September 1, 2008
This article may seem like bragging but I need to in order to get the point across. To be successful at anything you need a strategy. If the strategy works, it becomes a formula for success and then you will either get the copycats who will try to capitalize on your success until the formula wears out or some outside force will try and end your success. It’s true in Hollywood, business, sports, and of course debating. To prove it, I’ll use myself as an example.
First let’s look at bowling. My average is 220. So odds are I can beat you scratch if you want to go 2 out of 3. All I have to do to get a 200 is make sure I repeat the same movements from start to finish with every throw. As long as I do that, I can reach 200 80% of the time. Of course all good bowlers have different techniques, but the results are the same. To be successful, there has to be repetition. The goal is trying to find the delivery or strategy that works. My strategy has allowed me to bowl a perfect game (300) 3 times, and get 11 strikes in a row 4 times during league play. Here’s the problem. If the league sees that you consistently bowl well, they change the oil pattern so that your average will never be too high. So even though I have the same throw, I have to continually find new targets to aim at if I hope to keep getting strikes.
Next, let’s look at golf. Because I realized that in order for me to bowl well I needed be repetitive, I figured why not try the same thing for golf. I’m basically self taught but had a plethora of swings for different types of clubs. I had a different swing for irons, fairway woods, and the driver. Obviously, my handicap was very high because it’s hard to be consistent when having to think about 3 different swings during a round of golf. Thus, during the summer I diligently worked on one consistent swing for all my clubs and my handicap dropped dramatically. I can consistently shoot between 80-84 on any course simply because I can hit the ball solidly every time and can at least be around the green in regulation to give myself a chance at par. Here’s the problem. Because these new young players are driving the ball farther, they continually try to make the courses longer and longer which makes it much more difficult for me since I’m not a long driver. However, since I’m consistent, the plus side is I can usually beat the big hitters which makes them mad.
Now, let’s look at debate. You have to figure out a strategy that works for you and try and utilize it every time. You need a system for the affirmative and negative cases. Either you try to develop a winning strategy for yourself or you copy someone else’s winning strategy. Just in case you weren’t aware, I’ve already provided you with a winning strategy if you read my articles on how to build cases. However, if someone on your team is consistently winning, you need to figure out what they are doing that’s right, and what you are doing that’s wrong. The hardest part about debate is that it is subjective which means that someone else can determine your outcome. So even if you have a winning strategy, it may not work depending on the judges - but don’t let that discourage you. You should still be able to win about 65% of the time if you have a strategy that’s a proven winner. As long as my debaters stay with my strategy or develop a better one, we will always be in the mix and have a chance at winning every round. Here’s the problem. You can never get big headed in subjective events because you can lose simply because you are you. It would be nice to be able to have a pool of truly unbiased judges because then I feel we would have a huge advantage over other schools. However, the reality is that we are all being judged by our competitors so don’t let losing discourage you from seeking a strategy and staying with it. By having a strategy, you at least make your opponent sweat a little which can be fun in itself, especially if it’s a TOC debater.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Debate Camp
June 1, 2008
The school year is already over for some and just about to end for others. If you are thinking about Debate Camp, it might be a good idea if you are into winning. If you really want to improve your odds of winning the TOC or Nationals, you really have no choice but to attend a prominent debate camp. I personally have issues with debate camps, but the facts don’t lie – if you want to win, you have to attend. Because of the money that can be made with holding these camps, they are very competitive. This means that their best form of advertising is by recognizing former students that have won major tournaments. Just look at some of the debate camp websites and view their list of students who have won some major tournament somewhere in the country. What this tells you is that it benefits a camp when their students can win a tournament. What if most of the judges at a tournament you attend are from a certain camp? Get it? You don’t stand a chance of winning a round when being judged by debate camp facilitators and your opponent attended the same debate camp.
What you need to do is figure out which debate camp has the most influence in your area and then sign up. Then, you have to make a noticeable difference. You have to stand out and make the instructors take note of how good you are. Once the rumors start, you can win rounds before you even begin debating simply because your opponent heard that you were a standout at a particular debate camp. If the debate camp is going to use you, make it reciprocal. Use debate camp to network and make people know not only who you are, but how hard you are willing to work to prepare a case.
There really is no point of going to debate camp if your only goal is to have fun and get away from your parents. Why? You can find plenty of trouble if you have no focus. Also, don’t forget, debaters are the most influential people in our society and most of them become prominent people in life. If you do negative things while attending debate camp it can come back to haunt you later in life when you decide you want to run for an office or perhaps become a debate coach somewhere. I hope you get the point.
To conclude, while attending debate camp, have a focus. Know what you want to accomplish and spend your time wisely trying to accomplish it. Most instructors truly want to teach and would like nothing better than to have students that really want to learn. Those students are the ones that make a difference and it will pay dividends down the road either in the form of winning a tournament or being successful in life.
The school year is already over for some and just about to end for others. If you are thinking about Debate Camp, it might be a good idea if you are into winning. If you really want to improve your odds of winning the TOC or Nationals, you really have no choice but to attend a prominent debate camp. I personally have issues with debate camps, but the facts don’t lie – if you want to win, you have to attend. Because of the money that can be made with holding these camps, they are very competitive. This means that their best form of advertising is by recognizing former students that have won major tournaments. Just look at some of the debate camp websites and view their list of students who have won some major tournament somewhere in the country. What this tells you is that it benefits a camp when their students can win a tournament. What if most of the judges at a tournament you attend are from a certain camp? Get it? You don’t stand a chance of winning a round when being judged by debate camp facilitators and your opponent attended the same debate camp.
What you need to do is figure out which debate camp has the most influence in your area and then sign up. Then, you have to make a noticeable difference. You have to stand out and make the instructors take note of how good you are. Once the rumors start, you can win rounds before you even begin debating simply because your opponent heard that you were a standout at a particular debate camp. If the debate camp is going to use you, make it reciprocal. Use debate camp to network and make people know not only who you are, but how hard you are willing to work to prepare a case.
There really is no point of going to debate camp if your only goal is to have fun and get away from your parents. Why? You can find plenty of trouble if you have no focus. Also, don’t forget, debaters are the most influential people in our society and most of them become prominent people in life. If you do negative things while attending debate camp it can come back to haunt you later in life when you decide you want to run for an office or perhaps become a debate coach somewhere. I hope you get the point.
To conclude, while attending debate camp, have a focus. Know what you want to accomplish and spend your time wisely trying to accomplish it. Most instructors truly want to teach and would like nothing better than to have students that really want to learn. Those students are the ones that make a difference and it will pay dividends down the road either in the form of winning a tournament or being successful in life.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
NFL Championship Topic Analysis
May 2, 2008
Resolved: Limiting economic inequality ought to be a more important social goal than maximizing economic freedom.
Since we didn’t participate in NFL this year, finally, I can actually analyze a topic and give you some insight on how to win. If you utilize my strategy you will have a 75% chance of winning your rounds and increase your odds of advancing to the elimination rounds. If you happen to do really well at nationals with my help, don’t forget to give me credit. I’m hoping this gets posted after all of the major briefs have already been packed and shipped out. This is because sometimes the briefs are off topic or a little misleading. However, since the majority of us are usually apathetic, few debaters will actually take the time to really research – instead they will rely on the misleading briefs and try and make it work. The case outlines I’m providing for you will give you a good shot at doing well because they are providing realistic outcomes.
When I do this for my team, I refuse to do the research for them. I’ll gladly supply them briefs but there is no way I will actually write a case for any of my debaters. My gift is that I understand what it takes to give you the best chance of winning. Whenever you are faced with making up an Affirmative and Negative case, you have to understand two things: 1) The cases need realistic benefits and must be inoffensive, and 2) They have to be able to beat each other. Whichever side you are on, you have to really believe that what you are saying is true because then you will look believable to the judges as the debate progresses and you should be able to withstand the daunting CX in a positive light. Research is the key because it’s the rebuttals that are going to win you the round, not the cases.
Topic Analysis
This topic is fairly easy. It’s basically stating that universally it would be better to be economically equal as opposed to being economically inequal. Thus, on a broader scale you are debating Socialism vs. Capitalism. Even if you don’t listen to me, if you focus your Aff case on why Socialism has its good points and your Neg case on why Capitalism is good – you’ll already increase your odds of winning without even reading further.
Affirmative Case
Since it’s asking for a social goal you can base your Paramount Value on Societal Good or Societal Welfare. The Criterion can be Equality or Maximizing Equality since the topic is asking to limit inequality. I always believe the simpler the better so that the judge has an idea of what they are about to hear. Now if you read my article on how to build a case, you will realize the case is already made. You can do your own definitions. The key words for you in the resolution are Social Goal. Remember this because when you promote economic freedom you are promoting selfishness which can be detrimental to achieving societal welfare.
Contention I – Societal welfare depends on the welfare of every class in the society.
In this contention you need to make the judge aware that if people are suffering then you don’t have societal welfare. Do your research and give examples of the struggling middle class trying to make ends meet. Then do the same thing for the lower class. For example, $4 for a gallon of gas means more to the middle and lower class than it does to the upper class. By the way you aren’t limited to the United States so you can show the problem in other countries as well. The goal is to show that with economic inequality you don’t have societal welfare.
Contention II - Maximizing economic freedom leads to selfishness.
This one should be easy because all you need to do is give examples of where greedy people can hurt a society. Enron is a great example but it would be nice if you could find others less popular. Look to athletes and compare their salaries with the average college graduate. How do you think it makes the college graduate feel? Also, take a look at these foreclosures. Why do you think there are so many? Do your research and you’ll find it’s because selfish people were buying and selling at outrageous prices for the sake of being economically free. It’s a never ending cycle of the rich using the disadvantage to get richer. Also, see if there is a correlation between the crime rate and economic disparity.
Contention III – Focusing on limiting economic inequality will promote societal welfare.
The wealth needs to be shared equitably. This is not happening so it’s up to you find examples of where the economically rich spread the wealth and improve morale. Perhaps a corporation that has profit sharing could be a start. Bill Gates is always a popular example but you need to focus on the results of the profit sharing. Perhaps having more means you’ll spend more as well. The goal here is to get the judge to understand that being less disadvantage financially could lead to a better society thus promoting societal welfare. Because there is no guarantee that the rich will spread the wealth, the government needs to do something to aid the process. The result could be a more productive society promoting societal welfare. Your task is to find examples proving this point.
Negative Case
In my opinion the Aff has the advantage because there is a huge disparity between the upper class and the middle class in the United States. Taxes hurt the middle class more than the upper class reducing any pay raise, if any, they may acquire. Odds are the majority of your judges are going to be in the middle class so you have to make sure your Neg case is something they can buy into without being offended. Why should we maximize economic freedom? It could lead to Progress or Advancement. Either one works. The Paramount Value can be Advancement and the Criterion could be Assiduity which means hard work and perseverance. The key words for you are Self Motivation because that’s what you need to try and be the best. Anything that could lead to an apathetic society shouldn’t be a social goal.
Contention I – Competition leads to Advancement.
In a capitalistic society, in order to be the best you have to continually stay on top of your competition. In doing so, your product has to be better than your opposition. The driving force behind this is profit seeking. Corporations have share holders they have to make happy. To prove this, find examples where through competition we have made major advancements. Medical advances would be ideal because that could relate to the judge as far as new medical cures are being discovered. I’m sure you can find plenty of technological advances to use – just make sure the ones you use made a major contribution to our society. The goal is to show that maximizing profit can lead to societal good by always striving to put out the most advanced products, which indirectly is your ultimate goal.
Contention II – Maximizing economic freedom leads to Assiduity.
Once again, in a capitalistic society, you have to work hard to gain an edge. You can’t be complacent. You might want to use an example of how Socialist are apathetic and have the opportunity to get something for doing nothing. You should be rewarded for your hard work, and in this society that reward is profit. Once you start being forced to share the profits, you might not be as hungry to gain an edge as you once were. Since it’s a universal topic, just look to the fact that the United States is one of the Super Powers and the leader when it comes to advancements. All societies have problems but on a larger scale it’s worth it to maximize economic freedom in order to continue to advance at the highest level. The goal is to get the judge to understand that the wealthy earned that right and we all have the opportunity to become wealthy by working hard. Don’t forget that the capitalistic country doesn’t have to be the United States. It can also be a utopian society where everyone actually has an equal chance to become wealthy.
If you noticed, I laid a case out for you but did not make it word for word. Therefore, if one were to use these ideas, there will obviously be several variations. If you do your research and follow these tag lines, you will put yourself in a good position to advance to the out rounds. Each case makes it very clear why you need to vote for it. The key is research and analysis. Also, I wish I could help you during the CX but it’s your job to understand the case well enough to stand up to the CX. Also, these are straight up cases with no gimmicks or hidden cards. All you need for each contention is one or two really good examples and thoroughly research them so you can refute whatever your opponent throws at you. Also, think about changing your examples from round to round if you have more than two. Good luck!
Resolved: Limiting economic inequality ought to be a more important social goal than maximizing economic freedom.
Since we didn’t participate in NFL this year, finally, I can actually analyze a topic and give you some insight on how to win. If you utilize my strategy you will have a 75% chance of winning your rounds and increase your odds of advancing to the elimination rounds. If you happen to do really well at nationals with my help, don’t forget to give me credit. I’m hoping this gets posted after all of the major briefs have already been packed and shipped out. This is because sometimes the briefs are off topic or a little misleading. However, since the majority of us are usually apathetic, few debaters will actually take the time to really research – instead they will rely on the misleading briefs and try and make it work. The case outlines I’m providing for you will give you a good shot at doing well because they are providing realistic outcomes.
When I do this for my team, I refuse to do the research for them. I’ll gladly supply them briefs but there is no way I will actually write a case for any of my debaters. My gift is that I understand what it takes to give you the best chance of winning. Whenever you are faced with making up an Affirmative and Negative case, you have to understand two things: 1) The cases need realistic benefits and must be inoffensive, and 2) They have to be able to beat each other. Whichever side you are on, you have to really believe that what you are saying is true because then you will look believable to the judges as the debate progresses and you should be able to withstand the daunting CX in a positive light. Research is the key because it’s the rebuttals that are going to win you the round, not the cases.
Topic Analysis
This topic is fairly easy. It’s basically stating that universally it would be better to be economically equal as opposed to being economically inequal. Thus, on a broader scale you are debating Socialism vs. Capitalism. Even if you don’t listen to me, if you focus your Aff case on why Socialism has its good points and your Neg case on why Capitalism is good – you’ll already increase your odds of winning without even reading further.
Affirmative Case
Since it’s asking for a social goal you can base your Paramount Value on Societal Good or Societal Welfare. The Criterion can be Equality or Maximizing Equality since the topic is asking to limit inequality. I always believe the simpler the better so that the judge has an idea of what they are about to hear. Now if you read my article on how to build a case, you will realize the case is already made. You can do your own definitions. The key words for you in the resolution are Social Goal. Remember this because when you promote economic freedom you are promoting selfishness which can be detrimental to achieving societal welfare.
Contention I – Societal welfare depends on the welfare of every class in the society.
In this contention you need to make the judge aware that if people are suffering then you don’t have societal welfare. Do your research and give examples of the struggling middle class trying to make ends meet. Then do the same thing for the lower class. For example, $4 for a gallon of gas means more to the middle and lower class than it does to the upper class. By the way you aren’t limited to the United States so you can show the problem in other countries as well. The goal is to show that with economic inequality you don’t have societal welfare.
Contention II - Maximizing economic freedom leads to selfishness.
This one should be easy because all you need to do is give examples of where greedy people can hurt a society. Enron is a great example but it would be nice if you could find others less popular. Look to athletes and compare their salaries with the average college graduate. How do you think it makes the college graduate feel? Also, take a look at these foreclosures. Why do you think there are so many? Do your research and you’ll find it’s because selfish people were buying and selling at outrageous prices for the sake of being economically free. It’s a never ending cycle of the rich using the disadvantage to get richer. Also, see if there is a correlation between the crime rate and economic disparity.
Contention III – Focusing on limiting economic inequality will promote societal welfare.
The wealth needs to be shared equitably. This is not happening so it’s up to you find examples of where the economically rich spread the wealth and improve morale. Perhaps a corporation that has profit sharing could be a start. Bill Gates is always a popular example but you need to focus on the results of the profit sharing. Perhaps having more means you’ll spend more as well. The goal here is to get the judge to understand that being less disadvantage financially could lead to a better society thus promoting societal welfare. Because there is no guarantee that the rich will spread the wealth, the government needs to do something to aid the process. The result could be a more productive society promoting societal welfare. Your task is to find examples proving this point.
Negative Case
In my opinion the Aff has the advantage because there is a huge disparity between the upper class and the middle class in the United States. Taxes hurt the middle class more than the upper class reducing any pay raise, if any, they may acquire. Odds are the majority of your judges are going to be in the middle class so you have to make sure your Neg case is something they can buy into without being offended. Why should we maximize economic freedom? It could lead to Progress or Advancement. Either one works. The Paramount Value can be Advancement and the Criterion could be Assiduity which means hard work and perseverance. The key words for you are Self Motivation because that’s what you need to try and be the best. Anything that could lead to an apathetic society shouldn’t be a social goal.
Contention I – Competition leads to Advancement.
In a capitalistic society, in order to be the best you have to continually stay on top of your competition. In doing so, your product has to be better than your opposition. The driving force behind this is profit seeking. Corporations have share holders they have to make happy. To prove this, find examples where through competition we have made major advancements. Medical advances would be ideal because that could relate to the judge as far as new medical cures are being discovered. I’m sure you can find plenty of technological advances to use – just make sure the ones you use made a major contribution to our society. The goal is to show that maximizing profit can lead to societal good by always striving to put out the most advanced products, which indirectly is your ultimate goal.
Contention II – Maximizing economic freedom leads to Assiduity.
Once again, in a capitalistic society, you have to work hard to gain an edge. You can’t be complacent. You might want to use an example of how Socialist are apathetic and have the opportunity to get something for doing nothing. You should be rewarded for your hard work, and in this society that reward is profit. Once you start being forced to share the profits, you might not be as hungry to gain an edge as you once were. Since it’s a universal topic, just look to the fact that the United States is one of the Super Powers and the leader when it comes to advancements. All societies have problems but on a larger scale it’s worth it to maximize economic freedom in order to continue to advance at the highest level. The goal is to get the judge to understand that the wealthy earned that right and we all have the opportunity to become wealthy by working hard. Don’t forget that the capitalistic country doesn’t have to be the United States. It can also be a utopian society where everyone actually has an equal chance to become wealthy.
If you noticed, I laid a case out for you but did not make it word for word. Therefore, if one were to use these ideas, there will obviously be several variations. If you do your research and follow these tag lines, you will put yourself in a good position to advance to the out rounds. Each case makes it very clear why you need to vote for it. The key is research and analysis. Also, I wish I could help you during the CX but it’s your job to understand the case well enough to stand up to the CX. Also, these are straight up cases with no gimmicks or hidden cards. All you need for each contention is one or two really good examples and thoroughly research them so you can refute whatever your opponent throws at you. Also, think about changing your examples from round to round if you have more than two. Good luck!
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
My Two Favorite TOC Debaters
April 6, 2008
There was a time when TOC debaters actually debated. My two favorite were Max Stevens from Green Valley HS in Vegas and Ryan Lawrence from my school. When these two tangled, it was fun to watch. I’m sure they debated each other more than the three times I witnessed, but the ones I saw always came down to the last speech. What made these two standouts was their ability to articulate at a fast rate without crossing over into Policy spreading. Not to mention, they both maintained the traditional style of debating where they defended and attacked everything.
The first time I saw these two go at it was at USC when USC had a finals bid. I judged Max in an earlier round and dropped him because although he was definitely the better debater, his opponent gave him an argument that he didn’t handle very well. My team at that time was heavily into TOC and was mad at me because I dropped MAX STEVENS, the guy with umpteen bids. But remember, I base everything on turns so it really didn’t matter how many bids he had. When I judged, everything was based on the arguments. But even though Max had a 4-2 record, he still made his way to the Finals and earned another bid along with my guy – Ryan Lawrence. Max was a natural and Ryan was the researcher and I knew based on the earlier round that Ryan had a big advantage. The problem was Ryan was so intimidated by Max he didn’t have a chance in that final round. When I saw it, I really felt that Ryan had done everything right to win the round and it definitely came down to the last speech. However, Ryan began his last speech with, “Even though I’ve already lost, I’ll still try to provide a closing speech.” If you are reading this, this is a no-no. You never admit defeat, never. I was so mad because he had a panel of TOC judges that were probably going to give Max the win anyway – but I wanted to see what arguments they felt Max won. With his last opening statement, he took the pressure off of them because now they could use that as an excuse to give Max the win.
The second time I saw them debate was at Long Beach the following year. Long Beach no longer had a bid but still some of the best debaters in the country were there for practice. Since all of my judges had to leave, I had to judge the elimination rounds if they needed me. Sure enough I had to judge the Quarter-Finals when I found out that Ryan and Max were going to hit. I paid a former student who was a hired judge for another school to judge for me so I could see this rematch. I really wanted Ryan to win this round. Since Ryan learned his lesson and no longer admitted defeat but went down fighting, Max had to earn this victory. So once again they went at it just the way I liked it – right down the flow. Even though Max refuted all the arguments, his weakness became evident. Since Ryan did his research, he easily turned Max’s arguments while Max struggled to reciprocate. It was obvious to me that Ryan won but it was up to the TOC judges to determine a winner. Yes, Ryan won and went on to win the tournament.
The final time I saw them debate was the Semi-Finals at Stanford. Once again, they both earned their bids so it was just really for bragging rights now. If you have ever seen Max debate, then you know that he could be really intimidating. One thing I saw him do that I liked was before the round he would chat with you and get you to admit which side was your favorite. Then, if he won the toss, he would choose that side. Also, Max was good at dominating the CX, so if you had any chance of beating him, you had to be able to withstand his 3 minutes of grueling non-stop interrogation. Ryan, because of his knowledge and research skills, was actually able to neutralize Max’s intimidation because he gave all the right answers. In order to beat Max, you really had to know your case because he would exploit any weakness, no matter how small, your case had. For this round they were fortunate enough to have as one of their judges the debate coach of Stanford. To prove how talented he was, he said he would flow the round on a bubble gum wrapper. I’m not that talented; I would have to do it on a post-it. This round was really close but Ryan once again provided the better turns and it was just a matter of how the TOC judges saw it. Oh yes, Ryan won again and went on to win the tournament. He actually tied for the win because both finalists agreed that 1:00am was too late to debate and agreed to close the tournament out.
These two were my favorites because you knew when they met it was going to be a battle. It was also enjoyable because you could comprehend everything they said and their arguments were crystal clear. Remember, if you want be one of the elite, you have to try and debate everything.
There was a time when TOC debaters actually debated. My two favorite were Max Stevens from Green Valley HS in Vegas and Ryan Lawrence from my school. When these two tangled, it was fun to watch. I’m sure they debated each other more than the three times I witnessed, but the ones I saw always came down to the last speech. What made these two standouts was their ability to articulate at a fast rate without crossing over into Policy spreading. Not to mention, they both maintained the traditional style of debating where they defended and attacked everything.
The first time I saw these two go at it was at USC when USC had a finals bid. I judged Max in an earlier round and dropped him because although he was definitely the better debater, his opponent gave him an argument that he didn’t handle very well. My team at that time was heavily into TOC and was mad at me because I dropped MAX STEVENS, the guy with umpteen bids. But remember, I base everything on turns so it really didn’t matter how many bids he had. When I judged, everything was based on the arguments. But even though Max had a 4-2 record, he still made his way to the Finals and earned another bid along with my guy – Ryan Lawrence. Max was a natural and Ryan was the researcher and I knew based on the earlier round that Ryan had a big advantage. The problem was Ryan was so intimidated by Max he didn’t have a chance in that final round. When I saw it, I really felt that Ryan had done everything right to win the round and it definitely came down to the last speech. However, Ryan began his last speech with, “Even though I’ve already lost, I’ll still try to provide a closing speech.” If you are reading this, this is a no-no. You never admit defeat, never. I was so mad because he had a panel of TOC judges that were probably going to give Max the win anyway – but I wanted to see what arguments they felt Max won. With his last opening statement, he took the pressure off of them because now they could use that as an excuse to give Max the win.
The second time I saw them debate was at Long Beach the following year. Long Beach no longer had a bid but still some of the best debaters in the country were there for practice. Since all of my judges had to leave, I had to judge the elimination rounds if they needed me. Sure enough I had to judge the Quarter-Finals when I found out that Ryan and Max were going to hit. I paid a former student who was a hired judge for another school to judge for me so I could see this rematch. I really wanted Ryan to win this round. Since Ryan learned his lesson and no longer admitted defeat but went down fighting, Max had to earn this victory. So once again they went at it just the way I liked it – right down the flow. Even though Max refuted all the arguments, his weakness became evident. Since Ryan did his research, he easily turned Max’s arguments while Max struggled to reciprocate. It was obvious to me that Ryan won but it was up to the TOC judges to determine a winner. Yes, Ryan won and went on to win the tournament.
The final time I saw them debate was the Semi-Finals at Stanford. Once again, they both earned their bids so it was just really for bragging rights now. If you have ever seen Max debate, then you know that he could be really intimidating. One thing I saw him do that I liked was before the round he would chat with you and get you to admit which side was your favorite. Then, if he won the toss, he would choose that side. Also, Max was good at dominating the CX, so if you had any chance of beating him, you had to be able to withstand his 3 minutes of grueling non-stop interrogation. Ryan, because of his knowledge and research skills, was actually able to neutralize Max’s intimidation because he gave all the right answers. In order to beat Max, you really had to know your case because he would exploit any weakness, no matter how small, your case had. For this round they were fortunate enough to have as one of their judges the debate coach of Stanford. To prove how talented he was, he said he would flow the round on a bubble gum wrapper. I’m not that talented; I would have to do it on a post-it. This round was really close but Ryan once again provided the better turns and it was just a matter of how the TOC judges saw it. Oh yes, Ryan won again and went on to win the tournament. He actually tied for the win because both finalists agreed that 1:00am was too late to debate and agreed to close the tournament out.
These two were my favorites because you knew when they met it was going to be a battle. It was also enjoyable because you could comprehend everything they said and their arguments were crystal clear. Remember, if you want be one of the elite, you have to try and debate everything.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Why Am I Not Qualified to Judge TOC Debaters?
March 2, 2008
I just finished competing at my favorite tournament, Stanford, and for the 1st time I put myself in the Varsity Pool so that I could become more of an expert on the TOC style of debating. To my surprise every time the ballots were laid out, my name was no where to be found. But when you have a judge that has coached for 23 years and has coached students that have won at every tournament we attend (including Stanford) with the exception of the Varsity Division of Berkeley and the State tournament, wouldn’t you think that any school would be happy to have me as a judge – apparently not. However, because they were short on judges, I did happen to get a few varsity scraps and then I began to realize why I’m an outcast. I’m an LD traditionalist and most TOC debaters are merely fast talkers that spew out meaningless rhetoric.
What’s an LD traditionalist? It’s a judge that likes debaters that can defend their case and attack their opponent’s case in a structured manner. The TOC debaters that I have encountered no longer have the skills to refute arguments. Therefore, they spend most of their time using silly techniques in order to avoid debating like Off Cases, Spikes, Overviews, Underviews, and let’s not forget Spreading. To top it off, there are TOC judges and coaches encouraging these techniques so now it has become a norm. But if I’m judging the round, at least you know where you stand. If you can’t turn arguments or you continually avoid arguments, odds are you will lose my ballot. If it’s a TOC judge, you have a chance because all you need is one good argument to drop your opponent’s case. Never mind that your opponent supplied you with great examples, those examples no longer matter because in your Observation #24 you stated that “examples don’t matter.” Since your opponent didn’t contest it, you now win. How does this encourage good debating? Also, how do you pick a winner when both sides avoid arguing? Even the TOC judges can’t get it right half the time. With this style of debating, I firmly believe the TOC judge needs to intervene after both CX’s, and tell both debaters which arguments are most important so at least they know what the criteria is to win. When the round is over, most TOC debaters don’t even know why they won or lost the round. Even if you dominate your opponent, you could still lose because of Observation #24.
Now let’s look at the problem I saw with this latest topic, “Resolved: It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat.” Every time the Aff supplied solid reasoning as to why this it true, the Neg would run and hide from the examples and claim it didn’t matter. For example, terrorist have proven that they are dangerous so any nation harboring terrorist definitely shouldn’t be allowed to have access to nuclear weapons. Most Negs never wanted to touch this argument. How can you win a round if you can’t at least justify why a nation harboring terrorist should be allowed to have nuclear weapons? However, Negs were winning by claiming terrorist are not a part of the debate. Are you kidding me? Now let’s look to the Neg. The biggest example the Neg was using was the Iraq War as an example of the catastrophe you can create when you use hard power. Most Aff’s didn’t want any part of this example so they either ignored it or brought out a card that claimed hard power is always best. I squirreled in a round where I picked the Neg because they came the closest to a traditionalist, and the other two judges picked the Aff – even though the Aff dropped the Neg case – because the hard power card that was used cancelled out the Neg’s case. Once again, are you kidding me? How is it possible to win by avoiding arguments or speaking so fast that your opponent can’t catch everything? How is that even debating? Also, how does one argument knock out an entire case?
At any rate, I now feel I’m even more qualified to judge than TOC judges. The only problem is that if I’m your judge, you have to actually debate because I don’t decide winners based on silly techniques.
I just finished competing at my favorite tournament, Stanford, and for the 1st time I put myself in the Varsity Pool so that I could become more of an expert on the TOC style of debating. To my surprise every time the ballots were laid out, my name was no where to be found. But when you have a judge that has coached for 23 years and has coached students that have won at every tournament we attend (including Stanford) with the exception of the Varsity Division of Berkeley and the State tournament, wouldn’t you think that any school would be happy to have me as a judge – apparently not. However, because they were short on judges, I did happen to get a few varsity scraps and then I began to realize why I’m an outcast. I’m an LD traditionalist and most TOC debaters are merely fast talkers that spew out meaningless rhetoric.
What’s an LD traditionalist? It’s a judge that likes debaters that can defend their case and attack their opponent’s case in a structured manner. The TOC debaters that I have encountered no longer have the skills to refute arguments. Therefore, they spend most of their time using silly techniques in order to avoid debating like Off Cases, Spikes, Overviews, Underviews, and let’s not forget Spreading. To top it off, there are TOC judges and coaches encouraging these techniques so now it has become a norm. But if I’m judging the round, at least you know where you stand. If you can’t turn arguments or you continually avoid arguments, odds are you will lose my ballot. If it’s a TOC judge, you have a chance because all you need is one good argument to drop your opponent’s case. Never mind that your opponent supplied you with great examples, those examples no longer matter because in your Observation #24 you stated that “examples don’t matter.” Since your opponent didn’t contest it, you now win. How does this encourage good debating? Also, how do you pick a winner when both sides avoid arguing? Even the TOC judges can’t get it right half the time. With this style of debating, I firmly believe the TOC judge needs to intervene after both CX’s, and tell both debaters which arguments are most important so at least they know what the criteria is to win. When the round is over, most TOC debaters don’t even know why they won or lost the round. Even if you dominate your opponent, you could still lose because of Observation #24.
Now let’s look at the problem I saw with this latest topic, “Resolved: It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat.” Every time the Aff supplied solid reasoning as to why this it true, the Neg would run and hide from the examples and claim it didn’t matter. For example, terrorist have proven that they are dangerous so any nation harboring terrorist definitely shouldn’t be allowed to have access to nuclear weapons. Most Negs never wanted to touch this argument. How can you win a round if you can’t at least justify why a nation harboring terrorist should be allowed to have nuclear weapons? However, Negs were winning by claiming terrorist are not a part of the debate. Are you kidding me? Now let’s look to the Neg. The biggest example the Neg was using was the Iraq War as an example of the catastrophe you can create when you use hard power. Most Aff’s didn’t want any part of this example so they either ignored it or brought out a card that claimed hard power is always best. I squirreled in a round where I picked the Neg because they came the closest to a traditionalist, and the other two judges picked the Aff – even though the Aff dropped the Neg case – because the hard power card that was used cancelled out the Neg’s case. Once again, are you kidding me? How is it possible to win by avoiding arguments or speaking so fast that your opponent can’t catch everything? How is that even debating? Also, how does one argument knock out an entire case?
At any rate, I now feel I’m even more qualified to judge than TOC judges. The only problem is that if I’m your judge, you have to actually debate because I don’t decide winners based on silly techniques.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Cross Examination Strategy
February 1, 2008
This article will focus on how to use the CX in LD to your advantage. If you read the previous articles on how to build a case, this strategy will be based on those cases. The topic was “Resolved: The best form of government is one that is based on Utilitarianism.” The Aff case focuses on Utilitarianism (the greater good for the greater number) and the Neg case focuses on Categorical Imperative (being just on both sides). Remember, before doing anything else, make sure you understand your opponent’s case. You must make sure you clarify everything you didn’t catch during their speech. Don’t let your ego cause you a defeat simply because you are too embarrassed to admit you didn’t hear everything. Hopefully it won’t take up all 3 minutes but if it does at least you know what you have to argue.
Next, it’s time for the feeler questions. Let’s see if your opponent really understands their case or are they simply just borrowing a teammate's case. Begin asking them to explain terminology and cards. A strategy I like here is if your opponent doesn’t know the meaning of certain words or cards, then you tell them what it means in a way that benefits you. For example, you have a categorized set of blocks and begin trapping your opponent into admitting that the cards they read fit into a certain block. To translate, I have several blocks or arguments proving why democracy is good. Since my opponent doesn’t fully understand the card he read for Categorical Imperative, I get him to admit that it’s simply just saying that democracy is bad. Now, all I need to do is show that democracy is good using one of my cards to defeat his card. Another one of my favorites is when you can get your opponent to admit that all the sub points he just read in his first contention can all fit into one category. All you need to do now is group all of those arguments together and defeat them with one argument. Finally, there is the sucker question. The Neg asks, “If I can give one example where democracy is unjust, do I win the round? The Aff answers, “Yes.” Now everything is based on one example and the cases no longer matter. Why are these feeler questions? If your opponent knows what he’s talking about, it’s going to be a challenging round because he isn’t going to answer the way that you would like. If he does fall into your trap, there’s a chance you can relax a little bit and have some fun at the same time.
Finally, it’s time for the best part. Only experienced debaters can usually do this part well because they actually understand their cases well enough to use set up questions. When we look to the Aff, it’s proving that democracy is the best form of government because it utilizes utilitarianism. You need to develop questions that prove this point. For example, is it easy to change laws in a democracy? How about in a dictatorship? When looking at all forms of existing governments, isn’t democracy the most just? If done right, these questions can help make your case stronger that utilitarian governments are best. Now look to the Neg. It’s proving that there is another form of government that is more just, categorical imperative. The problem is this form of government only exists in a utopian world. However, there is nothing wrong with striving to be perfect so these types of cases always have an appeal. Your questions need to find flaws in the status quo that the perfect society wouldn’t have to face. For example, couldn’t there be a style of government that’s better than utilitarian ideology? The resolution doesn’t say it has to actually exist does it? If the minority is continually outvoted, how is that just? Is the Patriot Act just even though it involves racial profiling? These questions can help set up the fact that injustices exist on one side and with categorical imperative it would happen less making it more just.
Hopefully this article has brought an awareness that there is a strategy to CX. It’s not just asking random questions to fill time. It’s about asking questions that all have a purpose.
This article will focus on how to use the CX in LD to your advantage. If you read the previous articles on how to build a case, this strategy will be based on those cases. The topic was “Resolved: The best form of government is one that is based on Utilitarianism.” The Aff case focuses on Utilitarianism (the greater good for the greater number) and the Neg case focuses on Categorical Imperative (being just on both sides). Remember, before doing anything else, make sure you understand your opponent’s case. You must make sure you clarify everything you didn’t catch during their speech. Don’t let your ego cause you a defeat simply because you are too embarrassed to admit you didn’t hear everything. Hopefully it won’t take up all 3 minutes but if it does at least you know what you have to argue.
Next, it’s time for the feeler questions. Let’s see if your opponent really understands their case or are they simply just borrowing a teammate's case. Begin asking them to explain terminology and cards. A strategy I like here is if your opponent doesn’t know the meaning of certain words or cards, then you tell them what it means in a way that benefits you. For example, you have a categorized set of blocks and begin trapping your opponent into admitting that the cards they read fit into a certain block. To translate, I have several blocks or arguments proving why democracy is good. Since my opponent doesn’t fully understand the card he read for Categorical Imperative, I get him to admit that it’s simply just saying that democracy is bad. Now, all I need to do is show that democracy is good using one of my cards to defeat his card. Another one of my favorites is when you can get your opponent to admit that all the sub points he just read in his first contention can all fit into one category. All you need to do now is group all of those arguments together and defeat them with one argument. Finally, there is the sucker question. The Neg asks, “If I can give one example where democracy is unjust, do I win the round? The Aff answers, “Yes.” Now everything is based on one example and the cases no longer matter. Why are these feeler questions? If your opponent knows what he’s talking about, it’s going to be a challenging round because he isn’t going to answer the way that you would like. If he does fall into your trap, there’s a chance you can relax a little bit and have some fun at the same time.
Finally, it’s time for the best part. Only experienced debaters can usually do this part well because they actually understand their cases well enough to use set up questions. When we look to the Aff, it’s proving that democracy is the best form of government because it utilizes utilitarianism. You need to develop questions that prove this point. For example, is it easy to change laws in a democracy? How about in a dictatorship? When looking at all forms of existing governments, isn’t democracy the most just? If done right, these questions can help make your case stronger that utilitarian governments are best. Now look to the Neg. It’s proving that there is another form of government that is more just, categorical imperative. The problem is this form of government only exists in a utopian world. However, there is nothing wrong with striving to be perfect so these types of cases always have an appeal. Your questions need to find flaws in the status quo that the perfect society wouldn’t have to face. For example, couldn’t there be a style of government that’s better than utilitarian ideology? The resolution doesn’t say it has to actually exist does it? If the minority is continually outvoted, how is that just? Is the Patriot Act just even though it involves racial profiling? These questions can help set up the fact that injustices exist on one side and with categorical imperative it would happen less making it more just.
Hopefully this article has brought an awareness that there is a strategy to CX. It’s not just asking random questions to fill time. It’s about asking questions that all have a purpose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
