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.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
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.
Friday, December 1, 2006
Terrible Turns
December 10, 2006
There are two LD turns that turn my stomach.
One is when an opponent says, “This argument doesn’t make sense,” without any explanation. If that is the turn of choice, shouldn’t there at least be a reason given as to why that is true. Saying it doesn’t make it so. When a debater puts a case together, I firmly believe that whatever is in it has a point and purpose. So every argument makes sense and the opponent must show through reason and logic why it’s not applicable.
The other turn that bothers me is the one I primarily want to discuss at length. This is when the term “Abusive” is used. I don’t know who invented this term or why it is even a part of LD debate, but hopefully after this article, it will be used less and less. The theory is that if both sides can’t use the Criteria to their advantage, that’s an abuse. But isn’t debate by definition, a conflict of interest. Neither side needs to worry about whether their opponent can use their Critieria or not; the important thing is making a case which can be proven true through logic and real life examples. For example, I want Societal Good. In order to get it I want Unlimited Freedom. So through Unlimited Freedom, I get Societal Good. My opponent also wants Societal Good but it can only come with Restrictions to Freedom. Well according to the theory we can’t debate because our Criteria can’t be used on both sides. So what should I do, not debate and lose the round? Or should I cry abuse all through the debate and hope a TOC judge will agree? No, I should show why I best provide for Societal Good and how giving Unlimited Freedom is the best way to do it as compared to Restricting Freedom. Why don’t I just use Maximization of Freedom and solve the problem for everybody? I don’t want to because it would change the meaning of my case in order to make my opponent happy. Maximization of Freedom still implies that there are restrictions. That feeds right into my opponent’s case. Why should I give my opponent ammunition to use against me? It doesn’t make sense.
Now let’s apply this theory to real life. A democrat wants to run for office on the grounds that he wants the troops pulled out of Iraq. However, his republican counterpart wants to keep the troops in Iraq. Oh no, so now they have to debate. The democrat claims that by pulling troops out we can bring about Societal Good in the US. The republican claims that keeping troops in Iraq is the best way to provide Societal Good. They both want societal good, but should the democrat refuse to debate because he can’t use “keeping the troops in Iraq” as his criteria? Are you kidding? If that happened, he obviously would have no chance of being elected. I know! Why doesn’t he just use the Maximization of Troops? This way both of them could decide how best to maximize the use of troops. This wouldn’t work either because the democrat wants a complete pull out and by using Maximization of Troops, it suggests that there may not be a complete pull out. It also changes the intent of the democratic stance from one on a complete pull out to one on how should the troops be utilized. This would greatly favor the republican who wants to utilize the troops in Iraq. The point being, there is no such thing as an abusive Criteria. If the opponent feels he can’t debate because of the criteria, he probably doesn’t even understand his own case that well. Imagine our politicians crying foul because their opponents are giving them arguments that are abusive.
Learn to turn and avoid this problem.
There are two LD turns that turn my stomach.
One is when an opponent says, “This argument doesn’t make sense,” without any explanation. If that is the turn of choice, shouldn’t there at least be a reason given as to why that is true. Saying it doesn’t make it so. When a debater puts a case together, I firmly believe that whatever is in it has a point and purpose. So every argument makes sense and the opponent must show through reason and logic why it’s not applicable.
The other turn that bothers me is the one I primarily want to discuss at length. This is when the term “Abusive” is used. I don’t know who invented this term or why it is even a part of LD debate, but hopefully after this article, it will be used less and less. The theory is that if both sides can’t use the Criteria to their advantage, that’s an abuse. But isn’t debate by definition, a conflict of interest. Neither side needs to worry about whether their opponent can use their Critieria or not; the important thing is making a case which can be proven true through logic and real life examples. For example, I want Societal Good. In order to get it I want Unlimited Freedom. So through Unlimited Freedom, I get Societal Good. My opponent also wants Societal Good but it can only come with Restrictions to Freedom. Well according to the theory we can’t debate because our Criteria can’t be used on both sides. So what should I do, not debate and lose the round? Or should I cry abuse all through the debate and hope a TOC judge will agree? No, I should show why I best provide for Societal Good and how giving Unlimited Freedom is the best way to do it as compared to Restricting Freedom. Why don’t I just use Maximization of Freedom and solve the problem for everybody? I don’t want to because it would change the meaning of my case in order to make my opponent happy. Maximization of Freedom still implies that there are restrictions. That feeds right into my opponent’s case. Why should I give my opponent ammunition to use against me? It doesn’t make sense.
Now let’s apply this theory to real life. A democrat wants to run for office on the grounds that he wants the troops pulled out of Iraq. However, his republican counterpart wants to keep the troops in Iraq. Oh no, so now they have to debate. The democrat claims that by pulling troops out we can bring about Societal Good in the US. The republican claims that keeping troops in Iraq is the best way to provide Societal Good. They both want societal good, but should the democrat refuse to debate because he can’t use “keeping the troops in Iraq” as his criteria? Are you kidding? If that happened, he obviously would have no chance of being elected. I know! Why doesn’t he just use the Maximization of Troops? This way both of them could decide how best to maximize the use of troops. This wouldn’t work either because the democrat wants a complete pull out and by using Maximization of Troops, it suggests that there may not be a complete pull out. It also changes the intent of the democratic stance from one on a complete pull out to one on how should the troops be utilized. This would greatly favor the republican who wants to utilize the troops in Iraq. The point being, there is no such thing as an abusive Criteria. If the opponent feels he can’t debate because of the criteria, he probably doesn’t even understand his own case that well. Imagine our politicians crying foul because their opponents are giving them arguments that are abusive.
Learn to turn and avoid this problem.
Wednesday, November 1, 2006
My Problem with TOC
November 1, 2006
Finally, I have a chance to get some things off my chest that have been bugging me for a while. I would like to thank Debatechamps.com for giving me this opportunity to express myself. Although I could write about a plethora of topics, this first article will center around the TOC. Yes, the infamous Tournament of Champions will be my dart board. I will try as hard as I can to stay on topic as this subject strikes a nerve so I may go on a tangent at any moment. In order to focus, I will center my article around two main points which illustrate my disliking for the TOC.
To begin with, it gives debaters a false sense of security. By debaters traveling around the country trying to gain their bids, it really only shows that the more money one has, the more opportunities one gets. But are these really the best debaters the country has to offer – I think not. I was really upset when the TOC and the California State tournament were on the same weekend and my top debater as well as others in the state chose to go to TOC with the opinion that that is where the best debaters go. The reasoning is that supposedly the TOC has the most experience judges while the State tournament has the most inexperience judges. I’ve seen both, and I like my chances with inexperience judges who have nothing to gain by giving a win or a loss than my chances with TOC judges, who although are experience, have their own agenda they need to address – mainly favoring their debate camp or the TOC ideology. Judging is subjective regardless of where you go, and the TOC in no different. A National Champion, in my opinion, is just as good if not better than a TOC Champion because they have to go through the entire country to earn that award. One cannot simply buy his way into a spot. Since only one chance is available, the debaters have to do their best to try and sway the vote their way. The false sense of security stems from the fact that TOC debaters can’t handle losing if the judging is perceived as inadequate.
Finally, the philosophy that guides TOC debates is flawed. Lincoln-Douglas Debate is not about spreading your opponents out, as some would have you believe. It’s a mixture of philosophy and facts with philosophy prevailing. What this means is that an entire case can be knocked out with one prevailing philosophy and no amount of facts or reason can save it. This is why at Nationals, a spreader can lose to the normal speaker because the normal speaker makes sense while the spreader is simply spreading. Don’t get me wrong; I dislike dropping arguments but not when there are 4-5 arguments for one sub point. When that happens, it’s no longer a debate but a contest of the faster speaker. Because of this technique, TOC debaters are losing the art of turning arguments. Rather, they spend more time explaining what was dropped than explaining what was actually argued. I dislike judging varsity for that very reason. I want to see an actual debate which happens more in the Junior Varsity division than happens in the Varsity division. That should explain why I love competing in the JV division and dislike when my students finally have to go varsity because even they become brainwashed into believing they now need to spread their opponents out. This strategy leads to narrow minded thinking where very few TOC debaters can think outside the box. Or at least the ones I have judged have demonstrated this over and over. I could give examples if I had more space – perhaps in another article. But it needs to be known that when I judge, I have no agenda to push except making sure debaters don’t lose sight of what LD debate is all about. A spreader that spends more time turning arguments can easily win a round when I am judging. Just don’t get upset when I give a loss for the simple fact that too much time was spent on dropped arguments and not enough on the one that was addressed – turn it!
I wish I could say more on this topic, but I think these are my major problems with TOC right now. Last year I noticed that at tournaments where bids can be earned, spreading was very prevalent. It’s funny how at Nationals, depending on the judges, spreading is sometimes necessary to get to the finals. Once there, one has to speak normally so the judges can actually understand what is being said. That alone should speak volumes.
Finally, I have a chance to get some things off my chest that have been bugging me for a while. I would like to thank Debatechamps.com for giving me this opportunity to express myself. Although I could write about a plethora of topics, this first article will center around the TOC. Yes, the infamous Tournament of Champions will be my dart board. I will try as hard as I can to stay on topic as this subject strikes a nerve so I may go on a tangent at any moment. In order to focus, I will center my article around two main points which illustrate my disliking for the TOC.
To begin with, it gives debaters a false sense of security. By debaters traveling around the country trying to gain their bids, it really only shows that the more money one has, the more opportunities one gets. But are these really the best debaters the country has to offer – I think not. I was really upset when the TOC and the California State tournament were on the same weekend and my top debater as well as others in the state chose to go to TOC with the opinion that that is where the best debaters go. The reasoning is that supposedly the TOC has the most experience judges while the State tournament has the most inexperience judges. I’ve seen both, and I like my chances with inexperience judges who have nothing to gain by giving a win or a loss than my chances with TOC judges, who although are experience, have their own agenda they need to address – mainly favoring their debate camp or the TOC ideology. Judging is subjective regardless of where you go, and the TOC in no different. A National Champion, in my opinion, is just as good if not better than a TOC Champion because they have to go through the entire country to earn that award. One cannot simply buy his way into a spot. Since only one chance is available, the debaters have to do their best to try and sway the vote their way. The false sense of security stems from the fact that TOC debaters can’t handle losing if the judging is perceived as inadequate.
Finally, the philosophy that guides TOC debates is flawed. Lincoln-Douglas Debate is not about spreading your opponents out, as some would have you believe. It’s a mixture of philosophy and facts with philosophy prevailing. What this means is that an entire case can be knocked out with one prevailing philosophy and no amount of facts or reason can save it. This is why at Nationals, a spreader can lose to the normal speaker because the normal speaker makes sense while the spreader is simply spreading. Don’t get me wrong; I dislike dropping arguments but not when there are 4-5 arguments for one sub point. When that happens, it’s no longer a debate but a contest of the faster speaker. Because of this technique, TOC debaters are losing the art of turning arguments. Rather, they spend more time explaining what was dropped than explaining what was actually argued. I dislike judging varsity for that very reason. I want to see an actual debate which happens more in the Junior Varsity division than happens in the Varsity division. That should explain why I love competing in the JV division and dislike when my students finally have to go varsity because even they become brainwashed into believing they now need to spread their opponents out. This strategy leads to narrow minded thinking where very few TOC debaters can think outside the box. Or at least the ones I have judged have demonstrated this over and over. I could give examples if I had more space – perhaps in another article. But it needs to be known that when I judge, I have no agenda to push except making sure debaters don’t lose sight of what LD debate is all about. A spreader that spends more time turning arguments can easily win a round when I am judging. Just don’t get upset when I give a loss for the simple fact that too much time was spent on dropped arguments and not enough on the one that was addressed – turn it!
I wish I could say more on this topic, but I think these are my major problems with TOC right now. Last year I noticed that at tournaments where bids can be earned, spreading was very prevalent. It’s funny how at Nationals, depending on the judges, spreading is sometimes necessary to get to the finals. Once there, one has to speak normally so the judges can actually understand what is being said. That alone should speak volumes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
