November 1, 2007
Once again we stay with the formula. This big principle + This smaller Principle = The big picture rather than the conclusion. Just a little change because this case is shorter considering you must also rebut the Aff’s case – remember that. Since it is shorter, it needs to pack a big punch rather quickly and succinctly. You also don’t have to worry about adding a contention that’s a direct clash to the Aff because you are going to do that anyway in your rebuttal. Some debaters make the mistake of making a long Neg case and end up dropping the Aff case during the Neg Constructive because they run out of time. It’s always good to limit the Neg case to one or two contentions. For my example, I will use two contentions but you can easily do the same thing with one contention and two subpoints.
Once again we are using the topic: “Resolved: The best form of government is one that is based on Utilitarianism.” My Paramount Value will be Justice defined as giving each his due. My Value Criterion or Standard for the round will be Categorical Comparative where one must be just on both sides. In other words, the means and the ends must be just. I will agree with the Aff’s definitions. Unlike the Aff, this case is at a disadvantage because it’s depicting an ideal that doesn’t exist.
Just like the Aff case, the first contention should center around the Paramount Value of Justice. Since Justice is used a majority of the time in most cases, you want to make sure you use different methods of analyzation in your cases so you don’t get repetitive from one case to the next. For this topic we want to know why it is good to have a just government? What are the benefits? For example, a just society could be a more productive one. It could also be a safer one. The key is realizing that you are explaining a utopian society. This is the (This big principle) part of the formula.
(This contention relates to the Paramount Value – Justice)
Contention I – A legitimate government should strive to be just.
A. Card or example of how this is true.
B. Card or example of how this is true.
The second contention must illustrate how the smaller principle can enhance the big picture. It focuses on the Value Criterion. The judge needs to understand that with categorical imperative I can obtain a just society unlike my opponent who needs to acknowledge the majority can be wrong. If a government were to actually utilize categorical imperative, that would mean that it couldn’t use people as a means to an end. With this philosophy, the minority is always protected. If presented correctly, this contention could set up the idea that this ideology is what a government should have been based on in the first place. Remember, the problem is there are no real life examples that can benefit the Neg. Thus, the only strategy is to seek flaws with utilitarianism and hope the judge buys it. For example, slavery wouldn’t have existed and all legal aged citizens would have been given the right to vote from the very beginning.
(This contention relates to the Value Criterion – Categorical Imperative)
Contention II – Utilizing Categorical Imperative brings about true justice.
A. Card or example of how this is true.
B. Card or example of how this is true.
This of course is not saying that all cases need to be set up this way. It’s simply one method that has proven to be successful over time. The key is being able to do it without being repetitive. Regardless of what method you develop, you definitely need to make sure your arguments all link to values. It’s also very important you make sure the judge gets the big picture to increase your chances of winning. What I like about these cases is it allows for some in depth analysis of a topic rather than simply stacking cards on top of cards.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Monday, October 1, 2007
Affirmative Case Construction
October 1, 2007
I’m sure there are many theories on how to build a case but the method I’m going to show you is a proven winner. Just like math, you need to find a formula that works. But remember, you are not only competing with your opponent but the judge as well. If they are lost or confused, you may lose regardless of whether you destroyed your opponent. There’s two ways to make a case. You either use deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is the worse way because you are assuming too much. By the 4th or 5th round, your judge may be too tired to figure out what you are talking about. Therefore, the better way is deductive reasoning. Usually it is This + This = That. But for me, it’s This + Not This = That. It’s basically the same formula but I’ll explain more as we go. So let’s begin.
The topic this case would work well with is “Resolved: The best form of government is one that is based on Utilitarianism.” For this article, I’ll show you how to construct the Aff case and my next article will focus on the Neg case. So let’s pick our values. My paramount value will be Democratic Principles where you utilize the majority rule theory. My value criterion or standard will be Utilitarianism which is the greater good for the greater number. As I said before, don’t let anyone tell you that my standard is abusive simply because the Neg can’t use it. That is merely a theory but it is not fact. Now let’s look at our definitions. “Government” will be defined as a type of political system. “Based” will be defined as the main component or ingredient of something. Finally, “Utilitarianism” will be defined as the greater good for the greater number. Realize that the Aff has a huge advantage because the debate is taking place in the US where we have a democracy.
Basically, once you have picked your values the case is already made. All you need to do is find facts and examples to support your reasoning. The first contention should deal with the Paramount Value. This is an opportunity for you to actually give an analysis as to why Democracy is a good thing. For example, it allows for peace and a market place of ideas. You want the judge to have an understanding of what do you get with Democratic Principles. If you choose to do Subpoints, you can either make them unique or basically the same. For example, Subpoint A could be a philosopher explaining the value of democracy and Subpoint B could be an actual example of how it works. This is not the same as simply arguing Democratic Principles at the top of your case. It’s your job to make sure you don’t get repetitive and make sure that the first Contention does not just simply repeat what you said about Democratic Principles during the values debate.
(This Contention relates to the Paramount Value – Democratic Principles)
Contention I – Democratic Principles promote societal good.
Subpoint A – Card or Example of how this is true.
Subpoint B – Card or Example of how this is true
The second contention should present a clear argument as to why the Neg can’t win. All you need to do is give examples of other forms of governments that are unjust. For example, Communism or a Dictatorship. Simple right? This allows the judge to see why it would be better to go with the Aff as opposed to the Neg. And just like in the first contention, you can apply Subpoints where each gives a specific reason or example illustrating why this is true. The reason I call this the “Not This” contention is because it shows what could happen if the Neg wins which can’t happen, and if it’s a good argument and the judge buys it – it could greatly improve your chances of winning.
(This Contention explains why other forms of government won’t work. Thus, the Neg can’t win for this very reason)
Contention II – Other forms of government have injustices.
Subpoint A – Card or Example of how this is true.
Subpoint B - Card or example of how this is true.
The third contention should be based on the most important argument which is the standard or criterion. This should illustrate how it’s possible to achieve your paramount value. Here, I’m trying to show that with Utilitarianism you have the best chance to right a wrong simply because most people are moral. For example, women now have the right to vote and we no longer have separate but equal. This is really why the judge needs to vote for you. The key is again not to make it repetitive with contention I. The more emotional the better because you want the judge to clearly understand why you should win. The point of this contention is to show that if the majority of people are indeed moral, then we are better off using Democratic Principles.
(This contention relates to the standard – Utilitarianism)
Contention III – Utilitarianism allows for morality.
Subpoint A – Card or Example of how this is true.
Subpoint B – Card or Example of how this is true.
Like I said, there are many ways of doing it but at least with this formula you no longer have to worry about your opponent or your judge wondering how each contention links to your standard. Also, you want your opponent to have to beat you on three levels as opposed to one. If every contention dealt with utilitarianism, all you would need is one good argument to destroy the case. With this formula, the Neg has to refute three different arguments to gain an edge.
I’m sure there are many theories on how to build a case but the method I’m going to show you is a proven winner. Just like math, you need to find a formula that works. But remember, you are not only competing with your opponent but the judge as well. If they are lost or confused, you may lose regardless of whether you destroyed your opponent. There’s two ways to make a case. You either use deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is the worse way because you are assuming too much. By the 4th or 5th round, your judge may be too tired to figure out what you are talking about. Therefore, the better way is deductive reasoning. Usually it is This + This = That. But for me, it’s This + Not This = That. It’s basically the same formula but I’ll explain more as we go. So let’s begin.
The topic this case would work well with is “Resolved: The best form of government is one that is based on Utilitarianism.” For this article, I’ll show you how to construct the Aff case and my next article will focus on the Neg case. So let’s pick our values. My paramount value will be Democratic Principles where you utilize the majority rule theory. My value criterion or standard will be Utilitarianism which is the greater good for the greater number. As I said before, don’t let anyone tell you that my standard is abusive simply because the Neg can’t use it. That is merely a theory but it is not fact. Now let’s look at our definitions. “Government” will be defined as a type of political system. “Based” will be defined as the main component or ingredient of something. Finally, “Utilitarianism” will be defined as the greater good for the greater number. Realize that the Aff has a huge advantage because the debate is taking place in the US where we have a democracy.
Basically, once you have picked your values the case is already made. All you need to do is find facts and examples to support your reasoning. The first contention should deal with the Paramount Value. This is an opportunity for you to actually give an analysis as to why Democracy is a good thing. For example, it allows for peace and a market place of ideas. You want the judge to have an understanding of what do you get with Democratic Principles. If you choose to do Subpoints, you can either make them unique or basically the same. For example, Subpoint A could be a philosopher explaining the value of democracy and Subpoint B could be an actual example of how it works. This is not the same as simply arguing Democratic Principles at the top of your case. It’s your job to make sure you don’t get repetitive and make sure that the first Contention does not just simply repeat what you said about Democratic Principles during the values debate.
(This Contention relates to the Paramount Value – Democratic Principles)
Contention I – Democratic Principles promote societal good.
Subpoint A – Card or Example of how this is true.
Subpoint B – Card or Example of how this is true
The second contention should present a clear argument as to why the Neg can’t win. All you need to do is give examples of other forms of governments that are unjust. For example, Communism or a Dictatorship. Simple right? This allows the judge to see why it would be better to go with the Aff as opposed to the Neg. And just like in the first contention, you can apply Subpoints where each gives a specific reason or example illustrating why this is true. The reason I call this the “Not This” contention is because it shows what could happen if the Neg wins which can’t happen, and if it’s a good argument and the judge buys it – it could greatly improve your chances of winning.
(This Contention explains why other forms of government won’t work. Thus, the Neg can’t win for this very reason)
Contention II – Other forms of government have injustices.
Subpoint A – Card or Example of how this is true.
Subpoint B - Card or example of how this is true.
The third contention should be based on the most important argument which is the standard or criterion. This should illustrate how it’s possible to achieve your paramount value. Here, I’m trying to show that with Utilitarianism you have the best chance to right a wrong simply because most people are moral. For example, women now have the right to vote and we no longer have separate but equal. This is really why the judge needs to vote for you. The key is again not to make it repetitive with contention I. The more emotional the better because you want the judge to clearly understand why you should win. The point of this contention is to show that if the majority of people are indeed moral, then we are better off using Democratic Principles.
(This contention relates to the standard – Utilitarianism)
Contention III – Utilitarianism allows for morality.
Subpoint A – Card or Example of how this is true.
Subpoint B – Card or Example of how this is true.
Like I said, there are many ways of doing it but at least with this formula you no longer have to worry about your opponent or your judge wondering how each contention links to your standard. Also, you want your opponent to have to beat you on three levels as opposed to one. If every contention dealt with utilitarianism, all you would need is one good argument to destroy the case. With this formula, the Neg has to refute three different arguments to gain an edge.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
What Type of Debater Are You?
September 1, 2007
If you are planning to have a successful year, first you need to figure out what type of debater you are and then you can have a realistic view of how the year should pan out. All three types that I plan to mention can have a good year provided they are structured and organized but sometimes that’s not enough to get you to the finals. See if you fall into one of these categories. There is the Parrot, the Natural, and the Researcher.
First there is the Parrot. This type of debater does what he is told. He gets a team case and reads it word for word and has all of his blocks and rebuttals planned out ahead of time. This is usually a novice or jv debater but there are a few varsity debaters that fall into this pattern as well. If he is a good speaker, he can do really well – especially if he is fully prepared for all of the possible arguments that can be thrown at him. However, the problem is that once he gets something he’s not prepared for he falls apart. This is why this type of debater does well in prelims but falls apart in the elimination rounds. Other teams are already prepared for him and unless he’s prepped by his coach or a varsity member from his team, he’s out of luck. But if you need to be prepped at that point, your odds of winning are already dwindling. These type of debaters usually go down during the CX because that’s when their weaknesses are exploited. Once you exploit a Parrot, go for the kill and don’t let up. These type of debaters can win if the round is close so once you find a weakness take advantage of it. The sad thing is these type of debaters can beat a Researcher more easily than they can beat a Natural.
This leads to my favorite type of debater, the Natural. Although this is not exactly the best type of debater, these are the most dynamic to judge. This type of debater is like the Parrot except he makes the case his own. It’s obvious it’s a team case but it has wrinkles in it that the basic case didn’t. And unlike the Parrot, this debater can get himself out of trouble rather easily. This would be your everyday car dealer that’s gets the employee of the year award for all of his sales. This debater can sell the case and make it look like a gold mine. I love these debaters because I can give them a case and they can take it to another level which means they can defend it a lot better than a Parrot. The problem is most of the time they are full of BS. However, only the Researcher or another Natural has the ability to beat this type of debater. They are confident and have an air of arrogance which usually intimidates the Parrot and even the Researcher. They can win their fair share of rounds but it’s really hard to make it to finals simply because they rely too much on instincts and not enough on research. Basically these are your apathetically brilliant students.
Finally, we have the Researcher. This should be the best type of debater that has the best chance of winning tournaments at a high percentage rate. He has an advantage because he actually researches the topic beyond the briefs and writes his own case. He also researches every author he plans to use in his case. Sometimes, unlike the Natural, he isn’t as articulate and this is his downfall. His advantage is his case doesn’t have many weaknesses and he can exploit all of his opponent’s weaknesses simply because he knows more than they do. The Natural can’t BS a Researcher. So imagine a debater that is both a Natural and a Researcher. As long as you had legitimate judges, that combination would be hard to beat.
Regardless of your debating style, all debaters fall under one of these categories. Which one are you?
If you are planning to have a successful year, first you need to figure out what type of debater you are and then you can have a realistic view of how the year should pan out. All three types that I plan to mention can have a good year provided they are structured and organized but sometimes that’s not enough to get you to the finals. See if you fall into one of these categories. There is the Parrot, the Natural, and the Researcher.
First there is the Parrot. This type of debater does what he is told. He gets a team case and reads it word for word and has all of his blocks and rebuttals planned out ahead of time. This is usually a novice or jv debater but there are a few varsity debaters that fall into this pattern as well. If he is a good speaker, he can do really well – especially if he is fully prepared for all of the possible arguments that can be thrown at him. However, the problem is that once he gets something he’s not prepared for he falls apart. This is why this type of debater does well in prelims but falls apart in the elimination rounds. Other teams are already prepared for him and unless he’s prepped by his coach or a varsity member from his team, he’s out of luck. But if you need to be prepped at that point, your odds of winning are already dwindling. These type of debaters usually go down during the CX because that’s when their weaknesses are exploited. Once you exploit a Parrot, go for the kill and don’t let up. These type of debaters can win if the round is close so once you find a weakness take advantage of it. The sad thing is these type of debaters can beat a Researcher more easily than they can beat a Natural.
This leads to my favorite type of debater, the Natural. Although this is not exactly the best type of debater, these are the most dynamic to judge. This type of debater is like the Parrot except he makes the case his own. It’s obvious it’s a team case but it has wrinkles in it that the basic case didn’t. And unlike the Parrot, this debater can get himself out of trouble rather easily. This would be your everyday car dealer that’s gets the employee of the year award for all of his sales. This debater can sell the case and make it look like a gold mine. I love these debaters because I can give them a case and they can take it to another level which means they can defend it a lot better than a Parrot. The problem is most of the time they are full of BS. However, only the Researcher or another Natural has the ability to beat this type of debater. They are confident and have an air of arrogance which usually intimidates the Parrot and even the Researcher. They can win their fair share of rounds but it’s really hard to make it to finals simply because they rely too much on instincts and not enough on research. Basically these are your apathetically brilliant students.
Finally, we have the Researcher. This should be the best type of debater that has the best chance of winning tournaments at a high percentage rate. He has an advantage because he actually researches the topic beyond the briefs and writes his own case. He also researches every author he plans to use in his case. Sometimes, unlike the Natural, he isn’t as articulate and this is his downfall. His advantage is his case doesn’t have many weaknesses and he can exploit all of his opponent’s weaknesses simply because he knows more than they do. The Natural can’t BS a Researcher. So imagine a debater that is both a Natural and a Researcher. As long as you had legitimate judges, that combination would be hard to beat.
Regardless of your debating style, all debaters fall under one of these categories. Which one are you?
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Learn to Adapt
May 1, 2007
Granada Hills Charter did the best we have ever done at the California State Tournament. Congratulations goes to San Dieguito for closing out the tournament with two young men that were able to adapt to the situation. I was going to write an unfavorable essay on TOC and their style of debating but I changed my mind. It’s all about adapting. In tennis if you want to win the Grand Slam you must be able to win on 3 different surfaces – hard court, clay, and grass. Well we should look at the Grand Slam of LD the same way. The odds of doing it are nearly impossible; however, if you want to try you need to be able to debate in a presentational style for State, semi-spread for Nationals, and spread for TOC. Don’t forget, you may have to spread just to qualify for these tournaments and then switch to presentational style debate for state and the finals of nationals. It all depends on your judging pool so don’t forget to ask your judges for their paradigms.
I always thought we had the best chance of winning State because I don’t promote spreading to the point of slurring words but I do like fast speakers that can articulate. The problem is since you are being judged by citizens who vote, they look at fast talkers as swindlers. They also look at your overall appearance. So even though this should be our best platform to compete, I was so focused on articulating that I completely forgot about appearance and overall presentation. This year my top debater focused on presentation and slowing down and made it all the way to the Quarter-Finals. Of course, I think she should have won but then again I’m biased and it’s a subjective event anyway. Anyone who made it to the 5th round should be very happy. Anyone could have won from that point. Because it’s a relaxed, presentational style, no one can clearly seek an advantage. All that is left is appearance and overall quality to separate yourself from the pack.
Last year, we lost rounds because the judge said my debater never looked up and failed to establish eye to eye contact. This year we got a complaint because my debater kept putting her hands in her pockets. They claimed that looked unprofessional. TOC judges or college judges rarely notice these things because they are too busy taking meticulous notes and never look up themselves to see what the debaters are doing. Right or wrong it doesn’t matter. If you want to win State you have to adapt to the situation. This tournament is as legit as it gets because it makes students do at this tournament what others fail to achieve. You have to develop communication skills that reach out to the average person on the street. These are true life skills that will benefit you should you plan to be a politician or a lawyer. You can’t spread infront of a jury and hope to win. I had my doubts but now that I know we actually have a chance to win some day – I like presentational style debate.
Granada Hills Charter did the best we have ever done at the California State Tournament. Congratulations goes to San Dieguito for closing out the tournament with two young men that were able to adapt to the situation. I was going to write an unfavorable essay on TOC and their style of debating but I changed my mind. It’s all about adapting. In tennis if you want to win the Grand Slam you must be able to win on 3 different surfaces – hard court, clay, and grass. Well we should look at the Grand Slam of LD the same way. The odds of doing it are nearly impossible; however, if you want to try you need to be able to debate in a presentational style for State, semi-spread for Nationals, and spread for TOC. Don’t forget, you may have to spread just to qualify for these tournaments and then switch to presentational style debate for state and the finals of nationals. It all depends on your judging pool so don’t forget to ask your judges for their paradigms.
I always thought we had the best chance of winning State because I don’t promote spreading to the point of slurring words but I do like fast speakers that can articulate. The problem is since you are being judged by citizens who vote, they look at fast talkers as swindlers. They also look at your overall appearance. So even though this should be our best platform to compete, I was so focused on articulating that I completely forgot about appearance and overall presentation. This year my top debater focused on presentation and slowing down and made it all the way to the Quarter-Finals. Of course, I think she should have won but then again I’m biased and it’s a subjective event anyway. Anyone who made it to the 5th round should be very happy. Anyone could have won from that point. Because it’s a relaxed, presentational style, no one can clearly seek an advantage. All that is left is appearance and overall quality to separate yourself from the pack.
Last year, we lost rounds because the judge said my debater never looked up and failed to establish eye to eye contact. This year we got a complaint because my debater kept putting her hands in her pockets. They claimed that looked unprofessional. TOC judges or college judges rarely notice these things because they are too busy taking meticulous notes and never look up themselves to see what the debaters are doing. Right or wrong it doesn’t matter. If you want to win State you have to adapt to the situation. This tournament is as legit as it gets because it makes students do at this tournament what others fail to achieve. You have to develop communication skills that reach out to the average person on the street. These are true life skills that will benefit you should you plan to be a politician or a lawyer. You can’t spread infront of a jury and hope to win. I had my doubts but now that I know we actually have a chance to win some day – I like presentational style debate.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
What Exactly Is a Good Turn?
April 1, 2007
Since it’s time for the biggies, this article will focus on what makes a good turn. Remember, this is an opinionated essay, so this is one judge’s viewpoint. Let’s look at three levels: novice, jv, and varsity. Not that that truly reflects these examples, but each level will gain in sophistication. This will center around one argument; but when debating, it’s important to try and do this for every argument in an opponent’s case. Also, imagine that these arguments are supported by cards. The topic is “Resolve: Utilitarianism is the best way to provide a just government.”
Novice
Aff: I agree with the resolution because Utilitarianism best provides for democracy which is a just system.
Neg: The best way to provide for a just government is through Categorical Imperative.
Aff: Utilitarianism provides for majority rule which is just.
Neg: Categorical Imperative provides for the minority which is just so you must vote neg.
Aff: Since Utilitarianism is the greater good for the greatest number, you vote aff.
The winner in this instance is the Aff. The Aff at least comes the closest to explaining the value. The Neg never defines Categorical Imperative so how can one tell if it will really provide justice. Neither side makes a turn because neither of them shows why the other argument is faulty.
Junior Varsity
Aff: I agree with the resolution because Utilitarianism, which is the greater good for the greatest number, best provides for a just system because there will always be a majority vs. minority.
Neg; I beg to differ, with Utilitarianism the majority can be wrong. You need Categorical Imperative, where you must be just on both sides, to establish true justice. The minority needs to be protected.
Aff: The problem is since you will have a majority vs. minority in all forms of government, you have no choice but to go with Utilitarianism.
Neg: Exactly, and since there will always be a minority - as you said - they need to be protected along with the majority. With Categorical Imperative, the majority can’t use the minority as a means to an end. You have to vote neg in this instance.
Aff: Okay, apparently my opponent wasn’t listening when I said, “There will always be a minority.” Because of this one argument, which my opponent dropped, you must give the ballot to the aff. Utilitarianism is clearly the way to bring about a just government.
The winner in this instance is the Neg. The Neg clearly makes the better turns in this debate. Meaning, the Neg takes Aff’s arguments and uses them against the Aff’s position. The Aff ignores the Neg’s arguments and mistakenly prefers to focus on Utilitarianism instead without even recognizing Categorical Imperative. Also, the Aff lies in the 2AR by claiming the Neg dropped arguments. Not a good idea when you have a flow judge. In each instance, the Neg turned the arguments of the AFF.
Varsity
Aff: I agree with the resolution because John Stuart Mill believed that the majority of people on the planet were morally good. Taking that into consideration, Utilitarianism is the best way to provide for a just government since it means the greater good for the greatest number.
Neg: Since the majority can be wrong, the best way to provide for a just government is Kant’s Categorical Imperative. With this philosophy you must be just on both sides and so the minority will best be protected with this form of government. There is no guarantee the majority will not take advantage of the minority with Utilitarianism.
Aff: There is no form of government where you are not going to have a minority. Even with Categorical Imperative, saying it doesn’t make it true. The minority is always in jeopardy. The best system for Utilitarianism is a democracy where at least the minority has a voice. This is why in America women are now allowed to vote and we no longer have slavery. The minority can eventually make their voices heard and the majority will eventually come to their senses.
Neg: With Categorical Imperative you wouldn’t have these problems. The majority wouldn’t do to the minority what they themselves wouldn’t want to face. So you wouldn’t have to worry about slavery or the plight of women. Everyone would be equal. And let’s not forget about Germany. What Hitler did was a travesty, but with Categorical Imperative it would not have happened because the Germans would have to ask the question, “What if that were me?” With that, the ballot must go to the neg.
Aff: The problem with Categorical Imperative is it’s the ideal system that doesn’t exist. No governments exist that use Categorical Imperative to the point where the minority has equal say. All examples the Neg uses are ones where there were faults with majority rule. There is no guarantee the Neg wouldn’t have those same problems. When you look to Germany, he forgot when I said in my constructive, “majority of people on the planet were moral.” Therefore, the world saw what Germany was doing was wrong and thus WWII. You have no choice but to award the ballot to aff.
The winner this time is the Aff. Both sides made good turns and because of that the Aff has the advantage this time because that side is more realistic and can provide the best examples. The Neg needed to find examples that could actually be plausible. But notice in this last debate, both sides provided examples and then tried to turn their opponent’s examples. Very few varsity debaters actually do this. What I really like about these arguments are they are building blocks for new arguments. Instead of being repetitive, they try to extend the arguments. When I’m judging, I usually pick the debater that has the ability to turn the most arguments. If the Aff did not address the Hitler argument, the Aff would have lost my ballot.
Since it’s time for the biggies, this article will focus on what makes a good turn. Remember, this is an opinionated essay, so this is one judge’s viewpoint. Let’s look at three levels: novice, jv, and varsity. Not that that truly reflects these examples, but each level will gain in sophistication. This will center around one argument; but when debating, it’s important to try and do this for every argument in an opponent’s case. Also, imagine that these arguments are supported by cards. The topic is “Resolve: Utilitarianism is the best way to provide a just government.”
Novice
Aff: I agree with the resolution because Utilitarianism best provides for democracy which is a just system.
Neg: The best way to provide for a just government is through Categorical Imperative.
Aff: Utilitarianism provides for majority rule which is just.
Neg: Categorical Imperative provides for the minority which is just so you must vote neg.
Aff: Since Utilitarianism is the greater good for the greatest number, you vote aff.
The winner in this instance is the Aff. The Aff at least comes the closest to explaining the value. The Neg never defines Categorical Imperative so how can one tell if it will really provide justice. Neither side makes a turn because neither of them shows why the other argument is faulty.
Junior Varsity
Aff: I agree with the resolution because Utilitarianism, which is the greater good for the greatest number, best provides for a just system because there will always be a majority vs. minority.
Neg; I beg to differ, with Utilitarianism the majority can be wrong. You need Categorical Imperative, where you must be just on both sides, to establish true justice. The minority needs to be protected.
Aff: The problem is since you will have a majority vs. minority in all forms of government, you have no choice but to go with Utilitarianism.
Neg: Exactly, and since there will always be a minority - as you said - they need to be protected along with the majority. With Categorical Imperative, the majority can’t use the minority as a means to an end. You have to vote neg in this instance.
Aff: Okay, apparently my opponent wasn’t listening when I said, “There will always be a minority.” Because of this one argument, which my opponent dropped, you must give the ballot to the aff. Utilitarianism is clearly the way to bring about a just government.
The winner in this instance is the Neg. The Neg clearly makes the better turns in this debate. Meaning, the Neg takes Aff’s arguments and uses them against the Aff’s position. The Aff ignores the Neg’s arguments and mistakenly prefers to focus on Utilitarianism instead without even recognizing Categorical Imperative. Also, the Aff lies in the 2AR by claiming the Neg dropped arguments. Not a good idea when you have a flow judge. In each instance, the Neg turned the arguments of the AFF.
Varsity
Aff: I agree with the resolution because John Stuart Mill believed that the majority of people on the planet were morally good. Taking that into consideration, Utilitarianism is the best way to provide for a just government since it means the greater good for the greatest number.
Neg: Since the majority can be wrong, the best way to provide for a just government is Kant’s Categorical Imperative. With this philosophy you must be just on both sides and so the minority will best be protected with this form of government. There is no guarantee the majority will not take advantage of the minority with Utilitarianism.
Aff: There is no form of government where you are not going to have a minority. Even with Categorical Imperative, saying it doesn’t make it true. The minority is always in jeopardy. The best system for Utilitarianism is a democracy where at least the minority has a voice. This is why in America women are now allowed to vote and we no longer have slavery. The minority can eventually make their voices heard and the majority will eventually come to their senses.
Neg: With Categorical Imperative you wouldn’t have these problems. The majority wouldn’t do to the minority what they themselves wouldn’t want to face. So you wouldn’t have to worry about slavery or the plight of women. Everyone would be equal. And let’s not forget about Germany. What Hitler did was a travesty, but with Categorical Imperative it would not have happened because the Germans would have to ask the question, “What if that were me?” With that, the ballot must go to the neg.
Aff: The problem with Categorical Imperative is it’s the ideal system that doesn’t exist. No governments exist that use Categorical Imperative to the point where the minority has equal say. All examples the Neg uses are ones where there were faults with majority rule. There is no guarantee the Neg wouldn’t have those same problems. When you look to Germany, he forgot when I said in my constructive, “majority of people on the planet were moral.” Therefore, the world saw what Germany was doing was wrong and thus WWII. You have no choice but to award the ballot to aff.
The winner this time is the Aff. Both sides made good turns and because of that the Aff has the advantage this time because that side is more realistic and can provide the best examples. The Neg needed to find examples that could actually be plausible. But notice in this last debate, both sides provided examples and then tried to turn their opponent’s examples. Very few varsity debaters actually do this. What I really like about these arguments are they are building blocks for new arguments. Instead of being repetitive, they try to extend the arguments. When I’m judging, I usually pick the debater that has the ability to turn the most arguments. If the Aff did not address the Hitler argument, the Aff would have lost my ballot.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Winning Is Nice but Learn How to Lose
March 1, 2007
Well once again Granada won the JV Division at Stanford which is nice because it was really competitive this year with all of the good speakers. However, even though I had one student that won, there were 10 others that didn’t. I’m glad to say that they handled it much better than one young man who not only threw his briefcase, but yelled at the judges on top of it – not to mention his adult guardian who followed suit. What’s happening with this younger generation? What happened to sportsmanship and proper etiquette? This article is not meant to transform anyone into an angel, but perhaps it will make one think before they act after a loss.
It’s now time for State, Nationals, and of course the TOC. Only one person can win those events. When my novices attend my little mini camp during the first two weeks of school, the first thing I teach them is learn how to lose. My first article clearly states that if one masters the keys of debate, they still only have a 75% chance of winning. I also said the odds of making the elimination rounds greatly increases. But nothing is guaranteed when competing in a subjective event. Everything rests on skills and good fortune. Hopefully there will be legitimate judges available during the break rounds but usually most leave if their kids are eliminated leaving only the competing schools left. I gave up blocking competing schools from judging because it only slows down the tournament; thus, I have to take my chances and hope they’ll truly pick the better debater. When my novices lose, I let them do their whining and then I bring over a varsity member to put them in their place. Why? because my varsity members have already experienced illegitimate loses and they have learned to handle it. Not that all loses are illegit, but if it happens find a way of cooling down besides yelling at the judges or throwing things. Actually, that could even hurt more when encountering the same group of judges at the next event.
When I attend college tournaments, any student that breaks to the elimination round is a winner. After that, everything has to fall into place to actually win the tournament. The last thing one wants to do is be arrogant and boisterous when winning a break round. Everyone is being judged once they enter their first round. Word gets out quickly about attitudes and arrogance so always try to keep composure because it could pay dividends down the road.
If students could understand how hard it is to find judges that actually want to give up their weekends to listen to 12-15 debates, perhaps they won’t even consider yelling or throwing things. There is no excuse for that regardless of the decision. As one of my varsity students once said, perhaps the loss was legit. Instead of getting angry, ask what could have been done better. I’ve had plenty of debaters tell me how they should have won only to watch them and realize why they were losing. If I watch a round or listen to a round and felt my student won, that’s all I need to know. The decision at that point doesn’t matter.
Remember, LD is a subjective event and all one can do is their best. Everything else is a toss up.
Well once again Granada won the JV Division at Stanford which is nice because it was really competitive this year with all of the good speakers. However, even though I had one student that won, there were 10 others that didn’t. I’m glad to say that they handled it much better than one young man who not only threw his briefcase, but yelled at the judges on top of it – not to mention his adult guardian who followed suit. What’s happening with this younger generation? What happened to sportsmanship and proper etiquette? This article is not meant to transform anyone into an angel, but perhaps it will make one think before they act after a loss.
It’s now time for State, Nationals, and of course the TOC. Only one person can win those events. When my novices attend my little mini camp during the first two weeks of school, the first thing I teach them is learn how to lose. My first article clearly states that if one masters the keys of debate, they still only have a 75% chance of winning. I also said the odds of making the elimination rounds greatly increases. But nothing is guaranteed when competing in a subjective event. Everything rests on skills and good fortune. Hopefully there will be legitimate judges available during the break rounds but usually most leave if their kids are eliminated leaving only the competing schools left. I gave up blocking competing schools from judging because it only slows down the tournament; thus, I have to take my chances and hope they’ll truly pick the better debater. When my novices lose, I let them do their whining and then I bring over a varsity member to put them in their place. Why? because my varsity members have already experienced illegitimate loses and they have learned to handle it. Not that all loses are illegit, but if it happens find a way of cooling down besides yelling at the judges or throwing things. Actually, that could even hurt more when encountering the same group of judges at the next event.
When I attend college tournaments, any student that breaks to the elimination round is a winner. After that, everything has to fall into place to actually win the tournament. The last thing one wants to do is be arrogant and boisterous when winning a break round. Everyone is being judged once they enter their first round. Word gets out quickly about attitudes and arrogance so always try to keep composure because it could pay dividends down the road.
If students could understand how hard it is to find judges that actually want to give up their weekends to listen to 12-15 debates, perhaps they won’t even consider yelling or throwing things. There is no excuse for that regardless of the decision. As one of my varsity students once said, perhaps the loss was legit. Instead of getting angry, ask what could have been done better. I’ve had plenty of debaters tell me how they should have won only to watch them and realize why they were losing. If I watch a round or listen to a round and felt my student won, that’s all I need to know. The decision at that point doesn’t matter.
Remember, LD is a subjective event and all one can do is their best. Everything else is a toss up.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Team Cases
February 1, 2007
So what’s wrong with a team case? As long as I have been judging, I have never had a problem with a team case. So if I’m judging, a debater never has to worry if my decision will be based on the fact that a team mate just finished reading the same exact case during Flight A. When I first started coaching, we would always compete against a team that had a team case so I thought that was the norm. Now some people frown on it or see it as cheating in some respects. Being a coach, I understand the reasoning behind a team case. If the coach ever hopes to build a successful team, it starts with a team case. Trying to teach new students how to debate is hard enough let alone asking them to write a case for the very first time. Let’s look at the pros and cons of a team case.
The good thing about a team case is that it allows a team to practice with each other immediately. Even in a class situation, very few students will write a case in a timely manner where they can actually get some good practice in before the tournament. With a team case, students can practice the first three keys to good debating (see previous article) until it becomes innate. Also, as a team, students can brainstorm different arguments for rebuttals and even develop counter arguments. The best thing is if a student does really well with a team case, hopefully he will get the bug and not only want to continue debating but even begin writing original cases as well.
Unfortunately, there are probably more cons than pros for a team case. The biggest problem being it is very hard to win on a consistent basis with a team case. Remember, most judges aren’t like me. They look at a team case as being unoriginal. So the debater with the same exact case as his buddy in Flight A loses because now his arguments are no longer fresh and creative. Also, as the tournament goes on, other teams not only figure out how to beat the case but also try to lower the team’s moral by ridiculing the case. It’s not that the case can’t win, but most team cases that I have seen have some major flaws and once the code is cracked, it’s downhill from there.
It’s not all discouraging though because there is hope. The debaters that I like are the ones that take a team case and make it their own. Change the wording and add something new – like new arguments. Using different arguments shows an understanding of what the case is trying to do. The reason I don’t care if students have team cases is because it’s the rebuttals that show if they really understand what they are trying to do. I want to see what happens after the constructives have been read. Since few debaters can do this, I try to reward a student with a team case that makes it his own and can argue on a higher level. Usually, the one that does this the best is the case writer. The author is the only one that truly understands the ins and outs of the case. It’s not something that can be taught but the students who can do it will no doubt be a valuable asset to the team.
So once again, I have no problem with team cases and if a student can actually comprehend it and raise it to new heights, they can actually win with it.
So what’s wrong with a team case? As long as I have been judging, I have never had a problem with a team case. So if I’m judging, a debater never has to worry if my decision will be based on the fact that a team mate just finished reading the same exact case during Flight A. When I first started coaching, we would always compete against a team that had a team case so I thought that was the norm. Now some people frown on it or see it as cheating in some respects. Being a coach, I understand the reasoning behind a team case. If the coach ever hopes to build a successful team, it starts with a team case. Trying to teach new students how to debate is hard enough let alone asking them to write a case for the very first time. Let’s look at the pros and cons of a team case.
The good thing about a team case is that it allows a team to practice with each other immediately. Even in a class situation, very few students will write a case in a timely manner where they can actually get some good practice in before the tournament. With a team case, students can practice the first three keys to good debating (see previous article) until it becomes innate. Also, as a team, students can brainstorm different arguments for rebuttals and even develop counter arguments. The best thing is if a student does really well with a team case, hopefully he will get the bug and not only want to continue debating but even begin writing original cases as well.
Unfortunately, there are probably more cons than pros for a team case. The biggest problem being it is very hard to win on a consistent basis with a team case. Remember, most judges aren’t like me. They look at a team case as being unoriginal. So the debater with the same exact case as his buddy in Flight A loses because now his arguments are no longer fresh and creative. Also, as the tournament goes on, other teams not only figure out how to beat the case but also try to lower the team’s moral by ridiculing the case. It’s not that the case can’t win, but most team cases that I have seen have some major flaws and once the code is cracked, it’s downhill from there.
It’s not all discouraging though because there is hope. The debaters that I like are the ones that take a team case and make it their own. Change the wording and add something new – like new arguments. Using different arguments shows an understanding of what the case is trying to do. The reason I don’t care if students have team cases is because it’s the rebuttals that show if they really understand what they are trying to do. I want to see what happens after the constructives have been read. Since few debaters can do this, I try to reward a student with a team case that makes it his own and can argue on a higher level. Usually, the one that does this the best is the case writer. The author is the only one that truly understands the ins and outs of the case. It’s not something that can be taught but the students who can do it will no doubt be a valuable asset to the team.
So once again, I have no problem with team cases and if a student can actually comprehend it and raise it to new heights, they can actually win with it.
Monday, January 1, 2007
5 Keys to Success
January 1, 2007
First, I would like to wish you and yours a very happy new year. Second, I would like to help get you started in the right direction if you want to become one of the elites when it comes to LD debate. I’ve either judged it or coached it for over 20 years and my team has won in every category at almost every tournament we’ve entered at one time or another. Not bragging, but just informing you that I do know a little something on the subject. There are 5 keys to good debating. If you can master all 5, you will win at least 75% of the time. Why not 100%? Since it’s a subjective activity, it doesn’t matter how well you master these keys – biases always get in the way. But at least you’ll have a good shot at making the elimination rounds. The 5 keys are Speaking, Organization, Examples, Turns, and Cross Examination. Shall we begin?
Let’s look at Speaking. You need to learn how to articulate at a rapid pace (not spreading) while avoiding the use of words like “a,” “and”, and “ums.” Remember, you still need to be understood. Having a nice vocabulary always helps. There is an advantage to speaking rapidly which is you can get more information out than your opponent can. The mistake most articulate debaters make is they misuse their talents by trying to get in as much facts as possible. What they should be doing is using their gift to fully explain an argument or concept they are trying to utilize. Instead of having 2-4 arguments per sub point, use your gift to develop one good argument and expand on it.
Next is Organization. Good organizational skills can cancel out good speaking. This alone can get you a win. Everything needs to be sign posted so the judge knows where you are. Of course, there are those arrogant judges whose egos won’t allow for them to admit that they need sign posting, but do it regardless for your benefit. You begin by giving a road map of what you plan to do before you speak. Then argue in the order of the structure of the cases. You start with Paramount Value, Value Criteria, Observations – if any, then the Contentions. You do if for your case and then switch over to your opponent’s case. Master this and you are on your way.
You need Examples. The big key is knowing that briefs or cards can not solely make your case. You have to explain them and show you really understand what the card is saying. I, myself, favor real life examples to support the briefs. This shows you really understand the philosophy behind the card as well as proves that your point is plausible.
The first three keys are mainly for novices; now it’s time for elite status – Turns. In order to master this, you have to know your case inside and out. You need to be able to tell your opponents why their arguments are not as strong as yours. If you read my previous article, you’ll know what not to do. If you truly understand your case, you can make some devastating turns. Trust me, most spreaders have no clue what their case is saying. The key is not to get psyched out by fast talkers. Methodically show that your opponents are clueless as to what they are trying to prove by giving them turns that they either avoid addressing or act like were never made.
Finally, it’s CX time. This is my favorite part of debate when done correctly. This is where you have the opportunity to trap your opponents into proving your point. However, the most important part of CX is making sure you understand your opponents’ cases. If you have to, spend the entire CX going through their cases and getting all the important information you need. Then, if you have extra time, try to back your opponents into a corner and illustrate that they really don’t understand their case. For varsity, the debate can come down to who provides the best CX.
Well those are the 5 keys to becoming a good LD debater. When I’m judging, usually the one that wins 3 out of the 5 keys gets my vote.
First, I would like to wish you and yours a very happy new year. Second, I would like to help get you started in the right direction if you want to become one of the elites when it comes to LD debate. I’ve either judged it or coached it for over 20 years and my team has won in every category at almost every tournament we’ve entered at one time or another. Not bragging, but just informing you that I do know a little something on the subject. There are 5 keys to good debating. If you can master all 5, you will win at least 75% of the time. Why not 100%? Since it’s a subjective activity, it doesn’t matter how well you master these keys – biases always get in the way. But at least you’ll have a good shot at making the elimination rounds. The 5 keys are Speaking, Organization, Examples, Turns, and Cross Examination. Shall we begin?
Let’s look at Speaking. You need to learn how to articulate at a rapid pace (not spreading) while avoiding the use of words like “a,” “and”, and “ums.” Remember, you still need to be understood. Having a nice vocabulary always helps. There is an advantage to speaking rapidly which is you can get more information out than your opponent can. The mistake most articulate debaters make is they misuse their talents by trying to get in as much facts as possible. What they should be doing is using their gift to fully explain an argument or concept they are trying to utilize. Instead of having 2-4 arguments per sub point, use your gift to develop one good argument and expand on it.
Next is Organization. Good organizational skills can cancel out good speaking. This alone can get you a win. Everything needs to be sign posted so the judge knows where you are. Of course, there are those arrogant judges whose egos won’t allow for them to admit that they need sign posting, but do it regardless for your benefit. You begin by giving a road map of what you plan to do before you speak. Then argue in the order of the structure of the cases. You start with Paramount Value, Value Criteria, Observations – if any, then the Contentions. You do if for your case and then switch over to your opponent’s case. Master this and you are on your way.
You need Examples. The big key is knowing that briefs or cards can not solely make your case. You have to explain them and show you really understand what the card is saying. I, myself, favor real life examples to support the briefs. This shows you really understand the philosophy behind the card as well as proves that your point is plausible.
The first three keys are mainly for novices; now it’s time for elite status – Turns. In order to master this, you have to know your case inside and out. You need to be able to tell your opponents why their arguments are not as strong as yours. If you read my previous article, you’ll know what not to do. If you truly understand your case, you can make some devastating turns. Trust me, most spreaders have no clue what their case is saying. The key is not to get psyched out by fast talkers. Methodically show that your opponents are clueless as to what they are trying to prove by giving them turns that they either avoid addressing or act like were never made.
Finally, it’s CX time. This is my favorite part of debate when done correctly. This is where you have the opportunity to trap your opponents into proving your point. However, the most important part of CX is making sure you understand your opponents’ cases. If you have to, spend the entire CX going through their cases and getting all the important information you need. Then, if you have extra time, try to back your opponents into a corner and illustrate that they really don’t understand their case. For varsity, the debate can come down to who provides the best CX.
Well those are the 5 keys to becoming a good LD debater. When I’m judging, usually the one that wins 3 out of the 5 keys gets my vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
