The JRob Technique - I Dare You!

October 2, 2009

If you are preparing for State or Nationals – remember that for those tournaments you still need to be somewhat of a traditionalist where you try and be articulate and argue everything. However, for TOC, if you are tired of Off Cases, critiques, Overviews, and Underviews, I have a strategy I dare you to try. If you are not winning anyway it can’t hurt. I’ve seen this strategy done before on the Negative side but never the Affirmative side but I think it can be utilized on both sides. Of course it can be perfected but I am just throwing this out to see if anyone has enough nerve to try it.

The problem I have with some TOC rounds is that there never really is a debate. It’s usually two debaters spitting out ideas with no real clash. Also, there really is no way to figure out what the judge is looking for until the round is over. For example, you lost because you spent too much time on the critique when you should have focused on the standard. Here’s a way to fix it. I’ll start with the AFF and then the Neg.

For the AFF, during your 6 minute Constructive you simply read your case like normal. Then the Neg will recite their case and somewhat rebut your case. Then it’s time for the JRob technique. During your 4 minute 1AR you simply focus on voting issues. You force the Neg to argue the points you feel are important. For this to work best, you need to choose 2 Neg arguments and 2 Aff arguments you feel are really important and drop everything else. Tell the judge, if you dare, that if your opponent can win those arguments then they can win the round. Once done, all that matters are those 4 arguments and the off cases or critiques no longer come into play unless it’s one of your 4 arguments. This, in my opinion, is the only way to slow the debate down and actually force your opponent to debate an issue. Also, it should make it easier for the judge to decide the winner because they know what arguments to focus on. When the Neg does their NR, they must focus on the arguments you listed. Drops no longer matter because you made it clear that the debate rests on those 4 arguments. During your 2AR you simply rebut your opponents arguments. If I’m judging, and the Neg refused to buy into this concept, the Aff would win because the Neg was trying to escape debating. The point being that with this technique the AFF forces his opponent to debate specific arguments rather than just spewing out rhetoric. Also, you could choose more than 4 arguments to define the round but it’s important that at least 2 or 3 arguments come off of the Neg case so you avoid being abusive.

For the Neg, you would do this strategy during the NR. During your NC, you should deliver your case and try to rebut the Aff’s case. Unless the Aff uses my strategy and gives you voting issues in the 1AR, then you are free to spend the entire 6 minutes solely on voting issues that you feel the round should evolve around. Make the judge aware that these are the arguments you feel are the most important and should be addressed in the Aff’s 2AR. I think 5-7 arguments are sufficient because you want to allow the Aff time to address them. This is not about trying to spread your opponent out; it’s about trying to have an actual debate. Just like the Aff, you want to at least choose 2-3 arguments from both cases to avoid being abusive. If I’m judging and the Aff refuses to address those arguments but brings up some of his own in the 2AR, you would win the round.

For both techniques, it needs to be clear for both your opponent and judges that you feel that everything should be based on the designated arguments you have chosen and whoever argues them better should win the round. Obviously, you have to be very confident in your debating skills to try this technique because you are forcing your opponent to actually debate. Also, all of the arguments should still center around the standard (criteria) and the paramount value. If you try it, I hope it works out for you and watch out because you never know when one of my students may try this.

A Case against Spreading in LD

September 1, 2009

Because one of my normal tournament stops, USC, is now picking up a Finals TOC bid, it would appear spreading is going to become a more controversial topic when it comes to LD. I’ve lost all interest in TOC, however, it looks like we’re going to go head to head for most of the season. I intentionally stayed away from TOC tournaments because spreading has reached the same level as Policy spreading which is ludicrous. If spreaders win, it only makes matters worse. The only people that can change this are the debaters themselves because it appears the coaches feel this is an advantage which means it’s not going away anytime soon. This article is going to try and provide you with reasons why you should rethink spreading in LD.

It’s well documented that Policy is dropping rapidly. It would seem that only the Policy people understand why they need to spread at such a ridiculous rate. It’s never going to end because once a Policy debater becomes a coach, he’ll insist that his students spread as well. For this very reason, I don’t coach Policy because I know that for my kids to stand a chance they will have to spread. This is what needs to be understood. I stay away from Policy because it’s already understood that you must spread in order to do well in that category. Therefore, I coach LD where the speaking is at least articulate and you don’t have to take deep breaths in order to complete a thought. However, because Policy is dying out, Policy debaters are now moving to LD and treating it like Policy. If you’re going to do LD, then you need to play by LD rules. Nowhere does it say that you can’t spread in LD, but Policy and LD are two different styles of debating and spreading doesn’t work for LD. If you are an LD debater, you need to understand that Policy spreading needs to stop because you can’t spread abstract thoughts.

Policy is factually based vs. LD that is philosophically based. You can’t spread the ideas of Kant and have the judge catch everything. Abstract thoughts need time to be digested slowly in order to truly understand the concept. When it comes out with rapid fire there is no way a judge has time to internalize what he has just heard. All you need to do is compare the Final 2008 LD round of the NFL and the Final 2008 TOC round. In my opinion, the NFL final round was better because there was an actual debate taking place that could be understood by the average person. Watch the TOC final and tell me how many average people could actually follow what was going on. Infact, the AFF seemed to be off topic but because she was Policy spreading it took a while to actually break down her case. I would be embarrassed to be an organization with a final round where there really was no debate. Policy strategy doesn’t work for LD, especially if you have a judge like me that wants to see an actual debate.

I’m somewhat of a hypocrite on this topic because although I can’t stand spreading, I’d prefer a policy judge over any other type of judge simply because they can flow better. But when it comes to choosing a winner, Policy judges really don’t have a clue on how to do it except by keeping track of the number of cards read by each side. Card stacking may work in Policy, but it shouldn’t in LD simply because you can group all of those cards together and make one big argument. Dates don’t matter either because you are arguing ideology not facts. So when someone can read 30 cards in their 6 minute speech that shouldn’t guarantee a win simply because the other side didn’t have time to argue all 30 cards. If the other side at least acknowledges that there were 30 cards and can group them into categories and make arguments against those categories, I would find that totally acceptable. I don’t believe you can spread a person out in LD like you can in Policy. The Policy people of course would disagree and therein lies the problem.

It would really be nice if the TOC organization made a stand against spreading and put a stop to this nonsense. LD was at one time a forum where parents or any person off the streets could judge and at least somewhat follow what was going on. Eventually, it’s just going to begin dwindling like Policy because it will be hard to find judges that can actually follow what the students are saying. All it takes is one non spreader to start winning and things will begin to change.