First, on the rationale behind the initial privacy of cases:
Jim Menick makes an excellent point regarding “why not post it all if disclosure is good even if the argument hasn’t been run”. This is an interesting query and makes sense. Actually, I have little problem with this idea if the premise was to be followed by all. My concern is that it wouldn’t. For close to a decade we have discussed an “open source” paradigm in policy debate. That movement has gained no traction. The true reason why the current model exists is based on the idea that there is a balance between education and competition. Without question the core of what we do should be grounded in education. That said, debate at invitational events is about wins and losses (accomplished using a backdrop of those wins being achieved in an ethical manner). Teams (large or small) if they have an argument or case based on the work they do or the strategic nature of a case/argument/responses to an opponent’s case, should be able to be used one time to reward work and creativity. Unless the resources we use are static (everyone reads the same evidence set) I do think the “post it all” model would privilege well resourced teams. If we have concerns about “lone wolfs” ability to compete letting them roll in to an event with a creative idea is one way to equalize the playing field in that debate. This does NOT mean that just because a debater is from a under resourced team they should be able to avoid peer review in a competitive zero sum activity. To use a sports analogy (albeit not a perfect one), if the University of Northern Iowa or Butler shows up at the “big dance/NCAA tournament” and are playing a Kansas or a Duke, the players and coaches should NOT be able to say, “you can’t scout our games because we are smaller schools and you have more coaches, resources and McDonald’s All Americans than we do”. I finish with a quick trivia question that is obvious. Who won those games???
Hard work should be rewarded. If we aren’t going to have a static evidence set. the current model seems to best balance education and competition.
Second, on the contagion via octos bid:
Many have argued that octo - final bid tournament are unique in the way they “spur others to action”/model what those events do. While it pains people to hear it, I will appeal to what has happened in policy debate unique to case lists in the last 10 years or so to show that this phenomena has not been the case. For the last 8 to 10 years we have had a policy case list at the Greenhill tournament. St. Marks has had a similar list for about the same period of time. During this time frame, Berkeley, Emory, The Glenbrooks, Harvard, MBA nor last year Blake (which was a first time octos bid event) were all octos qualifiers in policy debate. None required submission to a case list as an expectation of entry. My point is that historically, conjecture about other events “getting on the bus” because another event does it seems to be empirically denied. Providing why the Lincoln Douglas octos bid events would do so is less than clear to me. It might be argued that certain personalities make a change more likely. Again I say, “Empirically denied”. Melissa Wade, Dallas Perkins and Sherry Hall, Tara Tate, Ted Belch and Billy Tate all have influence on the policy community. They didn’t require a case list (primarily because most contribute that attend these events anyway). It seems like those making the modeling arguments need some proof that Apple Valley, VBT and the other octos events will model Greenhill and Bronx.
My thought is that they will not for myriad reasons. Those arguing the precedent of modeling should (perhaps ought is more appropriate) have a higher “burden of proof” to prove their case given the history in that “other activity”.
Both of which answers are direct and, especially in the latter case, a bit of a relief. One of the big things that's missing for me is the experience with disclosure, which is too bad because it's been around quite a while. As we LDers learn what Policians already know, we may end up a lot happier than when our imaginations run wild. Which again is why I thoroughly endorse Cruz doing this at Bronx, with an eye on his postgame survey. Texas, for me, is far away. (Hell, Texas for half the people in Texas is far away.) But the Bronx is right down the road, and I'll be there all weekend, not to mention I see O'C every time I turn around anyhow. My truest hope is that we are indeed benefiting small teams, both for the theory of it and because I run one, and not making anything worse. Aaron's experience helps me accept that this is true.
6 comments:
Duke won the championship.
peer review exists no matter what in the activity, it takes the form of arguments being run in round. an argument has no value if you can't run it, and by that token an argument always has to be vetted (in a pretty intense way, considering that they are the object of competition) by opponents, judges, and everyone those opponents/judges talk to about it. this type of informal peer review system might seem wishy washy, but it is in my opinion the primary engine behind argument development, progression, and change. unless one is convinced that the community is in the wrong and needs cajoling to be pushed in "proper" directions (generally code for some sort of ideological content), it seems weird to me to talk about the community requiring more peer review, or small schools/indepedent debaters getting away with "avoiding peer review"
also, i'd like to note that the mandatory/nonmandatory status of tournaments and caselists is kind of irrelevant in a community that tacitly accepts disclosure on some level basically from bottom to top.
on the other hand in the LD community, it is far from a settled issue and that i think is the crux of the problem for tournaments mandating it. you don't need to mandate when everyone does it anyway, but some tournaments might feel that tacit consent isn't good enough and thus mandate anyway. in that case its insurance. in the case of LD its not insurance, it functions more as some form of influence/pressure.
Duke was better on that night to end March Madness (I am not a fan by the way).
Rebar states the obvious but misses the broader point. Butler had every opportunity to win the game despite “better” coaching, “better” talent by Duke on paper, and more resources by the Blue Devils. If one of two shots goes in at the end for Butler, we have an “upset” of historic proportions. Despite losing that game, they also beat teams with more “resources” along the way. Is the argument is that Butler should have been annoyed and protested that Duke scouted them in addition to Duke having perceived advantages? Is the argument that Butler should be given 10 points to start the game because they have less funding, resources, and perhaps, no high school McDonald’s All American’s while the Duke program does?
The idea that small schools need a trick, or for that matter be spotted either points in a basketball game (or arguments in a debate), seems patronizing to those schools.
When the ball goes up (or the door closes for a debate round) anyone can win despite the coaching, the materials or reputation of the opposition. The students still need to execute…. NO amount of prep can make you hit a free throw (or make the right argument). I will grant sometimes the “large/well resourced schools” win more. Does that mean they are undeserving?
Why mandate??
The point has been made that “the issue of disclosure in Lincoln – Douglas is far from settled” and that mandating it is a form of “pressure/influence”. This is one point of agreement between “Tom Deal” and myself. As host, the Tournament Director, can (and ought), to do things at their invitational that he/she feels is in the best interest of the guests at that tournament based on the experience of that host. Whether it is flow judges vs. community judges, mpj vs. community preferences, among others, tournament directors make decisions regarding their events all the time. NO evidence has been shown to prove a significant risk of the “contagion via octos bid” (Menick’s words not mine). At the risk of being repetitive, no individual has a right to attend an invitational. In fact, no one has a right to attend the TOC for that matter, although many (not me) view it as the epicenter of all that it means to be successful in debate.
I am requiring debaters to disclose positions at the Greenhill tournament for many reasons. First, based on my years in debate, seeing it work in other formats, I think while it is NOT a panacea for all things that ail Lincoln – Douglas debate, it is a step in the right direction. Second, last year those against disclosure argued EVERYONE was in favor of sharing cites, and EVERYONE agreed to do it when those discussions happened. Few did. In fact (I could be wrong on this issue) NONE of the people who were the biggest advocates of posting cites did. I found that, well, interesting. Refrains of, “if people email me I will send them”, rang hollow as well. Third, while I applaud Bronx Science for their decision to require disclosure, at Greenhill we are in a unique situation that might guide decision making by others. Our school won’t let our program make money on the tournament. I know for a fact that some tournaments philosophically agree with disclosure, but fear people wouldn’t come hence they would lose a source of revenue. We could afford to take that risk (entries are the highest in recent years by the way). Finally, there is always opposition to change. I found that previous discussions on this issue fizzle out or people “lose focus/the ability to concentrate”. We can’t have community consensus if most of the community is unwilling to engage in civil conversation. Data (in addition to seeing a case list implemented) might allow an experience to be had which generates knowledge for an informed decision. My hope is that the Greenhill Fall Classic, and the Bronx Science tournament, will allow for conversations from voices that heretofore, have been silent on this question.
I appreciate Jim for having one medium for those civil conversations.
I 100% agree with aaron on the issues of the community not following through, and on a lack of civil discussion/consensus forming.
at the very least, i can support the "experiments" of Greenhill and Bronx, with the hope that they create some sort of useful data set. i've offered to be involved in the Bronx survey (if they'll take me), and I'm really looking forward to seeing what kind of info we can glean from it.
to briefly respond to the issue of big school/small school, which at least to me looms large over this whole discussion, i think that big schools DO deserve their success. there is no doubting that. it takes the right blend of money, personnel, talent, and hard work to win. and certainly no one seems to be in favor of win resdistribution, handicapping, or some other hardcore progressive sanction/rule.
still, my point remains that small schools DO need tricks to compete in this environment. not shady tricks, not imposed from above advantages, not access to tactics big schools do not have access to. just enough wiggle room to take advantage of asymmetrical warfare (or debating, as it were. i'm trying to cut down on my militaristic analogies) and turn their small size (aka camouflage) into a potential advantage. the big schools deserve to win until the small schools take it from them.
aaron, i'll be very excited to hear about how Greenhill goes (much in the same way I'm excited to hear about Bronx), and i would love to have a conversation about it the next time we see each other.
The true reason why the current model exists is based on the idea that there is a balance between education and competition. Without question the core of what we do should be grounded in education. These is really one of the great information to share with us.
Post a Comment