joy in doubt: the State Public Forum Championship

Until a few days ago, it had been an up-and-down year for my Public Forum squad. Back in 2013, we had not one, but two teams preparing for Nationals, the first time we had ever closed out PuFo in the Western Washington District. However, in the 2013-14 season, not only did we fail to qualify a single team for Nationals, we had just one team make State. Our previous best finish was second place at the Puget Sound Invitational. I wasn't going to complain if that was the end of our season, but, to be honest, I would've been disappointed.

But we still had a shot at State. So, on March 21st, Max and Tate headed back to the University of Puget Sound, researched and ready to debate the merits of single-gender classrooms in American public schools.

After the first day of competition, Capital's duo were 6-0, earning the top seed in the elimination rounds. That gave us a first round bye on Saturday morning. I figured we had better run a full practice round to warm up, so we trudged over to Howarth Hall, found an empty room, and debated, Max and Tate running their Pro case against me--and their own Con.

If there had been a judge in the room, I'm guessing he would've voted for Max and Tate. They held their own against my improvised rebuttals, and got me thinking that a state title was well within reach. I didn't want to say anything, though, and went back to the judging pool, trusting that they'd be fine.

After the eighth round, Tate's brother Ben, who had been judging for CHS late in the season, decided to quit watching Capital's round--they were getting too nerve-wracking. I enlisted him to help set up the room for the final round, and we dragged tables and chairs around, chatting to stave off our nervous anticipation, and then greeting the community members who had volunteered to judge the final round.

Then the text came: Max and Tate had won their eighth and semifinal round, and, for the final, were about to face a fantastic Mount Si team--the team that had defeated them to win the Puget Sound tournament in January. The prospect of redemption was just too perfect.

Even better: once everyone had arrived and the coin toss started the round, we won the toss. "We'll take--" and I already mentally finished the sentence. Max and Tate always chose Con. They were undefeated in seven rounds running the Con. I liked their Con case better. I thought the Con arguments were stronger. Of course they would take...

"--second speaker."

And then Mount Si took the Con.

It took me a moment to register what had happened. I turned to Tate's older brother, Ben, who had been judging for us late in the season. "They picked 2nd speaker. Why? Why in the world wouldn't they pick the Con?"

"They felt pretty confident after running it against you," he said.

Touché.

Thirty-five minutes later, I wasn't feeling too great about our chances. I thought the Con had established a lot of doubt about our Pro's statistics, and that we were relying too heavily on the choice argument--"let every kid, every parent have the choice that otherwise is only for the rich." The opposition was also a little bit smoother in delivery. As the round wrapped up and the judges began their internal deliberations, scribbling endlessly on their ballots as the room waited in silence, I whispered to Ben: "I think we lost."

Ten interminable minutes passed. Ben quietly noted that the longer it took, the better he liked our chances. That seemed right.

Five agonizing minutes later, at long last, the ombudsman gathered up the ballots and announced, "By a 2-1 decision, your state champions: Capital High School!" I leaped out of my seat, just about hitting the ceiling. I had known it was possible, but I couldn't believe it. As the judges began their post-round critiques, the two voting for CHS talked about the strength of the choice argument in pushing their vote for the Pro.

The dissenting judge, though, said almost word-for-word everything I had been thinking throughout the round.

Good thing there weren't more of me in the room.

The upshot: your 2014 Washington State Champions in Public Forum are two of Capital's finest, a class act who never doubted themselves, who worked harder than anyone to reach the summit, who ended up going undefeated in the most intense and thrilling fashion.

Am I sorry for doubting my own team? No, not really. Debate is as subjective as it gets. But on the right side of the ballot, the doubt created by that subjectivity can lead to the greatest joy. As the coach of this year's champions, I couldn't be happier.

how to be a better parent... judge

(A work in progress. Suggestions, questions, and criticisms are welcomed in the comments.)

As a debate coach, I spend at least half my job on email and the phone. I'm either wrangling drivers or judges--or both--ensuring that my team can get to the tournament, and when they do, that we can start and finish within spitting distance of "on time."

Like a lot of coaches, I depend on my team's parents to help judge. In December and January, former students come back from college and help out, but when Winter Quarter revs back up, they disappear back into their halcyon world. Hiring judges is sometimes a possibility, but you know how it goes: times are tough all over, and the money's tight.

Parents fill in the gap, and admirably so. But often new parents are intimidated by the activity, with its strange conventions and obscure jargon, with its conceptual and contextual complexity, and, perhaps most important, with its overwhelming nerdiness. Parents, thus, when thrown into their first debate tournament, can be just as nervous about the experience as the greenest novice debater. (Green is sometimes the literal color, sadly.)

I offer training to my judges. But what happens in a pinch, when there's little to no time for preparation? What's a rookie judge to do?

Here's my advice.

If you have time to prepare before the round:

Study the rules of the event. Read a judging guide, if available. (This is a useful resource, with rules overviews, judging guides, and more.)

Ask what the resolution is. If you have time and resources, do a little reading to familiarize yourself with the topic. (If it's an LD resolution, chances are, you'll find this blog via Google. Welcome!) Think about your personal perspective on the issue. What are your biases? Be upfront with yourself: that means you'll have to be extra-cautious about being fair to both sides.

When the round is about to begin, the debaters might ask you what your "paradigm" is. What they often mean:

• How experienced are you? (Tell them, so they can adapt.)
• Are you more convinced by empirical evidence (facts and statistics), logic / reasons / philosophical arguments, rhetoric / persuasive style, or a balance of the above? (That's for you to consider and decide.)
• How comfortable are you with speed? (Tell them to slow down and make eye contact to make sure you're following them.)
• Do you understand theoretical arguments? (Unless you know what this means, tell them to keep it straightforward.)

Give time signals (counting down). Make a "C" for 30 seconds left, then count down 5-4-3-2-1 in seconds. When tracking prep time, announce it every 30 seconds ("30 seconds used... 1 minute used...")


If you're in a "let's see if the bus driver can judge Open LD" situation:

Ask if you can watch the first flight instead of judging, which may be possible, and may save everyone a lot of grief.

If it's not, and you're pressed into emergency duty, remain calm. Read over the ballot for instructions. Check for times, including the amount of prep time.

Most important: tell the competitors you're a first-time judge, and so you'll need them to help walk you through the round, and to avoid jargon whenever possible, and to signpost. (Even if you don't know what "signpost" means, they will.)

Take notes, or "flow."  I use a two-page system, with the Aff (with rebuttals, etc.) on one sheet and the Neg case (etc.) on the other. I write down any prep time used / remaining on one of the sheets.  I don't flow Cross-Examination (or the crossfire), expecting debaters to refer to those discussions in later rebuttals.

When filling out the ballot:

Offer helpful comments about the debaters' speaking skills / style.  Be specific and constructive.  If you can't suggest an improvement, that's fine; praise what you saw / heard.

Give speaker points when it's expected.

The most important piece, from the debaters' and coach's perspective: write a reason for your decision. Be as specific as you can ("The affirmative had superior evidence about the increasing crime rate due to plea bargaining," rather than "The affirmative had better evidence.")

Fill out the ballot in a timely fashion--usually no more than 15 minutes after the end of the round. Get it back to the ballot table as soon as possible: the tournament's on-time status depends on it!

In the end, don't worry: you're one out of the 6 judges they'll see, so if you mess up, it's not the end of the world. Ultimately, if they're good enough debaters, they should be able to adapt to you, and if you give your best, they'll have no reason to complain.

In fact, they had better thank you for judging. As a coach, I certainly do!




Thanks to the anonymous commentator who prompted this post.

how to deal with judges

By Guest-Blogger Bri Castellini

most applicable to Public Forum and traditional LD debate

My dad hates watching gymnastics and figure skating during the Olympics because it bothers him that judges make the final call, and at times those calls can seem arbitrary or unfair. But as debaters we’ve had to accept that our judges ultimately hold our fate in their hands, and often have to change the way we debate in order to facilitate these judges. But there are so many different kinds of judges, it’s hard to keep track. So I’ve made you a list of the kinds of judges you’ll likely run into and how to deal.

The Confused but Kindly Parent: This poor specimen is only here as a favor to their student, or a student’s friend. They’re the ultimate novice, and usually have no idea what to expect. So make sure you don’t use jargon (debate-speak like “flow” and “cross-apply”). Other tips: be polite, because this judge is intimidated enough, be painstakingly organized, because this judge won’t have had flow experience, and speak slowly and confidently, because if you’re confident in your arguments, they will be, too.

The CX-er: This judge normally judges policy debate (or CX, as we called it in Colorado), and so they’ll probably start off the round looking extra bored. See, my experience with CX judges, and CX debaters in general, is that they believe their form of debate is the best kind there is.  If it’s not spoken at fifteen miles per hour with 80 different sources from the past two weeks, it’s boring. But. This is not an excuse to speed talk. Your cases will not be geared for CX speed. But don’t be afraid to be a little more aggressive if the debate calls for it. CX judges aren’t as sensitive to it. Feel free to use as much jargon as you need, but make sure you can back up every assertion you make with legitimate sources.

Seasoned Veteran: This judge is usually a coach, an ex-coach, or someone who has judged for several years. Don’t BS with this judge. They will know. Again, feel free to use jargon, but don’t overdo it. Also, don’t try to charm them (which often works with the “Confused Parent”, see above), because they won’t fall for it.

Flow Judge- This judge makes decisions almost entirely based on their flow. So the biggest thing to remember is be organized, even more painstakingly organized than for the Confused Parent. When you make an argument, tell this judge exactly where you want it applied on the flow. Example: “My opponent’s 2^nd contention is ____ and I have _____ to say about it.” Also, these judges are extra sensitive to dropped points, or points you miss/ignore. So make sure you have at least something to say about every main point your opponent has

Question-Flow Judge- Apply all tips from the Flow Judge, but add this: During crossfire, keep clarification questions to a minimum. This is your chance to directly confront your opponent, and this judge will be paying specific attention, so don’t waste this opportunity.

The Politician- This judge isn’t actually a politician. They’re the judges that have a very strong political leaning and tend to agree with whichever debater is most closely defending their point of view, regardless of who is making better arguments. So if you find yourself on the opposite of their beliefs, your case had better be rock solid. Spend most of your time attacking you opponent’s case, punching holes in every weak spot. Planting even the slightest inkling of doubt in this judge’s mind may make all the difference.

The Recently Graduated Former Competitor- You might even know this judge personally from previous years, but if not, don’t fret. Knowing what they competed in will be of the utmost importance. If they did PF, they’ll be most sensitive to legitimate sources and logical arguments. If they did LD, they’ll want a solid value/criterion pair. If they did CX, I’m so sorry. Just do your best. And if they did Interp events, they want something fun and exciting. So don’t be afraid to make dramatic statements (if you can back them up even a little), and don’t worry so much about being “professional”. Joke, smile, laugh, and be merry, but don’t forget you’re here to make a point.

The Expert- Often, coaches will know people who are experts in current debate topics and ask them to come judge. If they give oral critiques, their feedback can be priceless. But be very careful the assertions and links you make with the topic. Just like with the Seasoned Veteran, BS will not fly, so don’t even bother.

The Sulk- This judge might also fall under the “CX” judge category, but it might also just be a random community member or teacher that hasn’t seen any good debates so far and isn’t impressed with the turnout. So I only have three tips for you: use voice inflection to keep them from being lulled to sleep by your monotone, ask smart, direct questions during crossfire, and for God’s sake, don’t be stupid.

Other general tips for dealing with any judge:

1. Talk distinctly and confidently, but don’t rush. You’ve got plenty of time. 
2. Ask your judge for their paradigms (what the judge looks for in the round) 
3. Be polite. I don’t care how frustrating your opponent is. Keeping your cool looks good to any judge. And smile, girls especially. When boys get aggressive, no one cares, but when girls do, we’re immediately labeled as a word that isn’t very nice. As my old coach always says, “kill them with kindness.”
4. Even if the judge is a novice, don’t patronize them. They don’t have to know you’re dumbing it down for them. 
5. Don’t pull the “my honorable judge” crap. No adjectives. Just call them “judge”, or I will personally hunt you down. 
6. Don’t move around too much. No pen tapping or feet shuffling, and for goodness sake, don’t walk around to the front of the podium and approach the judge’s table during your speech. Also, don’t sit in front of the table for your final constructive. Leave your pompous habits outside. 
7. Don’t talk or make angry noises during your opponent’s speech. You get your own time to respond. It looks unprofessional, and what are you, five? 
8. Clarify time signals (or the lack thereof) before your first speech. I have been screwed over more times than I can count because I forgot this. 
9. Be organized. Otherwise, no one knows what’s going. 
10. Be tactful. My old PF partner lost us a round, at state no less, because of inadvertent racism. (Remind me to tell you that story sometime) 

Bri Castellini is a college IPDA debater, blogger, and denizen of Twitter.

the burden of proof

By Guest-Blogger Bri Castellini

I debated Public Forum all of my junior year of high school with my best friend and now Marine Corps soldier Bart. (His actual name is Taylor, but that's kind of boring, dontcha think? So I never called him that.) Now, Bart is a smart guy, but lazy, so naturally the partnership didn't end well, although somehow the friendship is still going strong. His biggest complaints about me as a partner were that I never really got out of debate mode, which I admit is true, and that I was too invested in it, which is also true. Now all I have to do is say the words “burden of proof” to warrant an angry scowl.

But I love the burden of proof defense, so much in fact that I use it in day-to-day conversations (which is why Bart hates it so much). I just wish that someone had taught me to use it properly earlier on. This may just be old new to a lot of you seasoned debaters, but maybe not.

For instance:

Person 1: I think we should do -insert plan of action here-

Person 2: Can you prove it will be effective?

Person 1: Can you prove it won't?

If you don't already want to strangle Person 1, I commend you. This is exactly where the burden of proof defense would come in.

Person 2: I don't have to, because it was you that made the claim, so it becomes your burden of proof.

We've all had that one debate round where your opponent is making all sorts of ludicrous claims that the judge is just eating up and you don't have specific evidence to block out. It's a frustrating situation, especially when you just know your opponent doesn't have any evidence to support his claims. So that's when you pull out the good old burden of proof defense. If your opponent can't support his claim, then he's done your job for you and you don't have to ruffle your evidence folder at all.

Be careful, though. For judges, PF or LD debaters often get parents, teachers, and random community members who aren't necessarily familiar with debate jargon. Unless you know your judge is a former competitor or coach, clarify what you mean by “burden of proof” when pulling it out of your arsenal. Make sure there is absolutely no way the judge can misunderstand the exceptional point you're making. Trust me, I've had rounds where the judge didn't understand my -ahem- clearly superior arguments and I lost because of it.

How this post can directly relate to the most recent resolution?

Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system.

On the Aff side, it's possible that people will try to run something regarding how the adult criminal justice system recognizes more individual rights than the juvenile system, but I doubt they'll have a lot to back that up. (I recently practice debated a good friend who made this claim, but because she couldn't give me an example of what rights juveniles are normally not given past a “due process” quote, the argument was shaky).*

On the Neg side, I think you might actually run into some psuedo-counter plans that you can use this defense against. Example: Violent juvenile offenders should be tried in a court separate from both adult and regular juvenile courts, so that the punishment can include the juvenile-favored rehabilitation while also being more severe than a general juvenile sentence (But, obviously, not nearly as severe a punishment as for adults). This is all well and good, and if you can support this with good, clear evidence, awesome. But if you're Aff and having to defend against this kind of a case, try asking them exactly how they know it will be effective. I don't think there is a lot of evidence to support a system like this, so with the burden of proof you'll catch them off guard.

As for defending your own cases, just make sure you can absolutely defend every claim you make. Have at least two pieces of evidence to support each, even if you don't use them in your actual case. Just having them is plenty to keep would-be “burden of proofers” at bay. Also, make sure that you can defend every claim to one of your friends, as a precaution for novice judges. Jargon is only impressive to your coaches and competitors, but you've got to keep in mind that you're not debating for them, you're debating for the judge.

Speaking of judges... I think I'll write a post about how to debate for each kind of judge you're likely to run into at one point or another. But I don't know when that will appear, because as I write this post I'm sitting in an airport on my way back to college for spring semester. Unfortunately, I won't have as much time on my hands anymore.

Good luck!

Bri Castellini is a college IPDA debater, blogger, and denizen of Twitter.





* Jim's note: The lack of a jury trial is probably the most significant rights-based distinction between the juvenile and adult system. Of course, whether a jury trial protects more individual rights is itself debatable.

some Afghanistan links

Since my debaters are still researching the Afghanistan topic, here are a few links I've come across in the last couple days. Does NATO presence improve Afghan lives? Well...

1. The first in a Slate series covering efforts to beef up the Afghan police force. The gist: not going well.

2. Civilian casualties in Afghanistan.

3. The statistics analyzed in greater depth.

4. Changing counterinsurgency tactics.

5. The latest election brings news of vote fraud.

6. Andrew Bacevich lists the lessons of Year Ten.

7. Added 11/3: Nobody said nation-building would be easy. (Via Brian Doherty)

Washington state tournaments to use October Public Forum topic in November 2010

In Washington state, we'll use the October topic for November tournaments this year. Via email:

Coaches,

First off, I would thank to thank everyone for the great discourse of the last two days. I appreciate everyone's feedback and thoughtful comments. Based on the overall feedback from the community, opinions of the Public Forum Committee and tournament directors, we have decided to use the October Public Forum topic at the tournaments in Washington in November.

I know this will not make everyone happy, but I hope we can come together and make the October topic work. Thank you to everyone for enduring all the emails the past few days. At this point, please do not reply to all on this thread anymore. I think everyone is worn out, and I'm sure there are many who are not interested in this discussion at all.

If you have questions, please email me and I will do my best to get back to you.

This email also serves as the official announcement that the Gig Harbor Invitational will be using the October Public Forum topic:

Resolved: NATO presence improves the lives of Afghan citizens.

Thank you again for your patience. I think all of us hope that we can avoid this situation in the future.

Sincerely,
Chris Coovert
Gig Harbor HS

Thanks to Chris for taking the lead on this. The whole situation has been a great way for debate coaches (and teams) to talk about what really matters, to change minds through argumentation, and to reach a workable decision through discourse.

NFL retracts "Ground Zero Islamic Center" topic

My debaters were in an uproar last Friday, when the original Public Forum topic for November 2010 was announced:

Resolved: An Islamic cultural center should be built near Ground Zero.

They were incensed that the matter should even be debated, and at a complete loss to fathom arguing the Con.

As I'd already given thought to most of the reasons to disallow the "Ground Zero mosque," and hadn't been persuaded by any of them, I was a bit flummoxed, too, until I thought of a way for the Con to argue without sounding bigoted: to define "should" as a moral imperative, and then place a burden on the Pro to prove that society has a moral duty to build an Islamic center near Ground Zero. My guess is that many Pro teams would mostly be arguing for the right to build the center--not the duty, and would fail to meet the burden. Anyhow, it was the best hope I saw for the Con at least having a tiny chance to win in a particularly liberal region of the country.

All that's unnecessary now, since the NFL has retracted the topic. Via email:

Overwhelming concerns have been expressed by our membership regarding the November 2010 resolution. The Public Forum wording advisory committee worked diligently and thoughtfully to create a timely resolution. However, after due consideration, the National Forensic League has changed the November 2010 Public Forum resolution.

We realize that it is unusual to change a topic after posting. We hope that this new resolution will allow educators and competitors to explore core issues that face high school academic debate.

The November 2010 Public Forum resolution is

Resolved: High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues.

Sincerely,

J. Scott Wunn
Executive Director

I applaud the decision--and I really like the topic.

Update: ...and here's how Washington state has resolved the matter.

National Forensic League debate finals

Saw the LD and Public Forum finals at the Expo Center today. They were decent rounds, for different reasons.

I thought the LD round was full of missed opportunities. The Aff misconstrued the Neg's anti-discrimination argument, while the Neg missed the chance to point out that the Aff had by definition narrowed the debate to criminal justice concerns, forgetting the breadth of the "any" in the resolution. (What if government has a compelling medical interest in, say, mandating DNA be kept in a database for vaccination purposes?)

The debate showed several interesting contrasts. The Aff was deliberate and generally focused, while the Neg was speedy and line-by-line. The Aff was as moderate and reasonable in tone as the Neg was impassioned. The Aff offered a deontological argument to counter the Neg's utilitarian approach--and the two hinged on a disagreement over the definition of respecting "rights for all individuals," which the Aff viewed aggregately (each individual as an individual) and the Neg viewed conglomerately (each individual as a part of the group).

All in all, an interesting debate, and, in my view, a narrow win for the Aff.

Public Forum was a little chippy at times--artful interruption wasn't either team's strong suit--but at least it wasn't dull. The Pro's case boiled down to partisanship, lobbying, and media bias; nothing terribly original, but well-evidenced. The Con went with the fairly common "technology makes us smarter and more likely to participate," as well as an argument I hadn't heard in elimination rounds: that increasing use of initiatives has given the people more direct control of their lives, through a Brandeis-ian "laboratories of democracy" approach.

In the end, the Con dropped the polarization argument, which was probably enough for many to vote Pro, especially with the strongest Con offense--the initiative contention--only halfheartedly defended in the Final Focus.

Which brings me to my next point: fixing Public Forum. One minute wasn't enough, so the NFL provided two, which is too much. My perfect solution: make it a minute point five, and take the extra minute saved (both FF discounts combined) and add it on to the Grand Crossfire, which always seems too short.

Let's do this, NFL.

If you saw either round, feel free to comment and disagree. I have to be brief because I'm poaching airport wireless, and my battery is about to die. An outlet, an outlet, my kingdom for an outlet.

1-2-3 Chill

Debaters, you know the drill: in the van, exhausted, driving back to your school parking lot in the waning hours of the evening, your team celebrates the successes and commiserates over the failures. And there's a whole lotta judge hatin' goin' on.

Which is fine, to a degree. We all have to process. We all have to purge ourselves from time to time, to vent the aggression that we'd stored up for the week previous, trying to get our "edge." As a coach, I've endured my fair share of Ride Home Rants, and I've never condemned anyone for expressing their true feelings.

But I offer you a better way: a way to reduce your anxiety at the outset. A philosophy of relaxation, a balance between competitive fire and reflective calm, in three easy steps. Call it 1-2-3 Chill.

Your goal is to break to octas, semis, or what have you. Realistically, you're going to have to end with a 5-1 record, unless you can squeak in with a 4-2. So aim for 5-1.

1
One of your rounds, almost guaranteed, is going to be a loss. You're going to hit your circuit's third-year champion, the one who ought to be in grad school already, finishing up her degree in deontology, but instead has stuck around to clean up for year number four. Or you're going to get That One Crazy Judge whose paradigm is "distempered." Or you're going to drop the only contention that can sink your incredible Aff case. Whichever way, you're going to lose one round, and lose it badly. No biggie. You've got five to win.

2
Two of your rounds, almost guaranteed, are going to be wins, because you're on fire, and your competition, fresh up from Novice, is a gasoline-soaked rag.

3
Three rounds can go either way. They're going to be close, and if you come out thinking you're winning--or losing--you're probably wrong.

It's your job to do everything in your power to rope in the judge for these three rounds. You control your own destiny. These three rounds will determine your success.

So, as you drive up to the tournament, relax: you can lose one round without losing your dignity. And if you bomb your first round, relax: you can lose one round without losing the tournament. You still have five rounds. Two are yours. Three are gonna be close.

Look around you. Inhale. Exhale.

And chill your way to the elimination round.

Your van ride home will be a much more pleasant experience, even if you fare poorly--because you'll know that it's not your judge's fault, or your opponent's fault: you didn't win your three critical rounds.

But you will next time.

changes in Student Congress, Public Forum debate rules

Bill Nicolay, director of forensics at Snohomish High School, sends along word of NFL rule changes to Student Congress and Public Forum debate. The highlights, which I've edited only for formatting:

Public Forum

• Final focus goes from one to two minutes
• Ballots will be redesigned
• No reading of evidence in Crossfire (this seems to mean that competitors should be discouraged from asking for cites during crossfire)

Congress

• Will now be called “Congressional Debate” rather than Student Congress
• Preferential ranking by judges becomes the preferred method of advancing students to either a super congress (if used) or straight to nationals (if no super congress).  However, ranking by judges could be used to produce a slate of candidates for student vote [via preferential ballot], should a district choose to do so.  Base and board vote are gone.
• Standardized ballots for congress ranking will be provided to all districts
• Both the authorship/sponsorship and first negation speeches will be followed by two-minute questioning periods.  I’m assuming all other speeches remain at one minute (not addressed).
• Committee meetings may not be scored
• This may be a big one, depending on current district procedure: A total of two three-hour sessions of debate is required to legitimize the congress, so congress moves from five to six hours (plus time for setting up), meaning that it may no longer be doable in a single day along with speech, since it all events have to end by 10:00 p.m.  There is language which says that “if a district offers a super session, it has the flexibility to have additional smaller preliminary chambers before advancing students to the super session.  I believe the key term here, “smaller,” refers to chamber size and not time, because...
• Congress sessions are limited to 18-20 students, and for each student beyond 20 we have to add ten minutes to the session.
• Presiding officers may be selected or an adult may serve.  No provision or language was given regarding scores received by presiding officers.
• All nationals legislation will now be vetted by Nationals Office Staff and may be approved, rejected, or improved and resubmitted.  Each district can submit two items of legislation.
• Affiliate chapters can now enter as many entries as charter chapters (based on the manual table).

I like the added minute in PuFo--that "final focus" has always been a waste of fevered breath. In Congressional Debate, I have mixed feelings about extending question time for the first speech in negation, if only because question time tends to turn into Thinly Disguised Speeches.

Mr. Nicolay also noted that a committee is exploring the use of laptops in LD (I'm not yet convinced) and in extemp (which needs to happen yesterday--otherwise, how many forests of magazine trees must die?).

NFL debate finals: taking the good with the bad

First, the really good: I have a lot more hope for Public Forum as an event. I think the 2-minute summary speech is a travesty, but the top two teams at NFL Finals today acquitted themselves well in a lively and very close round. I would have voted Con because the Pro team appeared to lose a little composure, dropping the ball on the Con's objection that the hardline regime would get most of the benefits of a financial influx. (Pro didn't extend the impacts of soft power, either, or fully rebut the charge that the Castro regime is inimical to any sort of cooperation with the U.S.)

Second, the good: the LD round, in which the right to life (or, as was ceded in cross-ex, autonomy) clashed with the balance of rights and responsibilities. (The resolution: military conscription is unjust.) It was a thought-provoking examination of the claims the state has--or doesn't--on the lives of its citizens. I was edging Aff, but without flowing, and since the round was so tight, I'm not sure who would've ended up with my vote.

Third, the surprising: not one speaker mentioned the importance of Birmingham to the civil rights struggle, either in a speech or an introduction.

Fourth, the surprisingly bad: the policy final was a huge letdown. My PuFo team wanted to see what the event was like, and I don't think they got the best representative round. There were lots of zingers, but the quantity of wit didn't match the quality of argumentation. The Negative's reliance on "political capital" insolvency and the standby nuke war disadvantage, as well as their apparent ignorance of some basic biological concepts, matched up with the Aff's underdefended salmon depletion claim and altogether too narrow approach to the benefits of "VIVACE" power, made for an unnecessarily murky round. I'd have voted Affirmative for not insulting my intelligence.

Coming soon: the results!

Update: Since the official word's not in yet, I'm going with Victory Briefs' reportage.

Policy: Damien HS's Hernandez and Quinn (on the Neg)
LD: Shivani Vohra - Hockaday (on the Neg)
PuFo: Robert Kindman & Josh Zoffer from Durham, NC (on the Neg--see a pattern?)

three rounds of debate in one glorious day

Today, my sophomore PuFo team and I will watch the final rounds of Policy, PuFo, and LD debate at the madhouse that is the Birmingham Jefferson Convention Center. (I figure if they're gluttons for Policy punishment, might as well show them the best.)

I'm mostly interested in the LD round, since I haven't gotten to watch any debates on the conscription topic, which I thought was a good one. The PuFo Cuba resolution, on the other hand, wore me out in the twelve flights I judged. I'm praying either team has a fresh approach--maybe that now's the time to normalize, because Fidel wants to join an over-fifty softball league in the DC area?

the social networking public forum resolution

Although I spend most of my debate-blogging examining Lincoln-Douglas resolutions, I'd like to point out a worthy starting point for your consideration of the December Public Forum resolution. Blog neighbor TRP has an insightful post asking some questions that get to the heart of the issue, at least philosophically speaking.

The Big Question On Which I Think The Debate Hinges: what have we lost by surrendering place-based communities for interest-based ones? What have we gained? Is it a net loss or a net gain? If we believe--and I do--that talking to smart friends who disagree with you is the best way to grow, do social networking groups do that as effectively as Putnam's dearly-departed bowling leagues???

Check it out, and join the conversation.

a general debate case rubric

When students are critiquing others' cases, I find it absolutely critical to provide a basic framework, so their comments are as specific as possible. (When it comes to feedback, there's nothing worse than "good job.")

Thus, I present to you a debate case critique rubric, which is applicable to any sort of debate case in general, although it's expressly created for Public Forum debate.

Download it for yourself here.