ suggestion very thought provoking. If not a bid-less female debater, then one with at least one bid who may otherwise be denied an at large.
Avi, would you give up your TOC application to advance the at large application of a female debater?
Posted from: 173.21.222.60
February 17th, 2010 20:55
I like AT’s idea. And everything Lexy has said.
Posted from: 136.152.155.159
February 17th, 2010 21:08
Ashley’s mention of Eric Cahoon gets a special second from me. This kid gave the best 1AR I’ve seen in a long time, and thus got the only 30 I’ve given out in the last 2 years or so. Straight up beast – Eric, you NEED to do NPDA in college!
Regarding Avi’s case – it should surprise no one that I have some thoughts on this subject. I think that Lexy’s point, in particular, is well taken – I’ve been around for long enough now to have heard this position, or some variant thereof, quite a few times. I’ve yet to see it actually accomplish anything. While I consider Avi a good friend and strongly believe in his sincerity, therefore, I find myself wondering what this will do to alleviate the problem.
In my experience, we talk about the problems that racial minorities or the socioeconomically underprivileged or women or non-heterosexuals or …whoever… face in debate, and then nothing gets done. Why didn’t Amanda’s 2004 discussion resolve anything? Where’s the 2010 solution to Cameron’s pointing out in 2007 of resource inequalities in debate? If anything, it seems that our ability to believe the convenient fiction of “our discourse will solve” has made it easier to ignore our own complicity in the structures of power that make such exclusion inevitable.
While I hate to toot my own horn, my policy for the last 5+ years has been to ask people, instead of giving me a birthday gift, to donate however much money they would have spent on me to a debate-related charity (Voices, UDL, whatever) of their choice. While the amount of money from this is pretty small, it at least represents some sort of tangible action that, I hope, might go some way towards actually helping with this problem. I encourage others to do the same, and look forward to hearing what other tangible actions I can take to solve the problems Avi talks about.
Note: it bears saying that this comment has no bearing on how likely I would be to vote for Avi. While I may think his advocacy is unlikely to succeed, I see no reason why I shouldn’t vote for him in a debate round if he wins it…
Posted from: 173.25.243.198
February 17th, 2010 21:19
Re: Liverzani’s position…
The topic was:
Resolved: individual claims of privacy ought to be valued above competing claims of societal welfare.
Amanda’s interp on the aff was that “individual claims of privacy” were defined by the integrity of the skin, and thus violations of privacy = rape, and her position was “rape bad.”
This was before theory was commonly used in LD. The neg ground under Amanda’s interp was “rape good.”
I find that position significantly more troubling than Avi’s, but the underlying problem, for me, is pretty much the same: there are lots of important social issues that merit attention, but that doesn’t make it OK to hijack debate rounds and force opponents to defend reprehensible positions (or, you know, lose.)
Posted from: 173.25.243.198
February 17th, 2010 21:32
Sorry for the double post but AT = genius as usual. I don’t know if Dr Patterson or Roger would go for it but dang, that’d be sweet.
Posted from: 74.36.105.146
February 17th, 2010 21:34
I agree that Mr. Timmons solution is a very interesting one and one that would certainly have some actual benefits. If Avi actually believes in the cause then this is definitely something he should consider.
This idea of moving females up the at-large rankings, however, is something that I respectfully disagree with.
@133
You say that “TOC committee members could move the women in the at-large pool to the top of their rankings. As I am in the position to do this, I’d love to hear what supporters of Avi’s argument think of this option. I’d also be interested to hear how you think I should weigh being a woman debater vs. being a debater who cannot afford to travel vs. being a debater from an underrepresented minority group.”
I’m really confused as to how this weighing would happen. Lets say there’s one at large spot left–would we really decide whether or not to give a student a bid based on uncontrollable charecteristics? How could you possible be able to decide whether being a female/black/brown/poor is worse? It seems to me that this would end up being super sexist/racist/clasist etc. I can understand taking steps to promote diversity in debate as an activity but when that attempt interferes with other students chances to succeed then I think that crosses the line. The only way we can avoid this is to simply give the bids to those that are the most qualified.
I think trying to solve this problem at the TOC level isn’t good enough. Sure, a couple more females may get to go to the TOC each year, but that will not succeed in equalizing the playing field nationwide in the long run. I think the best way to solve this problem is on a team-team level, by attempting to recruit females and taking steps to keep them in the activity.
Posted from: 136.152.184.231
February 17th, 2010 21:39
To be clear, the analogy with liverzani is not really in content of advocacy, but rather, on the question of whether conceding the ballots would improve the discussion.
Seriously, has anyone noticed that the conversation about Alex’s round is getting way more publicity than Jordan’s round with Avi? The key to dealing with this problem IS NOT to get this position into the TOC or into late elims. The key is to discuss real steps we can take.
I am fairly sure that if Avi had conceded to Alex before this round, and they had agreed to discuss solutions with Smitty, Gans, Craven, and the audience, several good things would have happened. 1. We’d have some better ideas how to deal with the problem. 2. Instead of discussing topicality/relevance of the case, this conversation would be entirely about the problem at hand. 3. The round would have had INSANELY widespread and GOOD publicity. 4. Alex would not be stuck wondering how her Berkeley tournament ended against this case, and that this was somehow for her own good.
The only disadvantage to that outcome would be that Avi would be an at-large candidate. Which begs the question…if we value the problem at hand, is Avi’s success as a debater really relevant?
I am sure that sacrificing his shot at Bid #2 would have furthered his movement MUCH more than 7 awkward rounds at the TOC will. The self-sacrifice involved would straight turn every publicity argument Avi made.
If Avi beats a girl at the TOC I will genuinely be angry, and I will question his motivation. I can’t blame Avi for still wanting to win debates, but in that case, he needs to choose a different vehicle.
Posted from: 68.164.187.157
February 17th, 2010 22:01
@154
You need to read more closely. I did not say that I would (or that other committee members should) move women debaters to the top of their rankings. I asked the fans of Avi’s argument to weigh in on whether doing so would be a good idea. It was, ultimately, a challenge to them to be more than just talk. It was also an attempt to force supporters of Avi’s “movement” (yes, they actually call it that!) to interrogate the depth of their own commitment to the cause.
As to the difficulty weighing, this is exactly the point I was trying to make. In the zero sum game of getting in to the TOC, a win for one does come at the expense of others. It is more than a bit ironic that a man has earned a slot at the TOC by arguing about the underrepresentation of women at the tournament, when his qualification potentially decreases the number of women at the tournament.
Your suggestion that we (TOC committee members) “simply give the bids to those that are the most qualified” begs the question of what it means to be the most qualified. If women debaters are discriminated against due to sexism and the overrepresentation of men in the judging pool, perhaps tournament results fail to fully reflect the excellence of women debaters. If low income debaters do not get to attend expensive camps or travel to national competitions, perhaps tournament results do not fully reflect their excellence. What I am suggesting here is that there is really nothing simple about determining who is the most qualified (just ask any college admissions officer).
Posted from: 70.149.108.8
February 17th, 2010 22:14
I hate to be the cynic, but this case puts me in a double bind.
1) I would feel much more comfortable with this position if Avi had qualified to the TOC prior to running it. I don’t want to sound accusatory, but to me that seems to be a significant block in accepting the presumptions of this case regardless of how sincere he appears to be. We all know what hard work debaters will do, what innovative strategies they may employ to try and qualify for this prestigious tournament. Any doubts I have would be completely absolved upon Avi’s acceptance or well-reasoned decline of Mr. Timmons’ idea (although I have no idea why he would reject the proposal if he was sincere).
2) However, given the above it seems that the case would be even worse based upon the assumptions it makes. Avi would be taking bids away from people (and girls) despite already having qualified since his position relies on winning. The fact that there is no bright line to Avi’s position makes it particularly problematic. There’s no tangible distinction between the amount of discourse created from winning an outround against a good debater and winning a bid round. If anything, Avi should have conceded the bid rounds he was in. I feel like that would be a reasonable bright line based upon the assumptions of his case.
But yeah, solve this through real world action not punishing females and generating the exact impacts the case talks about.
Posted from: 74.36.105.146
February 17th, 2010 22:28
Thanks for clarifying. I definitely agree with the fact that women are unrepresented and low income debaters don’t get the same chances which means that in the end determining who is the most qualified can be the subjective. My argument is simply that trying to solve these harms my weighing the situations in which debaters come from is not enough to solve the problem. As I said before, sure we can increase the number of females at TOC by a couple of people each year, but that is not a solution to the nationwide problem of lack of representment. What is the solution? I’m not sure, thats a discussion that I think we need to focus on having as opposed to those surrounding the legitimacy of Avi’s case. As I suggested, focusing on recruiting and keeping females in the activity on a team-team level is definitely a start.
Posted from: 173.77.141.128
February 17th, 2010 22:29
Lexy, I think that favoring women during the at large process is a good idea. (I’m sure that I will now get torn apart by people in the community who disagree with me, but that is my feeling.) I think that committee members have a lot of power to change some of the gender disparities in debate and that they should use that power. Just as a college attempts to balance the male:female ratio of its class, so too should the debate community strive to narrow the gap between male and female attendance at the TOC.
Posted from: 67.186.82.128
February 17th, 2010 22:51
congrats tim reynolds. i hope i see you at camp again this summer!
Posted from: 24.214.64.75
February 17th, 2010 22:52
@159, so now we’re pretty much enacting a policy of affirmative action in the debate community for women? This seems really problematic–I have a hard time believing the girls at Greenhill are at a disadvantage in the debate community. Come on, let the best debaters go to TOC regardless of gender.
Posted from: 70.241.65.79
February 17th, 2010 23:00
@161, in a world where there are no structural inequalities or discrimination, that would be a great idea.
we do not live in that world.
Posted from: 72.130.137.75
February 17th, 2010 23:05
First, congrats to Jordan + Ross on finals, Blay on sems, Colin + Naveen + Pat on Quarters, and everyone else who broke/bid.
Second, http://circuitdebater.blogspot.com/
Including the results from Golden Desert, at least 75 people are qualified to the TOC. Is it possible that debaters with two bids will be denied entry? (this might have relevance to issues like Avi beating Alex in doubles, etc.)
Posted from: 68.164.187.157
February 17th, 2010 23:07
@158
I don’t think that recruiting is the issue. Avi’s case addresses the lack of women at the highest levels in debate, not the lack of women overall (and it is correct to do so). Debate is very popular with young women, but something happens as the reach the varsity level as sophomores and juniors. I’m not sure if they leave the activity more frequently than men at this level, or if they simply do not win as much, but something definitely changes.
The Berkeley results are instructive and shocking. Of 32 double octa-finalists in JV LD, 16 appear (at least based on their names) to be women. Of 64 triple octa-finalists in Varsity LD, 16 appear to be women (based on their names). This isn’t a recruiting problem — it’s a retention problem, or a fairness problem.
Think about it. Generally, the same schools enter JV and Varsity at Berkeley. Their women debaters win 50% of the awards at the JV level. Then, a year or two later at the Varsity level, only 25% of the awards are won by their women debaters. Are those JV winners quitting debate? Do male debaters simply pass women debaters after the JV level? Are the judges in Varsity (supposedly our least interventionist and best trained) failing to give women debaters a fair shake? Is MPJ creating a boys club in which important rounds are almost never adjudicated by women? Whatever is going on, I don’t think in can really be addressed by getting more women to start debating.
Posted from: 72.29.211.131
February 17th, 2010 23:13
I will admit that I have not read the entirety of this thread nor have I seen Avi’s case debated out. That said, I may be missing a significant number of important points. I do not pretend to grasp the significance of what is going on. However, I feel compelled to address the concept of placing women at the top of the At-Large process. I am glad that Lexy does not necessarily advocate this but would rather spark conversation on the matter. I am not in support of the case Avi is running. I think that debating strategy is horribly performatively contradictory and it encourages more intervention than I would be comfortable with as a judge. I do feel that placing women higher on the At-Large list would be a mistake. As a person who applied for the At-Large last year but did not get it, and justifiably so, I would probably be pretty upset if I found out that the reason I didn’t get to go to the TOC was because I was born a different sex. People can control the arguments that get them bids but they can’t control their sex. Additionally, after talking about this with my sister, a former policy debater from the early 90s who got to Octas of the TOC running feminist positions, I think this would probably send the wrong idea about female representation in debate. As my sister put it, “Women don’t need a debate handicap.” In the true spirit of equality, I think women are just as capable of getting to the TOC as men. Although I am certainly willing to listen to reasons why circumstances are specifically preventing women from reaching the highest levels of the debate community, I have heard none thusfar. Sure demographics may show that there are more men but that doesn’t show me a causal relationship. Like was mentioned above, women used to dominate the debate community. Demographics can change randomly due to factors that have nothing to do with bigotry. There is now a much larger proportion of women in college than men whereas it used to be the inverse. I do not resent this or expect some type of help from the system. I think that the TOC should be blind to characteristics that we have no choice in receiving at birth. I certainly understand if others disagree but this is something I legitimately believe in. Despite the fact that I have Israeli, Native American, and Aboriginal heritage I abstained from entering any of that information for college applications or scholarship. I did nothing to earn those identities and I don’t believe that I would deserve an award that was given based on ethnic identity or any other such qualifiers. I am actually quite offended that institutions believe I need a helping hand just because I have heritage with minority groups.
Posted from: 24.214.64.75
February 18th, 2010 00:06
@165, I couldn’t agree more. We as a society need to be less race/gender conscience–including the debate community
Posted from: 68.164.187.157
February 18th, 2010 00:24
@166
How are we to address problems like the one suggested by this year’s Berkeley results if we are not gender conscious? Even if you don’t approve of affirmative action as a remedy, you can’t possibly think that nothing should be done. Or do you think that if we are not “conscious” of the problem, it will simply cease to exist?
Posted from: 173.25.243.198
February 18th, 2010 00:57
@ Ilya: That happens a lot. Not everyone who quals attends.
Posted from: 75.25.136.243
February 18th, 2010 01:30
I don’t think AT’s proposal goes far enough. Why make this offer to Avi alone? These threads have made clear that there are lots of males out there who really care about increasing female representation in debate and who think that an effective way to do it is to give female debaters more slots in high-level rounds. Let’s give all those guys the chance to demonstrate how much they care about this cause.
Seriously, with all due respect to Mr. Timmons (who I almost always find thoughtful and well-intentioned in these discussions), this “offer” strikes me as pretty disingenuous. While I do not speak for Avi, if I were in his shoes, I would feel absolutely no compunction in turning it down. Like a lot of other comments on this thread, AT’s suggestion seems to betray an interest in judging Avi’s character rather than engaging with what he’s saying. Whether Avi is “sincere” in delivering his case has no bearing on the empirical claims his case makes (about what effect a vote for the case will have on female representation, etc.), and I have yet to hear anyone articulate a reason why his sincerity would otherwise be implicated in a judge’s decision. Focusing on the question of sincerity – as AT’s proposal does – seems like an attempt to dodge serious consideration of his claims in favor of a discussion about the integrity of a 17-year-old high school student. [As a sidenote, having known Avi for a few years, I have absolutely no question about his intentions in doing this. I don’t think anyone who has seen how he thoughtful he is as a competitor and a teammate would disagree.]
If AT and others genuinely think that having a male debater give his TOC slot to a non-qualified female is a step toward equalizing female representation at high levels in the long term, there is no reason to single out Avi, forcing him to make a public decision on a matter that grown adults are construing as a test of his integrity. That’s unfair, and frankly, it’s a pretty irksome way of intimidating a student. Give every fully-qualified male the same choice, or don’t put anyone on the spot. I would be seriously disappointed if Lexy (or whoever) made a gimmicky exception to long-standing TOC rules to satisfy some people on a message board.
Finally, though I have no interest in getting bogged down in this debate or whether it matters, it’s pretty clear to me that the discussion on this thread (following Avi’s success the past two weeks) has brought far more attention to issues of female representation than would have followed from Avi conceding rounds and talking with a few other students and judges in a room. The number of people involved and the depth of (some of) the comments are way beyond what Avi would generate if he started conceding rounds to prove to y’all how sincere he is.
Posted from: 99.25.36.37
February 18th, 2010 02:28
Am I the only one noticing the above hundred comments or so are the manifestation of Avi’s intent and solvency?
Posted from: 128.135.208.222
February 18th, 2010 02:37
They aren’t what he wants. He wants to keep winning ballots. 90% of the comments above discuss how he should concede or sac his spot at TOC. If Avi was sincere you’re right this would be solvency. If you think it’s something else motivating him, then this isn’t the discussion he wants taking place.
Posted from: 75.25.136.243
February 18th, 2010 02:51
Mike, grow up. You have no idea “what he wants” or what is “motivating him” (if those were even coherent questions, which they aren’t). You don’t know Avi well enough (and aren’t sufficiently detached, apparently) to make those claims. It’s really unbecoming of a coach to malign a high school student without giving any evidence to back up your claims (and without making any contribution to the discussions going on in this thread).
Posted from: 207.151.254.106
February 18th, 2010 02:58
I don’t know how the people who are accusing Avi of being insincere are reaching this conclusion. I, much like them, have the supernatural ability to understand people’s thoughts, and by viusally interpreting the brain activity taking place in Avi’s cerebrum, I have determined that he is sincere.
Posted from: 76.91.28.140
February 18th, 2010 03:11
my feeling has always been that men always outnumber women at “nerd” stuff. go to a comic book convention, a star trek convention, a gaming convention, an electronics convention, almost anything like that, and you will see that they are probably over 80% men who are REALLY in to it.
it certainly does nothing to solve the problem, but guys seem to take things to an absurd competitive level much more than women when it comes to “being in to things.” who has the most star wars toys, the oldest comic books, the biggest telescope. this hyper competitiveness may or may not be innate to men, it might be how we are constructed, but it isn’t something that isn’t limited to debate.
none of this is to say that this is just nature and that we should just accept it. it is to say that it is probably the “all or nothing” of the highest levels of the national circuit that is the problem of under-representation. I think that bid counting, mjp, ganging up in prep, etc, all contribute to women walking away. but like i said, this is also the case in a lot of similar activities.
when i first heard of the case i described it as what is often described in feminist circles as a “rich white woman’s” problem. the national circuit in debate represents a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of people who participate on just their local circuits. they don’t read vbd. they probably never seek out debate message boards, care about toc bids, and probably don’t even try to go to NFL nationals.
occasionally lightning is captured in a bottle for one of these young women, and they join the ranks of the hyper-competitive world of national circuit debate. our job is just to make sure we aren’t doing anything to contribute to their leaving.
given that the national circuit has a mix of both teams that are headed by coaches and those that are not, one issue might be that teams with coaches are more likely to retain female debaters because it might have less of a “lord of the flies” culture on the team. but that might just be what i can think of off the top of my head. so one solution might be just to find more adults (teachers) to get into some of the non-coached programs to maintain a safe environment for young women on teams.
you can read my statement and say that i’m being too blase about the issue. and i do think it is a problem that women are so under represented in national circuit debate. i just wanted to point out that we are talking about an extremely self-selecting group of people that probably do not represent “debate” as a whole.
Posted from: 24.161.175.30
February 18th, 2010 03:14
I agree with Fritz. It is very fair to question whether or not Avi is helping the “movement” and I think that is a crucial discussion to be had.
But people who say he isn’t sincere really just need to talk to him. I’ve talked with him about this to a lot of detail, and he is 100% serious. Whatever the effects of his actions, one thing that shouldn’t be questioned is his intention. Especially when it is just ad hom.
Posted from: 153.90.73.35
February 18th, 2010 03:33
Getting a bid at Stanford against Lamothe was enough to generate discussion. The only reason Avi continued to run it at Berkeley was to complete the qual. We’re talking about a debater who previously had zero bids approaching the end of his circuit career. It’s not a stretch of the imagination to say that his attempt to get bids is tied up to running this case. Despite the fact Avi obviously wants to increase female participation in debate (and he is not alone in this – to suggest he’s the only one who cares is absurd), it is difficult to imagine him only running this case in order to increase participation, as opposed to a last-ditch attempt at making it to TOC, after failing to compete at all on the Nov/Dec topic.
Even people very close to him question his motives; in fact, some of his closest friends and would-be supporters have publicly posted on lddebate.org that they do not support him running the position this way while others have concerns about his arrogance and persona while running this case at tournaments.
Posted from: 207.151.254.106
February 18th, 2010 03:40
I personally believe that everyone who has insinuated that Avi is being insincere secretly hates women and wishes they were only there to make sandwiches.
AREN’T UNWARRANTED ATTACKS ON CHARACTER FUN!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Posted from: 67.188.192.227
February 18th, 2010 04:13
kelsey (and, to some extent, dan) – that is a massive stretch, to put it mildly. as lexy has now noted repeatedly on this thread, most of the conversation has been about whether or not avi’s strategy is legitimate, NOT about the issue of how to actually solve the problem he talks about.
dan, you seem to see this as a criticism of those responding to the case, rather than of the case itself. why is this so? why should we assume, a priori, that avi’s genuine belief in his cause necessarily means he is above reproach for the effects of his espousal of that cause? my biggest problem with the case is precisely the fact that the adversarial reaction it creates leads to a lot of talk and no action. no, i don’t think it’s fair to blame avi for the silliness of his critics. however, it is worth considering whether or not certain decisions avi has made while championing this cause were really intelligent.
i’ll be honest – talking to him after his doubles round, it seems as though avi’s stance regarding what he ought to do, how to handle various situations, etc is continuing to evolve. this is unsurprising – there are a lot of questions that this raises, and i don’t think he expected to have to answer all of them. this is unfortunate, however, because every misstep he makes provides ammunition to those who disagree with his decision to read this position in debate rounds.
this also makes life hard for those of us who feel challenged by avi’s position to change our relationship with debate. i had a strange realization this morning – i never set out to emphasize female participation in debate, but every student i’ve coached so far for any real length of time has been female. is there something i’m doing in my interaction with these women that i should be changing? is there something that i’m doing well that i should encourage others to do? i don’t know, because all that seems to happen is that we talk about whether or not avi really cares about his cause, and how terrible it is that women seem to be underrepresented, and such general issues in a way that ensures that tangible benefits remain unrealized. in taking up the mantle of this cause, avi has given himself the responsibility of answering these questions, and it bothers me that he doesn’t seem to have answers – and yes, i will hold him accountable for this, and wonder how he can be so serious about this without having thought through the answers to such basic questions.
maybe this is unreasonable, and i shouldn’t be looking to an 18 year old to tell me how i should approach debate. if you think that’s true, though, it seems weird for an 18 year old to tell me that my approach to debate has contributed to some kind of patriarchal hegemony in debate, and that it therefore needs to change. revolutions without direction get coopted, and this one seems headed in that direction…
Posted from: 24.17.210.22
February 18th, 2010 04:19
How would people feel about Avi running this case against guys and then straight-up debating the topic against girls?
Posted from: 193.200.150.82
February 18th, 2010 04:38
A couple of things about this discussion:
1) Do you think it would be tolerated for someone to walk into a “Lets fight poverty” rally or some other mp struggle and force everyone at said rally to engage in a discussion on some other equally as important or more important issue such as world peace or pollution? Not only this, but that person would continue to go to multiple of these rallies and continue to engage in a discussion contrary to the intention of the rally. This situation can be applied in multiple scenarios. How can any rational person interpret it as fair for anyone to come into a round, and be forced to engage in an obviously important issue, but they are not in the least bit prepared to engage it. Sure, the issue may be massively important and Avi’s intentions may be very genuine, but why the fuck is it this poor kid’s fault that this is all happening. Also, while this may not be a large-scale problem, the position also perpetuates an unfair mindset in which intervention must be used to decide the round, putting the other debater at a severe disadvantage that should not be put on him. Seriously, the is the most important problem with his position. “Doing it for your own good/good of the community” is pardon me but complete bullshit. I dont care how true the intentions are and the problems may be, it is ridiculously unfair to anyone who is unlikely put in a round against the position. Just envision please the happy go-lucky teenager whose spent a month preparing for what could be his only national tournament of his life, paying hundreds of dollars to make this trip and then being forced to engage in something he did not sign up for, pay for, or expect whatsoever. What is the point of even having a topic if everyone just avoids it and talks about what is important. What if in a round against Avi someone ran the exact same case against him, who would you vote for? Whose affirming and whose negating? Since we no longer have a topic in which to debate, what abuse is occurring? The case was designed to be run both on the aff and the neg, so what if the AC was this and so was the NC. There would be no logical way to evaluate the round. And what if Avi was negating, and someone affirmed with this case, what then? The case opens up so much possible abuse which functionally destroys debate. Thus, my main problem with the case is COMPLETELY WRONG FORUM. No, i dont have an alternative. I dont care where you want to talk about this. Hell, if you wanted to have a topic for two months about this, that could be a great start, but if the topic is economic sanctions, then atleast for the time being, it should remain economic sanctions. There are plenty of more justifications and scenarios for this problem, but i’ll leave it at that.
2) Intentions? Please, look at this rationally. The TOC deadline is weeks away. A debater has not a single bid yet, and being the smart debater he is, comes up with a very strong position that will be agreed with. Now, please do not barrage me with arguments that “Pls srsly like Avi is totes legit, hes fkin crzy” because they may in fact be true, but i know from personal experience that many times one can use personal feelings to gain a independent benefit. That sounds confusing. What i mean to say is while Avi may be completely genuine in his feelings about the issue, he may be using the issue for his own personal benefit to get bids/wins. Take for example the kid in english class who wants to write a good english paper but doesn’t know what to write about. He decides rather then write about a standard topic like everyone else, he can write about him overcoming adversity with a mom who is a prostitute. While his intentions in conveying the message may be real, it is possible the intention in conveying said message in this particular forum may simply be for personal benefit.
3) Maybe females just don’t want to debate? Claims are made numerous times that females are being forced out and the problem is constantly being perpetuated. However, has one ever simply asked oneself… maybe they just dont want to debate? Or maybe the reason is because there are simply more male teenagers then female teenagers in America, so obviously the male population will be more prominent in coed activities. According to the Census there are about 18 million more males from the ages of 15-19 then female in the United States. Also, no one flips a shit about females being underrepresented in football (american) because it is a more male-oriented activity. That doesnt meant males are intentionally trying to kick females out (ive seen many girls on school football teams) just that the females are less likely wanting to be there.
I’d just like to say that while this may be a huge problem, and while Avi may be very genuine in his thoughts on the issue, we are never really going to solve anything, its just a ploy for wins and controversy. Micropolitical struggles, unless done in more mass-oriented ways, fail very often. They may be interesting and we may talk about it for a couple months, but this will die down, nothing will have changed, and the community will continue to grow and change how it sees fit. Possible excluding males from the activity. I know I said what many people have already said, and i know there are plenty of other reasons why this position should cease immediately, i think this is enough for now. So really, I believe Avi should hopefully accept Mr. Timmon’s over or no longer continue running this advocacy for some solvency may be occurring, but it is not the desired solvency nor adequate to merit continued advocacy.
Posted from: 128.12.20.94
February 18th, 2010 05:20
I actually rarely post on forums like this because I would much rather have a discussion like this in person with some of the coaches and debaters who are responding to Avi’s case, but it is very difficult to sit here and read through comments questioning Avi’s integrity and/or sincerity. Having coached him for the last few months and having gotten to know him as a debater and a caring individual, I can unwaveringly say that I have huge amounts of respect for him.
If you’re questioning his motives, ask him why he ran this case. Talk to him. I am 100% sure that you will find him to be sincerely concerned about the issues he’s brought up in his case and that he has had his share of frustrations with the activity and wanted to find a way to make more of an impact on a community that he has come to cherish. You’ll also find that he faced a ton of dilemmas in figuring out what would be the right thing to do against a female opponent, against an opponent bringing up a different issue of inequality in debate, against an opponent who agreed with his advocacy—no, he was not concerned with the “winning strategy” but the genuinely right thing to do because really that’s what he has always seemed to be concerned about. But I don’t want to keep speaking for him because it seems that there are way too many people doing that already.
Also, those of you saying that this was just a ploy to get qualled to the TOC really have no place making that assumption. First, Avi did not compete much last semester because of college applications but was in outrounds of the two bid tournaments he went to (Greenhill and the Bronx) so there is absolutely no reason to believe that he could not have qualled to the TOC debating the topic. Second, Avi actually ran a version of this case at VBT, ended up with a losing record, and got some feedback from judges, coaches, and fellow debaters that he really took to heart before the revised version he ran at Stanford. So why would he run a case that was not at all successful in the past? The only reason I can think of is because he actually believed in what he was saying and wanted to give the debate community a second chance to consider the importance of having a discussion about these issues.
But I understand how most people might overlook the fact that he ran this at VBT because none of the posts on VBD after the tournament mentioned Avi’s position. You can call it a coincidence, or you can conclude that after losing rounds at the VBT his position was not taken seriously and that the case’s success really did spark up discussions on this forum about gender inequalities in debate and the proper way in which to spark these discussions (and I think a lot of what’s going on here on this thread is amazing, particularly Lexy’s three points and Fresca’s and Ali Huberlie’s reflections on being female debaters in a predominantly male activity).
Many of the people posting here have also mentioned the case coming up in casual conversations outside this forum among debaters and coaches. Even if these discussions have probably involved criticism of the case itself, we still need to have these types of conversations about *how* to talk about gender inequalities in debate just as much as we need the conversations about how to address the actual disparities. We have debates about the rules of debate all the time (cue: theory) so why do we rarely talk about the culture of debate and the structures in place that exclude certain groups? Sure, you might say the answer to that question is that the actual rounds are not the proper forum for those discussions and that’s fine, maybe Avi has even come to that conclusion himself (I haven’t spoken to him about this at length yet since Berkeley), but just think about how much guts it must have taken to depart from the conventional case to talk about something he truly cared about and through a method that was highly criticized. And just to be clear, it was very much his own personal decision to come up with the idea for this type of case, do the research for it, write it, and eventually run it at major circuit tournaments. I really only saw the finished product. And I’m not saying that to separate myself from the criticism of the position but rather to show that this is something that he really felt strongly about.
There may be problems in the way in which the case was implemented and, yes, my biggest problem with the case when Avi first approached me about it was the potential contradiction it might create when he inevitably faced a female opponent. I’ve openly had this discussion with a few coaches and have not at all blindly supported the implementation of the case because I also think there are a few ways in which the case could have been more effective or could have avoided some of the controversy it has created. I’m sure Avi would love to hear how he could have improved his position to better lead to the discussion he wanted to spark, but if you did not see Avi run the case or ever had a conversation with him about his position, just realize that you haven’t witnessed the classy and respectful way in which he ran the case, which seems to be a lot of the reason why he received mostly 30s in speaks from his judges at the last two tournaments he was at.
There are three major things being discussed here: (1) Avi’s character, (2) the case and whether or not it actually and the impact it intended, and (3) the real challenges that female debaters face for the reasons already mentioned and many more that I hope others will contribute (I would love to have a conversation with any of you about my experiences as a female debater on the circuit and now as a female coach, but I’d prefer to have those in a much more personal setting). I have no issue with the second and third types of discussions. Both of them, I think, are very healthy for the community. I just have a problem with the first discussion, specifically with people who have not seen the case or have ever spoken to Avi (let alone, about his position) questioning his personal commitment to the issue of gender inequalities in debate.
So I’m just asking you, especially coaches who have called Avi’s personal integrity into question, to think about how your personal attacks might affect a high school student who was looking for a way to have meaningful discussions about an issue he has always cared about (not just as bid season rolled around) because really he is not the competitive bid-seeking attention-hungry debater that some of you are characterizing him to be but a highly compassionate and mature high school student. And I hope those of you who know me, know me well enough to know that I would not be posting on this thread for any reason other than to defend the integrity of a debater who has very much earned my respect and whose risky but well-intentioned decision has taught me more about stepping back and reflecting on my own involvement in debate than any of the strategies or arguments I may have taught him.
Posted from: 76.121.231.19
February 18th, 2010 05:24
Sorry to have been absent for the last 24 hours. It’s not because I’ve been avoiding you, promise.
@Wade 122, Dave 125, and others who wonder how the Avi’s case could possibly win this or any round:
I can’t speak for other rounds, but our round was not about economic sanctions. Alex’s AC was a kritik that explicitly advocated forgoing our role as make-believe policy makers in favor of discourse. After she read the AC, all of the argumentation for the rest of the round was on Avi’s case and its implications for either Alex or Avi. In other words, it was “I should get the bid, because….” Had the case been challenged as non-topical or its claims or warrants attacked like a normal case, the round certainly would have been different. This isn’t to blame Alex for taking the position she did; it just means that weren’t able adjudicate the round based on any normal standard and basically just made up rules for deciding a victor as we went along. As I mentioned above (in 115), I used a combination of trying to objectively evaluate the arguments they presented and outright intervention based on what I thought would be the implications for Alex and Avi coming from my decision. Smitty and Wesley had their own reasons for deciding the way they did, and each was slightly different.
@Lexy, Cherian, and others talking about how to improve representation:
I would be very much in favor of studies to determine why women either leave or don’t find as much success as men. Anecdotally, I can tell you that the best debater from Washington in recent years, Lizzie Sivitz, didn’t attend the TOC simply because she wasn’t interested in the prize. Despite her dominance in my region, it was the debating and the relationships she loved, not necessarily the prestige that comes with attending or winning at the TOC. (And by best debater, I mean best of either gender. She just crushed people.)
As to #3: how to solve it, I think tweaking MJP might be a reasonable place to start. I live and coach in Seattle and I can tell you without question that I started getting better rounds after teaching at VBI, sending my kids to national camps, and attending more national tournaments. (I’ve also improved as a judge, of course, but that comes after getting better rounds.) Debaters prefer the people they know. Placing women in the back of top rounds despite lower prefs, even if it’s just during prelims, increases the likelihood that they’ll get 1s later simply because the top debaters will know who they are. It’s a small adjustment that still allows the MJP system to functional relatively frictionlessly but might do a lot of good.
As a coach and a teacher, I try to inculcate the ideals that debate prizes – dissent, independent thinking, eloquence, evidence – in all of my students, male or female. Many teachers would rather just have they answer they want, though, which is why so many schools (including Bainbridge) have disproportionately higher populations of girls in their honors classes. Girls are often taught to beat the test while boys are allowed to challenge its questions. Perhaps this is the case with debate, too? Organization and clarity win a lot of novice and junior rounds. The other skills top debaters need – the “masculine” ones like speed, aggression, and innovation – don’t matter as much in lower levels or on local circuits.
Finally, I’d be in favor of affirmative action for at-large applicants. If you’re earned an at-large bid and are from some under-represented group, be it non-white, female, or small program, I would support a move further up the line. Don’t we already have something similar with geographic diversity? (And to Ben 165, if you don’t want to claim a slot based on anything other than record, great. But others might, and it might be good for the community as a whole if they did.) As a coach, I would rather explain to my male debaters that they lost out due to gender imbalance than tell my female debaters that the activity just doesn’t seem to fit them.
Posted from: 24.5.241.146
February 18th, 2010 05:28
@179 Re: debating girls w/ stock, guys w/ gender
If the point is to further the cause, conceding the ballot against girls AND guys, and talking about solutions (god forbid!) to the problem, is the way to go.
As for the people who say this thread is proof Avi has succeeded, um… Lexy is probably one of few people pushing some ideas on solutions, and few people are engaging those ideas.
This thread (along with every bit of discourse I’ve seen in the last 2 months) proves that this conversation cannot happen successfully in an adversarial format. Avi can go for ballots, or take the conversation past adversarial intent. I’m ok with Avi going for ballots–debaters like winning– but I’m not gonna say that his approach is helping women at all.
Posted from: 128.12.47.116
February 18th, 2010 05:39
Is post 180 a performance?
Posted from: 66.69.245.211
February 18th, 2010 10:04
I dont think these discussions strengthen his case as much as they just make it increasingly non unique.
Posted from: 68.164.187.157
February 18th, 2010 11:14
@180
Please tell us who you are. Take responsibility for your statements.
“Maybe females just don’t want to debate? Claims are made numerous times that females are being forced out and the problem is constantly being perpetuated. However, has one ever simply asked oneself… maybe they just dont want to debate?”
This fails to explain why so many sign up for debate and succeed competitively as novices. Something happens between JV and Varsity that either causes women to leave, or just causes them to win less.
“Or maybe the reason is because there are simply more male teenagers then female teenagers in America, so obviously the male population will be more prominent in coed activities. According to the Census there are about 18 million more males from the ages of 15-19 then female in the United States.”
You need to get those numbers correct and put them into context. US Census data for 2008 tells a very different story. http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2008-sa.html They show 11,027,264 males from age 15-19 and 10,487,094 females in the same age group. That’s a difference of 540,170 (or more than an order of magnitude off from your figures). That’s a difference of over half a million in a total population of over 21 million. Significant, yes, but not nearly great enough to explain the difference between Berkeley’s JV and Varsity elims numbers.
“Also, no one flips a shit about females being underrepresented in football (american) because it is a more male-oriented activity. That doesnt meant males are intentionally trying to kick females out (ive seen many girls on school football teams) just that the females are less likely wanting to be there.”
Actually, some do. And it has often taken law suits to get women the right to play on those teams. Additionally, many made your football argument about sports generally, and it took Title IX to give women an equal opportunity to play sports in school.
Posted from: 68.164.187.157
February 18th, 2010 12:06
On the whole “why don’t you beat this with T, framework, etc.?” issue:
We thought we could beat it on the substance. If the goal is increasing the participation on women at the highest levels of LD competition, we felt that giving Alex the win would certainly achieve the following–
1)Assure a woman’s entry at the TOC by giving her three bids.
2)Prevent a man from qualifying, thereby freeing up a potential at-large slot for a woman applicant.
3)Give a woman at least one more elim round (the octa-finals against Jordan), allowing her to improve her skills as a debater and gain elim round experience.
4)Put another woman in the octa-finals at Berkeley, providing a role model and encouragement for other women debaters.
We felt (and still feel) that allowing Avi’s story to win was far less likely to have a positive impact on the participation of women in the highest levels of debate. We grant that Avi’s performance does cause discussion. We simply think that discussion is unlikely to cause as much positive change as a vote for Alex because:
1)Most of the discussion is about the wrong things (whether Avi is genuine, how to beat his case, etc.).
2)The community, even after serious discussion, is unlikely to make the structural changes that might address this problem (affirmative action admission to the TOC, allowing gender to trump MPJ in judge assignment, etc.).
3)The same or better discussion could be generated by Avi’s conceding the bid debate to a woman debater.
I think the decision calculus is pretty easy. We’re weighing certain small, though significant, advantages for women in debate through a vote for Alex against a greater advantage (systemic change sparked by discussion generated by the case winning) that is at the very least, improbable. The key to how you decide is how likely you think this discussion is to cause change. I am, as I’ve said repeatedly, old and cynical. The tenor of this discussion and the general lack of interest shown in addressing the problem seem to vindicate my judgment. I very much hope to be proven wrong.
Posted from: 173.77.141.128
February 18th, 2010 12:57
Ben, I applied for the at large during my sophomore and junior year, and I didn’t get it either time. I understand that it’s disappointing to not get to go to the TOC. What needs to be understood is that for women to have the opportunity to apply for an at large is a unique feat (please do not misinterpret my argument, I am not saying that women are worse debaters) because of the multitudinous impediments to their success, which seem fixed in our activity. It must be considerably disappointing for women when their at large applications are denied, especially given that they worked against debate norms to get their bid. If for no other reason, women should be ranked higher on the list of at large applicants because they deserve it. I understand that people have no control over the way they were born (race, sex, etc.), but when those factors lead to some discrimination (as it seems to have done for women in debate) it seems right that we counter such inequity.
That aside, I think Jeff makes a good point when he notes that we already have a similar system going in terms of geographic diversity at the TOC. To enrich the activity we need to allow different voices to participate. Those voices change with geography, race and sex.
I’m not sure whether or not I mean that this sort of system ought to be a formal policy. I was just hoping to encourage committee members to rank women higher. To those who keep posting about Avi’s lack of sincerity or the fact that this thread does not seem to be generating the right kind of discourse: you aren’t denying that the disparities between women and men are unfair, so instead of attacking Avi or the discourse his case is provoking, why don’t you engage Lexy, and the others on this thread (myself included) about how to solve this problem?
Posted from: 72.29.211.131
February 18th, 2010 13:57
@ 188:
I understand your argument but theres one notion I have a problem with. I admit I may be absolutely blind, ignorant, and naive and I say this with the knowledge that it may make me seem sexist (I certainly hope not because if anything, I am a firm believer in global equality, probably so to the level that I could be considered un-American.) I just don’t see anything inherently holding women back in debate. This is less an argument and more a question. I’d really like someone to help me understand why the majority of male judges may be benignly or overtly sexist or what policies contribute to an anti-female attitude. Just because there are more males doesn’t mean that we(males) feel dominant towards females. When I saw my opponent on a pairing when I debated or when I see who my debaters are hitting at tournaments, I evaluate that opponent as an individual person who debates in their individualized way, not as a woman or a man who can be categorized based on arbitrary factors. A lot of this discussion seems geared towards making up for something that is holding women back in debate and I have no clue what that something is. The only cases in which “affirmative action-like” policies are justified in my mind is when there is something identifiable restricting a certain group. I consider myself to be open-minded and just because I don’t see it doesn’t mean that the restriction isn’t there. I’m just asking for someone to bring me into the light because the proposed higher ranking of women for the TOC is incredibly unsettling absent that justification that I’m asking for. If someone can point that out to me, I’d be perfectly willing to reverse my position. To me the demographic unbalance is the only thing that I’ve read that could possibly address my concerns. I do not find this compelling because it only seems correlative and doesn’t really address my need of testimony for my peace of mind with the ranking policy. I may have misinterpreted other people’s arguments and some people may think that the demographic imbalance is a problem in and of itself. I think that a preference system is important for those schools with less resources and such but thats a whole other issue. In terms of demographics being an problem on its own, I respectfully disagree. I will not feel right about this unless there is something behind the imbalance.
Posted from: 68.164.187.157
February 18th, 2010 15:13
@189
I appreciate the sincerity of your question. There are many factors that may cause males to have an advantage over females in debate. Here’s a bit of a laundry list. Though some may seem silly on their own, looked at as a whole the list presents daunting challenges to women who debate. Please note that male judges, coaches, and competitors are not the sole authors of these problems. Many women share the sexist views that cause these problems.
1. Men have deeper voices and therefore better fit society’s notion of what a powerful speaker is. This means higher speaker points, which translate to easier opponents for male debaters as the tournament wears on.
2. Men are generally taller than women. People tend to be more impressed by taller people, as evidenced by may studies of height discrimination. This may translate to more wins for men, or it may mean higher speaker points, which translate to easier opponents for male debaters as the tournament wears on.
3. Women who are aggressive in debates violate societal norms for female behavior and are viewed as “bitchy.” This can mean lower speaker points, which translate to tougher opponents for female debaters as the tournament wears on.
4. The high proportion of males at circuit tournaments can make women debaters feel unwelcome socially. Though women and men of high school age can and do hang out together, a look around the school cafeteria should demonstrate that they still tend not to.
5. The high proportion of male coaches and directors on the circuit can make women debaters feel less welcome and comfortable because they cannot expect that their coach will understand the problems they face as women in debate.
6. The high proportion of males on the national circuit can, when combined with the issue raised at #4, turn the prep out into a boys club that works to disadvantage women debaters.
7. Because so few women debaters win at the highest levels, our archetype of the successful debater tends to be male. This makes it easier for male debaters to “look like they’re winning.”
8. The low proportion of women debaters succeeding at the highest levels may make young women debaters believe that it is unlikely that they will succeed, thereby encouraging them to focus their efforts in other areas.
9. Societal norms that encourage women to be cooperative, quiet, and non-aggressive may make it more difficult for young women to master the techniques needed to win debates decisively.
I’m sure there are more reasons out there, but this will have to do for the moment.
Posted from: 74.232.83.186
February 18th, 2010 15:46
@ 190
I noticed than many of the issues on the list deal with presentation and that men naturally ’seem’ like better debaters.
It seems to me that if that were true, you’d see more male dominance in local tournaments and less on the national circuit because local judges vote much more based on appearance, whereas circuit judges are more prone to vote ‘off the flow’.
Posted from: 75.25.136.243
February 18th, 2010 15:54
Here’s a thought: what if there was a public push to get teams competing at the TOC to hire more female judges to cover their commitments? This isn’t that hard to do; there are lots of female ex-debaters out there who I’m sure would be willing to make some money judging for a weekend. The folks who run the TOC could even offer some kind of a discount on registration (or something) for teams that bring female judges. Even if not, I think a serious attempt at moral suasion by the TOC folks would go a long way here, especially given how many coaches have already chimed in on this thread to declare their commitment to increasing female representation.
It’s great that people are thinking about long-run solutions to the problem of female underrepresentation like finding more female coaches, but this is something that could be in the next three months and would have a tangible, visible impact in a very public venue. So, Lexy: would the tournament be willing to make some kind of push like this to get more female judges hired? And would any of the coaches who have posted on this thread be willing to make an effort to bring more women to the tournament?
Posted from: 74.202.255.7
February 18th, 2010 16:38
The list in 190 is very compelling as a whole. The fact that, on their own, each individual point seems rather miniscule is probably why I, and I’m sure many other people, don’t think about them. Thanks. Although, I’m still slightly uncomfortable with the ranking system, I like the notion presented in 192.
Posted from: 71.135.43.116
February 18th, 2010 20:03
posts like 180 are the reason that avi’s case has some merit. whether or not you think that the case is politically effective, i think it’s done something to highlight the way in which sexism is ideologically inscribed into the economic and social structures that characterize contemporary lincoln douglas debate. i think that anthony and lexy make some really good points and i dropped this case in doubles so clearly i’m not just drinking the kool-aid, but if you think that sexism in debate is not a problem worth talking about then GTFO because you are part of the problem. i wish that 180 was a joke or a performance but frankly i think it’s indicative of the attitudes of a lot of people at the highest echelons of this activity, whether they’ll ever admit it or not.
Posted from: 71.135.43.116
February 18th, 2010 20:10
oh yeah and LOL to all of the people making the argument that this was a ploy to qual to the TOC. guy who got a bid his sophomore year, went to the ghill RR, has a phenomenal at large shot, and is technically/strategically gifted enough to qual to TOC decides to run a case that doesn’t talk about the topic, that everyone hates, and posts it online along with frontlines to the 20 most common arguments and you think this is some kind of a strategy designed to maximize his winning chances? if this is your argument why avi isn’t “sincere” then get real. this isn’t college policy, research volume isn’t the barrier to success, and the competitive and structural incentives that exist in policy (where this might be a viable strategic choice a la towson/kansas city central/louisville etc.) don’t exist in LD.
Posted from: 72.226.70.224
February 18th, 2010 21:57
@ Lexy
I am not sure I find any of the reasons you give to be very convincing given modern debate.
A lot of the stylistic things you point out have become less and less important. The average debater isnt a deep voiced male. This might be anecdotal evidence but I think that on the whole female debaters are MUCH more pleasant to hear than their male counter parts. But more pressing I think is the fact that more and more judges treat debate as a flow based game where the delivery is less and less important. Similarily height seems to be a smaller and smaller factor for the same reason. Also it would mean that on average taller individuals win more often, but I do not think that that is the case at all. The issue of bitchiness is certainly interesting. I think the appropriate behavior is that judges should hold all debaters to a level of professionalism. I am not sure why there is a fascination in debate with being mean to each other and I discourage it by nuking speaks. demonstrate that they still tend not to. But I do think there is some truth to the “bitchy” stigma, how significant it is seems questionale however.
I found the issue of mingling and welcomeness sort of funny. I look back at the kids I coached and coach now, and my own time as a deabter and I realize that many if not most of the males were very very socially awkward around females. Like Bietz said, debate is nerdy. It may be the case that this sort of shyness pushes girls away (and maybe some of the awkwardness manifests as hostility) The issue of fewer female role models sort of rests on the other issues since if we can solve them we might be able to get more females to stay thus have more females overall
Personally, I haven’t been coaching long enough to see the trends. I can only offer 1 example that I know fairly well. We had a debater, Erin Sherman, on nisky who was successful but eventually quit the team. I definitely believe that the “boys club” factor has some effect but it wasn’t as if we excluded her, we just were a little too into debate for her. We would want to prep, learn tech, etc whereas she’d rather do more “local” style debate. I think Bietz is onto something with the whole neurotic aspect of debate that makes it male oriented. The way males obsess over things is on average distinct from the ways females obsess. It might just be the case that on average the very nature of technical debate is male favored, the question then is what do we do? I certainly do not have the experience to answer the question but it might be the case that social upbringing etc make tech debate male oriented. In that case what are we to do? Do we change debate so that its more appealing? How do we do that?
I think that without an accurate understanding of the why, Avi’s case is ultimately useless.
Posted from: 173.21.222.60
February 18th, 2010 22:05
Sohail-
Your post looks too much at the “surface.” If you think that delivery has no effect on how flow based judges view rounds, you are far and away a better judge than I am. What you only perceived as “being a little more interested in debate” likely wasn’t just about debate. And you make some very broad, very sweeping generalizations in your post that probably require justification, eg “The way males obsess over things is on average distinct from the ways females obsess. It might just be the case that on average the very nature of technical debate is male favored”
I don’t have time to defend this right this moment, but I could see a very persuasive argument for why modern debate would allow “male traits” to be more successful. For example, a more aggressive cross-ex with younger/flow judges allows for males to get away with a lot more.
I’ll also admit, I’ve had significant trouble flowing some faster female debaters because its not something I do as often. All in all, I’m not ready to write off “aesthetic” factors.
I think the style of debate actually makes things
Posted from: 72.226.70.224
February 18th, 2010 22:07
I think we should talk to female debaters who “disappear” from the activity while having been successful early on to see what exactly motivated their departure (if that is the case).
I think that will help us determine which practices are prohibitive.
Posted from: 173.21.222.60
February 18th, 2010 22:08
- that last half sentence
Posted from: 76.91.28.140
February 18th, 2010 22:11
my post should not be construed as an excuse. we are a community of supposed brightest thinkers who will supposedly lead the world. we think pretty highly of ourselves. we should be able to work towards or at least acknowledge that there are things we do or say or don’t do or say that leads to women choosing not to continue with debating.
Posted from: 68.164.187.157
February 18th, 2010 22:21
@Sohail
I think delivery is still very important in LD. Heck, it still is in college policy debate! Debate is not just about the flow — if it were, we’d never have split decisions in elims (except when judges miss things). In most debates (all but the real blow outs) judges can justify a ballot for either side (though it may require more or less work to do so). Style, aesthetic preferences, and other intangibles are what make the judge want to vote for you/feel like you’re winning.
Posted from: 72.29.211.131
February 18th, 2010 22:23
What does everyone think of the hiring more female judges alternative? I don’t think its perfect but I think its a decent compromise given the implications of some of the more extreme alternatives that could be pursued. It could at least solve some of the issues.
Posted from: 151.198.125.42
February 18th, 2010 23:28
More female judges = more judges = more wins = more debaters who clear= having to break more people= end of the world.
Posted from: 71.182.225.181
February 18th, 2010 23:35
“we are a community of supposed brightest thinkers who will supposedly lead the world”
in light of some of these posts, thats the scariest thing ive read in awhile
Posted from: 72.226.70.224
February 18th, 2010 23:36
@Lexy
I think it comes down to the grammatical phrasing and judges familiarity and personal pref with argument interaction. The split decisions I’ve seen have more to do with how judges think arguments interact and not with aesthetics. But maybe there is an effect, I could be wrong. But saying that gender plays a significant role in that ambiguity is a claim that I think needs more justification other than just a numbers game.
@Ernie
Maybe I am wrong, but I think that males and females approach things differently on balance based on various factor.
Also, I’ve talked to her recently, we are still friends, and she insists that the biggest reason for not doing debate for her was that it just wasn’t worth the time, she rather do model UN where it didn’t require slaving over cases, doing drills, and learning skills she thought were useless (spreading, obscure philosophy, etc). that all being said I’m sure the boys club nature of debate at NHS (she was the only female debater on the team) had some palpable effect.
Posted from: 72.226.70.224
February 18th, 2010 23:48
Like lets say it turns out that speed is something that on average female debaters prefer to NOT engage in. As in more female judges and debaters think that speed is something that is bad for debate. Because they do not engage in it and find it “bad” they stop participating because “flow” judges drop them. Now you might say that a good debater can go slow and still win BUT the issue is that becoming good takes practice and girls quit before then because the trade off of having to lose so many rounds seems not worth it. So the issue is kind of a catch 22, because to continue you need to win, but to win u need to continue through the loses
What should our approach be to remedy this?
I think it may be possible that disenfranchisement of women is not the product of active discrimination or even subtle preferences for masculinity, rather the structural practices of debate are slanted that way in ways we don’t associate readily with gender.
I think that this may be the case.
Similar to this is the topics that are chosen for debate (Lexy mentioned this). How do we remedy these sorts of issues that require changing PRACTICES not ATTITUDES.(The distinction might be superficial ultimately)
Posted from: 72.226.70.224
February 18th, 2010 23:54
Another example I can think of are sports. Pretend we have a competition (Olympics) where if you are in the top 10 for the 100 meter dash you get a large advantage.Even if you are amazing at say gymnastics, if you are GOAT at 100 meters it doesnt matter at all what yer gymnastics scores are. This competition would on average heavily favor males. The all time mens fastest runners are SIGNIFICANTLY faster than females.
Similarly it might be the case that a debate practice is the reason for disparities. Maybe tech or speed or anything else is the “100 meter dash” of debate. This might not be the case but it could be, and if that is true, there is a MUCH bigger issue than attitudes and small biases. Because sure biases will make close rounds biased, and might make rounds harder for females, but not in the HUGE way that structural biases im imagining would. Those would also better explain why biases exist at higher levels of competition since they come more into play there.
Posted from: 71.182.225.181
February 19th, 2010 00:03
ok actually, im gonna give up snarky anonymity here but not to address the more obviously terrible reactions (eg ‘maybe women dont want to debate’ – seriously? wow). i skipped AT’s proposal when i first skimmed this, but i have enough respect for him to use my name to voice my concern about his comment.
short answer: that’s tokenism. “turns the case.”
long answer: if i can take some liberty with the cliche, youre asking avi to hitch his horse up behind your cart. the goal of including women in debate is to make the activity work in such a way that women are in a strong position to succeed. you dont do that by fiating inclusion ad hoc; you do it by challenging fundamental presumptions of a community so that they can be reformulated in progressive ways. its a totally empty and self-defeating gesture for a debater with competitive success to play the role of (colonizing) savior by gifting his qualification to a woman (playing, by social pressure, the role of victim). there should be more women at the toc because of a shift toward norms that are less likely to systematically impede their success, not because ONE PERSON gets singled out to be the token representative at the whim of the powers that be.
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
February 19th, 2010 00:30
For anyone interested, Avi’s octas round against Jordan was filmed, and is available here:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=459041B2B256B894
Not great video quality, but is a good round and is definitely worth watching, especially for anyone who wants a better idea of what Avi’s performance and position are like.
Posted from: 138.28.194.114
February 19th, 2010 00:50
new and improved website:
http://www.nsdebate.org
Posted from: 24.5.241.146
February 19th, 2010 01:16
Dude, thank god Hershey’s name is on that, or I’d say: Do not click mysterious and spam-like link in #210.
Posted from: 98.197.8.4
February 19th, 2010 01:59
Suppose a girl was negating Avi’s case. Could her INC just be a reread of the case + reasons to vote her up because she is a girl/will act as a role model to other females and that she, like Avi, will continue to push gender issues in subsequent rounds?
Posted from: 136.152.184.41
February 19th, 2010 02:18
Sohail,
You say: “Like lets say it turns out that speed is something that on average female debaters prefer to NOT engage in. As in more female judges and debaters think that speed is something that is bad for debate.”
Would you care to warrant that assumption? You’ve already been called out (Ernie, post 197) for making these kinds of unjustified assertions…more to the point, your insistence that the problem of a lack of women in top-level rounds must be rooted in some kind of in-round practice seems unlikely to result in any real solution when you give no reason to think these practices have, y’know, anything to do with anything. Frankly, I find your claim that women are either just not “naturally good enough” at the practices we use in debate (the assumption behind your sports example) or just not “interested” in this kind of debate to be based on precisely the sexist essentialism of gender that avi’s case criticizes, and that seems to be at the heart of the problem.
Posted from: 68.164.187.157
February 19th, 2010 03:29
@202 (Ben)
Hiring more female judges is a decent idea, but we’ll still have to figure out a way to use them, given MPJ and other factors. There were, at Berkeley, more women judges in the pool than were used in elims. They were 8 out of 48 judges in triples, 2 out of 24 judges in doubles, and 1 out of 24 judges used on octas. To use more women in elims we’ll need to allow gender to trump preference in assigning judges and keep women judging beyond their commitment. Both of these things CAN be done, but doing them is tricky. Even the hiring is difficult. Who do you think should be responsible for hiring more women judges? We can’t require schools to bring women judges, and tournaments have a tough enough time hiring judges of any gender to think that it will be easy for them to hire more women. As for the TOC, it doesn’t hire ANY LD judges. Schools have to cover. This is because college programs tend to lack contacts in the LD community because they don’t do LD.
@205 (Sohail)
Yes, splits are often caused by how judges think arguments interact. This begs the question of why they think the arguments interact in that way. In some instances the judge may have strong feelings about how certain arguments always interact, but in others the judges’ understanding of that interaction is specific to the round, and how the debaters explained that interaction. In these cases, there’s plenty of room for gender norms to influence that understanding. Additionally, judges are often swayed to vote against their own preconceived notions of how arguments function, and that’s a good thing.
@212
Avi’s answer to anyone who would read his advocacy against him is that 1)they’re only doing so because they’re debating him, 2)that only he reads this position every round, and that 3)he should therefore be credited with causing the discussion. That’s pretty tough to answer. So long as everyone agrees that the discussion is valuable, Avi gets to take the credit.
Posted from: 140.233.136.153
February 19th, 2010 04:08
I don’t know much about the case that was run or what the argument is about, but my sister Rebecca Sivitz who was an LDer for 4 years wrote her women’s studies honors thesis for Brandeis University on girl’s involvement in LD and the way women are perceived. it is super long and super insightful and has LOTS of interviews with both female and male debaters. So, there has been some study on how girls participate in the activity.
Posted from: 24.17.210.22
February 19th, 2010 04:21
@215, I remember being interviewed for the thesis specifically. A lot of the questions dealt with many of the issues Lexy discussed about perceptually dominance and implicit association of good debate with males. There was also discussion of structural disadvantages that we felt were instituted against women (or had the incidental effect of disproportionately affecting women) and how prominent we felt they were in the community.
And, +1 on the return to VBD after your much-vaunted “Taking of Auburn” last year.
Posted from: 76.170.72.89
February 19th, 2010 04:26
@ 215 – Can she post/host it online somewhere (or has she already)?
Posted from: 173.26.1.25
February 19th, 2010 05:33
in defense of sohail:
to preface this: i agree that he underplays the role of arbitrary “aesthetic” attitudes/biases in disadvantaging females. but i don’t think what he is saying is entirely implausible.
as i interpret it, he isn’t saying that “women naturally aren’t good enough”. obviously it has nothing to do with the nature of being female (yes, that would be very essentialist), I mean there are obvious examples of successful female debaters to disprove that. but it doesn’t seem inconceivable that:
a.) there are socially conditioned (not biologically inherent) preferences that tend to be more prevalent among females
b.) these preferences MIGHT not align with some of the “structural” norms of the activity
c.) it is plausible that some of the disproportionate representation of females might be the result of certain social norms/behaviors more prevalent among women that do not support various structural practices of debate
d.) some of these structural practices aren’t discriminatory in an ethically concerning sense. rather, they result in less female debaters not because they are exclusionary but because they coincidentally do not align with common female preferences
e.) it is important to make a distinction between practices or aesthetic attitudes that are arbitrarily discriminatory or “prohibitive” and more “structural” practices that might coincidentally deter female debaters or disadvantage them. in certain cases, the fact that a practice or norm might result in a disproportionate amount of one gender might not be in and of itself a reason to alter said practice (the sports example). and remember he is just using speed as an example to illustrate his point, he’s not necessarily saying the example is the case.
i certainly do not believe that these factors are responsible for ALL of the disproportionate female representation in the activity. the whole “bitch” attitude is definitely true. but i think it is valuable to consider the possibility of these things in order to have an accurate understanding of female participation in the activity and to determine what sort of remedies are appropriate.
Posted from: 72.226.70.224
February 19th, 2010 08:19
Ankur, I am not saying its the case, but that it MIGHT be the case. If the problem goes further than our attitudes and perceptual biases against women then we need more radical change. Like I said there might not be such a barrier but we need to actually determine if that is the case.
I would appreciate if I wasn’t accused of essentializing because any sort of talk of “feminine” or “female” has to do that. I am trying to use the commonly accepted notion of female and figure out what the nature of the disenfranchisement is.
Maybe I am under playing aesthetics as important but I think that biases for types of arguments and presentation that is not gender related also heavily impacts that. Plus the sort of issues im talking about would effect every round not just close ones.
Matt K gets what I mean.
Posted from: 68.164.187.157
February 19th, 2010 08:27
@ Catherine
Thank you for posting the video!
And now…a few questions for Avi.
Given the case, did you really mean it in your round against Jordan when you said, “The argument is about equity not about equality…I’m just saying that they should have an equal opportunity to win rounds and Alex had a perfect equal opportunity to win the round”?
If so, how does this fit with case when you talk about the “self perpetuating cycle of exclusion” and your Griffin and Raider 2 evidence? I think Alex is awesome, but I don’t think she can magically avoid the pressures described in this evidence. I also fail to see how she escapes the perceptual issues mentioned in the evidence, especially in front of an all male panel.
You say that, “The ballot asks you to determine who did the better debating, and if there are systemic advantages to a certain group of debaters, judges cannot determine who did the better debating by simply looking at a standard flow.” How does this interact with my concerns above? Doesn’t this contradict your assertion that Alex had a “perfect equal opportunity to win the round”? Do you not think that women suffer systemic disadvantages in debate? I thought that was the whole point of this case.
You also read Larson and Vreeland on interruption in conversation, explaining that it is a technique that men use to “control the conversation.” In what way is your case, when run on the negative, not an interruption of a conversation that has been initiated by the affirmative? When a woman affirmative wants to debate the topic and you change the subject, are you not attempting to control the conversation?
Posted from: 66.193.126.2
February 19th, 2010 14:07
Just to throw this out there- when girls are assertive in cross-x.com I dont think its necessarily true that very many people would consider them ‘bitchy’ or what not. I feel like there is a certain point under which anyone would be considered overly antagonistic in debate. This kind of ‘control’ over a conversation isn’t usually persuasive to judges. While sometimes people consider a ‘girls’ cross-x bitchy – I don’t think any judge would vote them down because of perceptual things like that. While girls can seem bitchy, I think there is more of a stigma associated with being ‘douchy’ which guys do all the time. Cross-x only gets one so far. I think that a lot of technical aspects of debate are easy for women to master. The fastest/clearest spreaders Ive seen have all been girls. Maybe the reason why there arent as many women in debate isnt so much because there are structural barriers impeding their success, but moreso because debate practices seem unappealing to most girls (This is true of most lay people in general actually- spreading seems ridiculous to the vast majority of average people).
Posted from: 66.69.245.211
February 19th, 2010 21:34
Edit* dont know why that says cross-x.com bc I meant cross-x hah
Posted from: 66.27.125.208
February 19th, 2010 22:30
just my 2 cents…
In the rounds I’ve judged female debaters have gone faster than guys and when girls went faster they were a lot clearer. It seems like speed would be a more limiting factor for guys because girls, I’ve noticed, tend to articulate better at faster speeds. Maybe it’s just a social thing (stereotypes of talking on the phone a lot, not something guys do as much???), but it’s just meant as an observation.
It seems to me like girls as good, if not better, at the technical aspects of debate as guys (Cathy Kong is prolly the clearest and fastest debater I’ve heard all year). It seems like the “boys club” nature of debate would drive girls away from it a lot more. I mean, let’s be honest, there are a lot of assholes in the activity and some of them are just joking around with their friends and not being serious and others are actually just that mean. But I think that’s an atmosphere that guys are more accustomed to than girls.
I’m prolly making some absurd broad generalizations, but that’s just how I’ve felt about the issue.
Posted from: 151.198.125.42
February 20th, 2010 00:56
Did Avi arfins case jutst create a lot of public discourse about the problem and how to solve it?, why, he did.
Posted from: 216.245.202.34
February 20th, 2010 03:19
zzzzzzzzzzzz I wonder if Avi Arfin is going to comment on this thread and get some discourse going.
Posted from: 216.245.202.34
February 20th, 2010 03:21
Also, anyone else notice how AT’s supposedly innocuous micropolitical suggestion in 146 involves Avi giving his bid to a deserving “unbidded” female debater? I wonder who AT has in mind when he says that. January, February, March, Apryl.
Posted from: 71.164.164.224
February 20th, 2010 13:28
AT: Irony (post 226)
What is ironic is despite thousands of words, few (if any) have answered my post in a direct manner.
What is also “ironic” is that despite attempts to generate genuine conversation going on many issues, my motives are continually questioned/viewed as self interested, while others seem to embrace ideas that are clearly self interested yet those ideas go unquestioned. I am a coach that has spent decades trying to expand access for underrepresented groups, advancing theory ideas that are unique, and doing my best to coach my kids at the various schools I have coached (there was a coaching life before Greenhill). Message boards seem to incite cowards who are afraid to voice concerns in person. Such random comments derail conversations. Once again, a strategy of argument EVASION instead of argument ENGAGEMENT.
A final bit of “irony”, is that while my idea was a genuine suggestion, the best answer has been, “AT’s answer does not go far enough, we should do X/Y instead”. My response, learn some basic theory – those are “plan plus” alternatives/”counter plans”. They are not a reason to dismiss what was originally argued. DO BOTH.
Let me raise the bar, while I had no attention of applying for anyone I coach for this spot, (actually I knew the suggestion would be ignored), if Avi gives up the spot I will not apply for any student I coach. Takes out any claims of hidden self interest, yet allows a woman compete whose name would not even in consideration for an at large.
Three things to “irony” (post 226).
1. Be an adult and put your name in your post. Hiding behind a fake name is less than impressive.
2. Enjoy the Nasher Sculpture Center in Dallas. Enjoy the art. Leave VBD alone, you don’t get many free weekends off (IP addresses are not hard to track down).
3. LEAVE MY STUDENTS OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION.
I will wait until there is a response from the student that is making the argument/posted his case for review to my proposal.
Keep the discussion targeted.
Hopefully my “tone” was acceptable :)
Posted from: 67.101.218.227
February 20th, 2010 14:44
@Irony
You are calling the purity of AT’s motives into question because the action he proposes also serves his own interests. This is a concern that applies even more so to Avi’s position. Timmons is, at least, watching out for the interests of a deserving student. His own trip to the TOC is not in question (he’s already got a qualified team and a qualified LDer). One of the difficulties of Avi’s chosen strategy is that people will always question his motives, and that much of the discussion caused by his performance will be about his motives, rather than the problem that he hopes to illuminate.
Posted from: 70.121.249.33
February 20th, 2010 14:49
@ Matt Hershey (210)
Hey Matt, that looks really interesting. You might want to check out http://victorybriefs.com/?page_id=166 for VBI’s brand-new Focus Tracks at UCLA.
Posted from: 207.172.182.161
February 20th, 2010 15:18
LOL arseniy
Posted from: 67.101.218.227
February 20th, 2010 15:56
@Human
I realize that I have, by posting so much on this thread, in some ways supported Avi’s solvency story. Even though I really despise his use of this strategy against women debaters, and it would in some ways be best for my position that this discussion die down, I will continue to write on this thread because the issue is important. Addressing the problems of women in LD debate is more important to me than demonstrating that Avi chose a poor strategy.
That said, I think that thus far the discussion on this thread vindicates my suspicion that nothing will come of it. The discussion is dying down and the bulk of it is not productive.
There have been, thus far, 122 relevant posts on this thread.
Feb. 15 3 related posts
Feb. 16 12 related posts
Feb. 17 48 related posts
Feb. 18 41 related posts
Feb. 19 13 related posts
Feb. 20 5 so far (inc. this one)
I’ve broken the posts down by content. Some posts fit more than one category, so the total will be more than 122.
Avi’s Sincerity 22
Appropriateness of Strat v. Women 15
Appropriateness/effectiveness of Strat Generally 29
AT’s Sincerity 3
Jokes 4
How to Beat Strat 8
Ad Homs 4
How/why are Women Debaters Disadvantaged? 25
Possible Solutions 29
Requests for/Offers of Info 8
That’s 85 posts about issues with no possible impact on the representation of women at the highest levels in debate, 54 with direct relevance to the issue, and 8 that might be helpful. It is important to note that within the discussion of the disadvantages women debaters face a great deal of the posts deny that women debaters face disadvantages. Within the discussion of possible solutions, there are many posts rejecting those solutions (especially any that smack of affirmative action). Solutions like “get more women coaches,” “recruit more women debaters,” and “get more women judges” seem to generate little dissent, but this is not surprising. These are the solutions that do not directly trade off against the interests of male posters. They also are solutions that SOMEONE ELSE is supposed to do. It’s easy to say there should be more women coaches and judges, but who is responsible for making this happen? I question the commitment of those who only advocate solutions in which they are not asked to play a part.
Posted from: 174.46.30.66
February 20th, 2010 17:18
Congratulations Jordan!
Posted from: 24.17.210.22
February 20th, 2010 18:27
This is in no way going to be responsive to all the things said before me. Regardless, here are my brief thoughts on Avi’s position:
I strongly believe it should not be run against women. Even if that somehow smacks of sexism because we’re letting them off the hook somehow and not forcing them to debate the unusual position, I agree with those before me that voting down a girl to help girls overall is nonsensical. Contributing to the nonsense of voting for Avi against a girl is that, at this point, much of his discourse-based ballot story is non-unique. People are aware of the issue and will likely continue discussing it even if Avi stops running the case. At worst, it slides to the back-burner a bit more, but the issue of gender in debate won’t entirely leave our consciousness.
However, I am a strong supporter of Avi’s (and others’) choice to run micropolitical positions. Lexy, even if only a tiny amount of the posts on this thread have been beneficial, that is still a net gain in terms of awareness and discourse resulting from Avi’s case. You might say that the harms of voting for him against women outweigh any of the discursive benefits, and I would likely agree with you: I do not endorse him running this against women.
Nonetheless, Avi does not claim immediate solvency, nor that talking about the issues will immediately solve the problem. Instead, even if the majority of posts on this thread are useless, as long as some contribute to heightened understanding or increased presence of women in debate, the irrelevant comments don’t matter. I hate to throw in debate jargon, but you need to control uniqueness before you can have a turn. Because there was next to zero discussion of gender in debate or solutions to solve the inequity before Avi, it doesn’t matter if some comments lead us astray: discourse was already zero.
Also, even if people treat the case with hostility in round, I do think Avi is right that they’re forced to spend at least a little bit of time thinking about the issues. Additionally, even if they treat Avi’s position with hostility, that doesn’t mean that they’ll do any concrete harm to women in debate. Jordan Lamothe was obviously frustrated to debate the case again, but his discontent with Avi’s position isn’t going to cause him to drop the first female he judges or stop recruiting girls to the Meadows team. If anything, he’ll probably recruit more girls or take some other action outside of the round to show that Avi’s in-round micropolitics are unnecessary: out-of-round action can solve.
I know that when Mercer Island heads down to the Middle School for recruiting next week, I’m consciously making sure we bring a lot of female debaters down as recruiters and proactively target girls to join debate as well. Without Avi, I doubt this issue would be on my mind nearly as much, and I think that even if there are some bumps along the way, this case has ultimately done more good than bad for debate.
Posted from: 151.198.125.42
February 20th, 2010 19:07
@ lexy. you forgot the category “Rickroll”
Posted from: 67.101.218.227
February 20th, 2010 19:45
@Stephen (233)
While I am glad that you will focus on recruiting women debaters, as I have said before, I don’t think that this problem is that great at the recruiting level. I’ve spent a bit more time with the Berkeley numbers, and I think that they are instructive. While I had to do a good deal of guessing based on first names, my numbers are probably pretty close.
At Berkeley this year, women were approximately 46% of the JV entrants and 50% of the elimination round participants. Women made up 39% of the Varsity LD entrants and only 25% of the elimination round participants. Based on these numbers it appears that women do leave the activity at a greater rate than do men. The greater problem,however, appears to be that women win at a far lower rate than men at the Varsity level.
Posted from: 136.152.148.253
February 20th, 2010 19:53
One thing to note: I think the defenders of Avi’s position are comparing the results of his actions against the alternative of doing nothing. I think most people would concede that–assuming the goal is to increase women’s participation–Avi’s position is better than nothing.
However, there are three possible situations:
1. Avi runs topic specific positions.
2. Avi runs this position and asks for ballots.
3. Avi runs this position, but concedes the ballots, and tries to make the round a discussion.
I think most people arguing against Avi’s stance are arguing that #3 is more logically consistent with his position, and avoids the harms of dropping women against him.
Most people here who are saying Avi made a difference are comparing #2 and #1.
In a way, during debate rounds, #3 is being used against Avi as a sort of perm: Do Avi’s discussion, but give me the ballots. I know that many of Alex’s arguments in her debate against Avi were along these lines. The advantages of the perm were 1. Avi’s self sacrifice would generate even more publicity (liverzani argument), 2. The perm would not victimize a female debater in the bid round, 3. would solve back questions of Avi’s intent, which were distracting the conversation (Lexy makes this argument above), and 4. Would remove adversarial pressures on the ballot, improving quality of discussion.
I’ve seen only 1 argument against the perm (that winning more brings avi’s position more publicity).
This post has nothing new, but Adler’s arguments in 233 made me feel like we needed a reframing of the conversation…He’s talking almost entirely about how Avi’s position has been good relative to nothing.
Posted from: 136.152.148.253
February 20th, 2010 19:57
One last thing: not all arguments against Avi were for this “perm” I describe.
For example, Meadows made the “switch-side debate good” argument, which seems to indict Avi’s position regardless of who gets the ballots.
Posted from: 72.193.2.131
February 20th, 2010 20:38
I have not actively coached in several years now, but after checking in to read the thread covering the aftermath of Jordan’s win at Berkeley last weekend, I couldn’t help but get drawn into this thread.
To begin by way of background for those who don’t know me (and whose numbers are legion), I debated decades ago (both HS and college), then I proceeded into a completely separate career in politics for a long time. Then, as “as something to do” to keep busy in retirement I started The Meadows School’s debate program in the late 1990’s. I am proud to say that the debate teams I coached ALWAYS had more girls than boys (though, in fairness, TMS enrolls somewhat more girls than boys). I was also Amanda Liverzani’s coach for the entirety of her TMS debate career. My policy debate partners in HS were always girls. I’ve been involved in numerous conversations with girl debaters (both high powered and intermediate) as they struggled with the decision of whether to stay or leave the activity. I have a daughter who debated and then decided to leave the activity. Finally, several years ago I was deeply involved in a couple lengthy threads on the CX-listserv (college policy debate) that dealt with exactly this issue (women in debate, as opposed to the goodness or badness of a K strat). The CX-L threads included some extremely informative, thoughtful, and often moving narratives from women debaters addressing this issue. Suffice to say, I have some thoughts on the issue.
First, I’d advise everyone to listen to Lexy. She’s knows what she’s talking about. Not only does Lexy have a perspective that men in the activity, by definition, can’t entirely appreciate, but she also has the experience, insight, and common sense to acknowledge explicitly what she doesn’t completely understand (which is why so few women follow through with debate to the highest competitive levels). In fact, absent research with which I’m unaware, no one really understands this phenomenon outside their own personal experiences.
Second, it is undeniable that as a social milieu, national circuit debate is a strange pond that is seeded, for a wide variety of reasons, with large proportions of highly privileged boys from pretty homogeneous backgrounds. This invariably creates critical mass problems for women and other underrepresented groups, wherein the “climate” in the debate community is defined and maintained for the comfort of the groups that are there, rather than the comfort of the groups we wish were there in larger numbers.
These “community climate” issues can result in an atmosphere that is often perceived by underrepresented groups as inhospitable. For anyone interested in accessing this literature further, the area most comparable to debate is research on “campus climate” for collegiate women in the sciences underrepresented groups generally, focusing especially on the issue of “differential treatment.”
Differential treatment is the manner in which individuals from dominant groups, usually unintentionally, treat persons from “marginal groups” differently than persons from the dominant group. At least at the time I was doing research in this area (ca 1990), differential treatment was being identified as a major factor explaining the differential flow of students from different race/ethnic groups through the higher educational pipeline. I’ve included a link to a study I conducted for the State of California many years ago on the feasibility of creating a longitudinal tracking system to assess differential treatment in colleges and universities. The stuff about building a data collection system will likely not be of interest to you, but the background information on “differential treatment” might be a different story. If you’re interested in the “why,” of disparate participation rates for young women and debaters from underrepresented groups, I personally think differential treatment is part of the answer. By now there’s undoubtedly more recent and better research on the subject than this – but this is what I’ve got.
http://www.cpec.ca.gov/CompleteReports/1992Reports/92-02.pdf
Drawing on my experience as a former debater, teacher, coach, and parent, not to mention a careful reading of the CX-L threads I mentioned before, I’ve often wondered whether another important variable is just that girls grow up faster than boys. I know from personal experience that I debated far longer than any rational cost-benefit analysis would have concluded that it made sense for me to do so. I did it because it was fun, and because I was far more competitive than was probably best for my academic and professional development. That said, I know that if I had it to do over again I wouldn’t have changed a thing. But frankly, my discussions with many female debaters who were thinking about leaving the activity, as well as many women college debaters on the CX-L, simply exhibited more maturity and foresight than I was capable of at their age. Their reasoning centered on the idea that they’d already extracted 90% of the pratical benefits available from competitive debate after their first couple years of participation. Once they’d gotten to the point where they were capable of being successful nationally, many didn’t see the point of putting in the enormous hours (or paying the huge opportunity costs) that would be necessary just to prove it. Many women felt like their time spent employing these newfound skills could be put to better use, both personally and for the world, in pursuits other than winning a bunch more debate rounds.
I don’t mean to demean or trivialize either the value of high level debate competition, or the joys of participation. To be sure, this choice was often a torturous one for women who LOVED debate. My point is, the thought never even occurred to me (or a large percentage of my male debaters) to stop competing. As a statistical matter, the thought did seem to occur to larger numbers of female debaters.
When this perception of a declining marginal utility of debate was coupled with any perceived dysfunction in the debate community itself (especially perceived discriminatory factors like differential treatment), the decision to leave became both obvious and easy for large numbers of more disgruntled female debaters.
I don’t presume to answer the question posed in this thread, but I have spent a long time thinking about it. Even though it’s a beautiful Saturday afternoon and there are other things I should be doing, I couldn’t resist sharing with the community after reading this thread.
Finally, RE: McGinnis’ comments regarding Amanda Liverzani’s advocacy at the Greenhill RR: To argue that her advocacy was troubling because the only practical negative ground to Amanda’s case was “rape good” is ludicrous. The case was clearly topical, and if it wasn’t, then it was subject to those arguments too. The fact that some debaters chose to trivialize rape was due more to a failure of imagination than a lack of good alternative arguments. The idea that this happened a long time ago, so theory arguments weren’t available is simply not accurate. This was 2004-05, not 1970. This was also the Greenhill Tournament and the Greenhill RR, not some local tournament where she was unfairly bludgeoning debaters unprepared for high level argumentation. Amanda was known for debating theory on a high level at the time, as were a large number of her opponents. In addition, there were a variety of other valid and potentially effective neg strats that Amanda had anticipated and prepped for in advance – they were just never run against her. Instead, 90% of what she heard was “unfair division of ground” (which is theory, btw), and “your advocacy is inauthentic,” which basically impacted in the argument that she was co-opting the suffering of others to win rounds. I have never known a debater who cared less about wins than Amanda Liverzani, and so it was this second neg strategy that motivated her to begin conceding rounds at the Greenhill RR. As proof of her commitment to advocacy over wins, she did the same thing (invited judges to drop her to prove the authenticity of her advocacy) in the final round of Sophomore Nationals against David Wolfish at Woodward in 2003.
Outside of my instinctive defense of Amanda, I hope this helps move the conversation forward a little. If not, at least it tries to address Lexy’s plea that we discuss the “why” of differential participation in debate, rather than the ethics, motivation, or competitive utility of a particular K strat.
Posted from: 24.17.210.22
February 20th, 2010 20:54
@235 (Lexy) and @236 (Jay):
I agree that my “arguments” in favor of Avi’s position are relative to an alternative of doing nothing. I “argue” in that way for a few reasons:
First, I’m frustrated that so many people are questioning Avi’s sincerity and motives. I’ve had multiple conversations with him about the case and was incredibly skeptical about the position initially, but he has done absolutely nothing that has made me question his intentions. Even in running the case against girls, I only question whether his beliefs are correct (that beating a girl to gain more attention for the case is more important than a girl winning), not that he has some hidden agenda. As such, I feel it’s important to note that despite all this discussion about the sky falling (not necessarily from either of you two), Avi’s position has improved things at least marginally.
Second, I think it’s important to note, as I did in my previous post, that Avi does not claim to immediately solve problems. A world of “Avi’s position v. Nothing” has generated enough discourse that we are now truly thinking about “Avi’s position v. Alt X v. Alt Y.” Avi never says that his position is the end-all-be-all; in fact, every round I’ve watched him debate, he has noted to the audience that he is always open to ideas.
Specifically on the question of recruiting more girls and whether that solves, I should clarify that what we’re doing won’t simply stop at the recruiting level because obviously the problem doesn’t stop there. However — and maybe this is my skewed male mind — most of the top debaters in the Mercer Island program have been guys, or at least there have been more guys than girls, especially at the open level, so while recruiting may not do much nationally, it will for our team.
Here’s what I think Avi should have done at tournaments where he ran this case. (I’m still undecided on what I think he should do at the TOC.) I think Avi should have run this case and asked for ballots against guys. Against girls, he should have conceded the ballot in return for a discussion in greater depth, specifically about his female opponent’s experiences in debate. I know Avi considers his round against Lizzie Ernestberger to be one of his most successful ones because of how detailed their discussion about gender and debate was, and I would venture that other debaters have similar experiences to share.
Obviously Avi’s case will not solve everything and has not been run perfectly to this point, but I think the great thing about it is that it opens up the opportunity for better positions and discussions to evolve. Not only does his case open us up more to this specific issue, but it also shows that micropolitical cases in general can be legitimate and that they can generate actual discourse. The case itself may not solve, but the discourse resulting from it is incredibly valuable moving forward.
Posted from: 136.152.144.208
February 20th, 2010 21:55
@240 (adler)
I’m not sure how two address #1 and #2, since that’s not what I’m talking about, and many (most?) people still on this thread are avoiding those particular claims about Avi’s advocacy.
On “What Avi should have done” you say that he should concede ballots to women, but not to men. There are many reasons why Avi should concede the ballot, and only one of them is gender specific (Avi’s request for the ballot puts women in an awkward position/bizarrely sacrifices a woman “for her own good.”)
The other points (that publicity would be higher if he conceded ballots, and that the quality of discussion would be better/more solutions focused) aren’t dealt with by this proposal.
Is there any reason why rounds between Avi and other men can’t be solutions focused, but rounds between Avi and women can?
Also, as for the solutions end of this discussion, Lexy’s latest data (Post 235) seems to focus the issue even further. It seems that Women drop out more often, and also have less success when they compete. My thoughts on this:
1. The cause may be the same: for whatever reason women may be committing less time/effort to debate. This may be due to Mr. Knutsen’s theory that women, having matured earlier, are more aware of their “other” options outside debate, and of debate’s diminishing returns.
If the reason is “time dedicated to debate”, the reasons are probably partly the fault of the debate community, partly not. Our community may appear less friendly to women (our fault) and women may prefer other activities for benign or even smart reasons (not our fault).
Either way, the solution appears to be to try making the community more hospitable for women.
How’s this for a question: To what extent does the composition of debate camp staffs affect participation? I think camps do a lot to make debaters “commit” to debate. They create friendships that are “glue” and they also build the skills/experience that help debaters succeed.
On quick glance, debate camp staffs are not at all gender balanced. According to their websites, the NSD teaching staff has 16 men, 2 women, while the VBI staff (in 2008- couldn’t find 2009 info) had 25 men, 8 women.
This is absolutely a product of the problem (low female participation = fewer women qualified to teach at camp), but it does seem to be a high-leverage way to fix the problem (hire women preferentially –> more women stay in debate).
Also, things like Stacy Thomas’ Lone Star RR, which was a women-only RR are probably good too. That was attacked at times by people, which may have been part of the reason it doesn’t exist anymore (I’m speculating here).
Anyways, I think camp is a great place to begin attacking the problem.
Posted from: 136.152.144.208
February 20th, 2010 21:56
Sorry this was messy- the VBD format isn’t friendly to long messages (maybe that’s my fault, not the format’s).
Posted from: 136.152.144.208
February 20th, 2010 22:04
Also, there’s no doubt that camps create stylistic norms that influence perceptions of “good debate”. For example, the “foot tap for cadence/emphasis” is very common on the circuit right now (by the way, it’s very annoying and definitely unpersuasive), and I’m fairly sure it originated among a few instructors at VBI.
If we really are coding success in a way that excludes women, camps appear to be a great place to fight that trend back. Women were less than 25% of the 2008 VBI teaching staff, and less than 12% of the NSD staff.
I’ve found that camp hirings are done largely by a “closed” process where camps approach candidates directly, and voila! first year outs are hired. Might a more open, job-posting based process help improve the situation? This is a genuine question…I’m not coaching at camp this summer, haven’t done so for 3 years, and don’t plan on ever doing so in the future.
Posted from: 151.198.125.42
February 20th, 2010 23:34
AT PLEase post the link to the IP finder you used, it’s really hard to find an accurate one, thanks.
Posted from: 173.25.243.198
February 20th, 2010 23:53
A/T Jay:
Re: The “Real Diehl Stomp”:
Give credit where credit is due, man. ;)
Posted from: 66.69.245.211
February 21st, 2010 00:05
Id just like to say that foot tapping has been around for almost as long as spreading has existed. Its not for persuasive emphasis, its to keep a rhythm.
Posted from: 136.152.149.113
February 21st, 2010 00:20
The stomping is only an example, and peripheral to the real point of that post.
Still,
Re: Dave
Yes, but it’s far more prevalent now than it was, and I have heard that kids at VBI were actually instructed to do it.
Re: JamesM
You will certainly hear kids stomp loudly in the middle of their speech for emphasis. And, I already said it is mainly for cadence, aka “rhythm”.
Posted from: 76.219.139.225
February 21st, 2010 00:29
@243-246.
Thurm. That is all.
Posted from: 76.219.139.225
February 21st, 2010 00:30
*244
Posted from: 67.188.192.227
February 21st, 2010 04:04
I’ve pretty much run out of useful things to say. That said – Mr. Knutsen, that is the single best post I have ever seen on VBD. Thank you for speaking up, because I really feel like I learned while reading that in a way that, frankly, seems out of place on a message board.
Quick question – are there any particular sources you would suggest reading to better understand the differential treatment, etc, theories that you cite? Thanks!
Posted from: 69.110.5.250
February 21st, 2010 04:34
This is very late, and I apologize if it seems like a random interjection interrupting any of the above discussion about important issues.
Congrats to the Paly crew, Nikhil for getting his 3rd bid, Avi for completing, Lucas for yet another good run at the bid round. But hella big ups to my Bellarmine bros, five breaks to elims, Kyle on nabbing a ballot in a tough round, Dittmer for the break and sweet speaks, Tim for the bid-round, Ben for beasting up and completing the qual even with a voice more shot than Batman, and Matt Delateur for bossing up as a sophomore with 5-1 and the break as a virtual novice at the very first circuit tournament he’s ever gone to.
Posted from: 72.193.2.131
February 21st, 2010 15:57
To Ankur @ 249:
The following link is actually to the study I orgiinally had in mind. The previous link (above) was to the followup study on the data collection system. This study actually includes all the results from the campus focus groups w/students, faculty, staff, and administrators.
http://www.cpec.ca.gov/CompleteReports/1990Reports/90-19.pdf
If you want an accurate reflection of my thinking on the subject, that is best outlined in a legislative prospectus I wrote that generated the original legislation that commissioned these studies. That prospectus is included in an appendix to this study that begins on p. 39.
As I noted earlier, I am sure that better and more recent research has been done on this subject in the last 20 years. But for what it’s worth, this was pretty cutting edge at the time. As my job prior to conducting this study was as the lobbyist for the students in the University of California system, and I was consequently dealing with thousands of college students from all backgrounds on a regular basis, the results of this research simply resonated with me as TRUE. Any more recent cites I sent you would be information that you could just as easily track down, and I really couldn’t vouch for it’s quality.
I was particularly interested in a reference to an earlier post to a masters thesis on women in LD debate. I would be fascinated to see that.
Finally, the bottom line to this research is it’s complexity. Because underrepresented groups tend to be both socially and professionaly isolated from the experiences of the dominant group, they have precious little context in which to categorize their negative experiences in education. Was it racism? Was it sexism? Or was it just general negative bullshit faced by everybody?
Tha answer seems to be that it’s some of “all of the above.” There is racism. There is sexism. And there is general bullshit faced by everyone. Because of the isolation, persons from underrepresented groups tend to categorize their experiences in the worst way possible. This means real racism & sexism gets combined with the general bullship to create a perception of the envonronment that is more toxic than it really is — though there is still a significant amount of racial and gender toxicity. Conversely, the dominant group sees their negative experiences as general bullshit, and they perceive complaints by underrepresented groups as racializing, or feminizing the same problems that are faced by everyone. The result is that there may be some truth on both sides, but the tendency of both groups to see their own and others’ experiences in absolute terms results in a perceptual chasm that is monumentally large.
Finally, (and this has direct relevance for the debate community) the research indicates that many in the dominant group understand at least some of the problems faced by their underrepresented colleagues, but precious few are actually willing to step outside their comfort zone and actually do something about it.
Very few are willing to reach out socially to those outside “the inner circle,” or to share intelligence, strats, and files with those outside the “inner circle,” or to slow down when the result might be a better debate and a better learning experience for your opponent but a greater chance of a loss for you, or to mellow out in C-X even though you’re capable of shouting down or ridiculing someone into submission.
Many people talk a good game about making our community more hospitable, but precious few (including myself on more occasions than I care to admit) are willing to actually take the difficult and sometimes socially awkward steps necessary to do it.
Differential treatment is about people passively enjoying the benefits of privilege without even recognizing that that’s what they’re doing; it’s about the natural tendency to mentor people in whom we see a little of ourselves (which translates into unintentional exclusion); and it’s about social and professional isolation in which one side sees more racism and sexism than there really is, while the other side sees very little or none at all.
I think the link in this post, while dated, is a pretty accurate description of the phenomena (though in an educational rather than debate context), and I’d be interested, if you’re inclined, if you’d pass along anything more recent that you happen to come across.
Posted from: 67.159.44.138
February 22nd, 2010 12:37
Congratulations to NSD’s class of 2009:
Jordan LaMothe
Ross Brown
Perry Green
Great weekend guys.
http://www.nsdebate.org/apply/
Posted from: 24.214.64.75
February 22nd, 2010 21:07
I like how you can see the reflection of the person taking the picture on the plate award Ross is holding…classic
Posted from: 67.101.218.227
February 24th, 2010 13:12
Crickets…?
Posted from: 24.5.241.146
February 25th, 2010 03:25
it takes me until post 240 to discuss substance, and then the thread dies…
:-<
Posted from: 128.135.193.61
February 25th, 2010 04:42
Here is a substantive idea: camp scholarships for women in debate. Increasing the number of female students at camps can also help balance staff composition in the long run.
http://www.the3nr.com/2010/02/02/camp-scholarship-for-women-in-debate/
The thread is way too long for me to read. I’m not sure if this post is a repetition or actually responsive to anything.
And as long as I’m commenting on the Berkeley thread – Congrats to JL and RB as well as Ilya for a good defense of California. Also – Nikhil Nag did not have luck on his side during the California swing. Three of his last five losses have been to Catherine and he put up a good fight each time.
Posted from: 136.152.147.245
February 25th, 2010 15:45
I like the idea Chris- but I’m not sure having 1-3 more female students would be as effective at 1-3 more female instructors.
What if the funds for this “scholarship” were instead converted into funds to “recruit” more women camp instructors, in the form of additional pay.
I know the thought of paying certain people more just because they’re female seems like risky territory… My thinking is that if having more female instructors is deemed pedagogically good by the people who run these camps, they have the right to pay more to get those people. Analogously, women in Engineering disciplines traditionally get offered extra grad school grants as a way to encourage them to come. In theory, if women were paid a LOT for camps, we might see more of them sticking around and coaching.
Of course, we have no idea who would fund a scholarship for students OR this “bonus” for being a female camp instructor. It would have to be fundraised or donated by the camps…
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
February 26th, 2010 00:13
@257
If the issue is the number of female debaters staying in the activity, I don’t know how one could more directly fix this problem than straight up provide an easier track for some females to continue in debate. Additionally, camps generally hire successful debaters who attended their camp, so in the long run, providing scholarships to female debaters could in fact increase both female representation at the varsity level and in coaching
Posted from: 67.101.218.227
February 26th, 2010 00:54
@257 & 258
I think you’re both right. Scholarships for women debaters might help, but they will not solve the “yuck” factor that happens when women debaters look at staffs with very few women on them. Overwhelmingly male staffs can make camps look uninviting and uncomfortable.
Posted from: 68.117.49.61
February 26th, 2010 03:55
I am sad that this thread has pretty much died.
There is actually a pretty significant base of literature discussion this issue in college debate. The consensus seems to be that not only are women underrepresented but that they are also less successful:
Bruschke, J., & Johnson, A. (1994). An analysis of differences in success
rates of male and female debaters. Argumentation and Advocacy, 30(3), 162-173.
Bruce B. Manchester, Sheryl A. Friedley “Revisiting Male/Female Participation and Success in Forensics: Has Time Changed the Playing Field?” National Forensics Journal. Fall 2003. http://cas.bethel.edu/dept/comm/nfa/journal/vol21no2-2a.pdf
What surprised me the most was that female debaters were actually at the greatest disadvantage when debating in front of a female judge.
For anyone interested in possible solutions I would suggest reading this article:
S. Irene Matz and Jon Bruschke “GENDER INEQUITY IN DEBATE, LEGAL AND BUSINESS PROFESSIONS” Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 27 (2006)
This article talks about some potential causes of the problem of gender disparities in debate and offers what I think is a very promising solution.
“A mentor program, similar to the Engineering Department at Purdue, could be designed within the debate community where senior-level debaters are matched with the lower-level debaters especially at the novice and junior divisions. Their experiences and insights could provide information and motivation for younger debaters. This could influence their retention rates as well as their successes. As with the professional women who defined mentors as role models sharing strategies, encouragement and validation, the same model could serve in the debate community resulting in equity within their population.”
The back up this suggestion with some compelling research showing that similar programs have worked well in academic settings in which females are traditionally underrepresented. They also go into a lot more detail about what such a program would look like in the article. I think this is something that could be easily replicated in one way of another in our community.
Just a suggestion.
Posted from: 68.50.219.222
February 26th, 2010 17:20
I don’t know what Chris and others are blabbering about. Clearly, the real solution to the problem of female underrepresentation is to have Avi give up his spot at TOC to a girl with no bids.
Posted from: 128.36.76.173
February 27th, 2010 13:47
Lexy, this is what I always say about micropolitics. People say ‘omg omg we need lots of attention and people to run this case,” and then at some point when the heat gets too hot (i.e. people start to find out answers/ critique their behavior) they decide that the position or issues as “run its course.”
That’s why I refuse to ever vote on micropolitical positions the way they are normally run in LD.
The hard work of suffering for one’s cause, or engaging in substantive praxis outside of the debate round is rarely done. Instead judges lay over for such cases giving 30s because it soothes their consciences, or people who run the argument themselves develop compassion fatigue (or an interest in winning rounds) and go back to the normal “oppressive” structures they were inditing.
I’m not blaming anyone here for the behavior above, but I do think we need to be honest about what’s happening. Is it really social change if all that happens is “discourse?” Is it really change if these kinds of issues only come up when a “micropolitics case” is run? In 2 years are we going to do the same silly cycle of faking like we care about these issues and rewarding it with W-30s…or are we going to actually talk to people like Ali, myself, McGinnis, or Lexy to do the groundwork that doesn’t just end at the end of an LD round? The choice is up to you.
Posted from: 151.198.125.42
February 27th, 2010 20:58
do you mean getting women into the activity at the cost of boys being in the activity? making judges be more likely to give women the win?
Posted from: 136.152.156.71
February 28th, 2010 16:18
James, which post were you referring to?
In 258, I mean giving a “fellowship” and a bonus to a top female (first/second year out) debater who would have left, in order to try and get her to stay.
Does this tradeoff with men staying as lab leaders? Yes, at the margin, it does. Given the current breakdown of male/female lab leaders, I’m possibly ok with that.
And Phelan, sending one additional female to camp doesn’t solve the structural problem (that standards for “good debate” are possibly defined by male coaches to be executed by male debaters. I think keeping one additional female debater around as a coach is a more direct approach to the structural problem.
Posted from: 151.198.125.42
February 28th, 2010 16:24
I’m just wondering if this would entail not giving men the win, etc.
Posted from: 68.117.49.61
February 28th, 2010 17:35
@ Jay
I am pretty sure that many camps already pay females more. I am almost certain that VBI has done that in the past.
Posted from: 68.117.49.61
February 28th, 2010 17:36
However, whether that bonus is big enough is obviously up to debate.