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.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Utilize a Strategy
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Constructing a Negative Case
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.
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.
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.
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)
