When I was a kid, we had to debate uphill, in both directions.

One thing that came from our Pffft discussion last night on TVFT was the point that, if a topic had a built-in weighing mechanism, it would help solve the evaluation problem. That is, if a topic is, Obamacare is good, that’s too vague, but if the topic is, Obamacare achieves social equality, then you have a specific goal beyond just pure evidence to evaluate. (I know, the example is silly, but the point is clear.) Since the structure of the round, with a 4 minute constructive, so to speak, is just long enough for case material without any framework (the other two minutes, if this were an LD round), if the metrics are built into the resolution, then everything is inherently more purposeful. I like that. It would be nice if the Rippin’ gurus of resolutions were to give it a little thought. Find not only a subject area but a goal for that content to achieve; that way the debaters need to present arguments in aid of achieving that goal, rather than some vague better-than-the-other-side approach.

By the way, there's even a modicum of insight into my own dark days as a high school debater in this episode. Find out what it was like to debate before the invention of evidence! Not that I was able to remember all that much of it. I think Zachary Taylor was President...

I’m down to three Sailors for Lakeland, which means I can fit them in my car. If anyone else drops out, I’ll be able to fit them in my briefcase. Total implosion, as simple as that. Hell in a hand basket, if you want the technical term for it. Anyhow, O’C has sent me all the details of the challenge format, which is mostly just pairing on the fly, as far as I’m concerned. The issue seems to be keeping things moving, which may be easier than it sounds, as long as people pick their challenge opponents with dispatch. We’ve eliminated strikes, which will help; apparently other challenge tournaments haven’t used them, and I can see how they’d gum things up. I think O’C said that in elims, the challenge would work the other way around, where top seed picks opponent. Fascinatin’. I think that means technically not that we literally break to anything but that I just only schedule the top seeds if we’re still in TRPC (I don’t know how I’d manually pair elims, which is contrary to everything known to tab man). Then again, we can just jettison TRPC at that point. We’ll see.