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.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
