No matter what WTF does, we will not comment on it. Damn!
See you in a couple of weeks.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Oh, no!
It's come to this. WTF is now apparently killing its students and leaving them to rot on the campus.
These are tough times we live in.
PF 2009 Part 9 (conclusion)
One thing we haven’t discussed yet is prep time. To be honest, two minutes of prep time isn’t enough to scratch your nose, so its use must be carefully doled out. I would simply suggest that a minute go before the 3rd or 4th speeches, so that the team can compare notes on what to win with, then 30 seconds each to do the same for the two wrap-up speeches. Hear what your partner has to say before you start talking, in other words. There might be a piece of evidence you might not have thought of, or some point that would have otherwise eluded you. It is a team activity, after all. Use the team’s brain, not just your own.
Anyhow, the rest of PF plays out in a most predictable way, and one need simply keep in mind that the point of each speech is to win the round. The two-minute speeches are just long enough to explain to the judge 1) why your opponent loses, and 2) why you win. Explaining either one of these without the other is not good enough. “Our opponents’ Big Idea was this, and this evidence overwhelming disproved it, while our Big Idea was this, and this evidence overwhelming proved it, ergo, vote for us,” or words to that effect. What is true of crystallization in LD is true in PF. Explain to the judge why you win, and show it on the flow. We win because we made this argument for our side, which was not suitably refuted, and because we made this argument against our opponent, which was not suitably refuted. Give me a summary, with a roadmap. Briefly. Anything less is probably not enough.
I’m not quite sure what the GXF is supposed to be about, but I would suggest that it will vary from round to round. If it were me, I’d just hammer home any point I was winning, and explain why any point I wasn’t winning didn’t matter. Same as LD. I wonder, though. By this time in the round (and this is also true of LD, although, of course, there’s no more CX toward the end of things), most judges’ minds will be mostly made up. So maybe what it boils down to, if you think you’re winning, figure out why you’re winning and hammer that home, whereas if you think you’re losing, figure out why and hammer something else home, or prove why the reason your losing is not a reason to lose. Tough thing to do, though.
By the same token, the last one-minute speech can’t really be much more than an attempt by the final speaker to write the judge’s ballot. That’s what it would be if it were me. “This is why you vote pro/con,” and then you give a couple of sentences on the Big Idea. Anything else is pointless; I mean, what else can you do at this late stage of the game?
And for me, given my limited experience, that about sums it up. I'm sure I'll have things to add as time goes by and I learn more, but at least this is a start.
See you at the coin flip.
Anyhow, the rest of PF plays out in a most predictable way, and one need simply keep in mind that the point of each speech is to win the round. The two-minute speeches are just long enough to explain to the judge 1) why your opponent loses, and 2) why you win. Explaining either one of these without the other is not good enough. “Our opponents’ Big Idea was this, and this evidence overwhelming disproved it, while our Big Idea was this, and this evidence overwhelming proved it, ergo, vote for us,” or words to that effect. What is true of crystallization in LD is true in PF. Explain to the judge why you win, and show it on the flow. We win because we made this argument for our side, which was not suitably refuted, and because we made this argument against our opponent, which was not suitably refuted. Give me a summary, with a roadmap. Briefly. Anything less is probably not enough.
I’m not quite sure what the GXF is supposed to be about, but I would suggest that it will vary from round to round. If it were me, I’d just hammer home any point I was winning, and explain why any point I wasn’t winning didn’t matter. Same as LD. I wonder, though. By this time in the round (and this is also true of LD, although, of course, there’s no more CX toward the end of things), most judges’ minds will be mostly made up. So maybe what it boils down to, if you think you’re winning, figure out why you’re winning and hammer that home, whereas if you think you’re losing, figure out why and hammer something else home, or prove why the reason your losing is not a reason to lose. Tough thing to do, though.
By the same token, the last one-minute speech can’t really be much more than an attempt by the final speaker to write the judge’s ballot. That’s what it would be if it were me. “This is why you vote pro/con,” and then you give a couple of sentences on the Big Idea. Anything else is pointless; I mean, what else can you do at this late stage of the game?
And for me, given my limited experience, that about sums it up. I'm sure I'll have things to add as time goes by and I learn more, but at least this is a start.
See you at the coin flip.
Hey, Kids! Debate Action Figures! Collect 'Em All!
Just in time for the end of session one at WTF, Coachean Life is proud to offer the following debate action figures, each lovingly handmade by machine at Coachean HQ, each an original simulacrum of a work of art, MADE JUST FOR YOU! Standing exactly 11.5 inches high, these 1/6 scale dolls will fit any spare Barbie or Ken clothes you may have lying around, although we recommend that, in the interest of identity politics, you dress the figures in gender-appropriate clothing, given that most of them are confused enough already. Just send $39.95 (plus $29.95 shipping and handling) to this website for each figure wanted. Pretty cheap, eh? (Don’t bother to send your home address, as we’re just going to keep your money and tell you the figures got lost in the mail.)
The complete list of Series #1 of the Debate Action Figures for 2009:
The J. W. action figure: comes with accessory list of names of clearing debaters, all of which it pronounces incorrectly, including the names Smith, Jones, and Patterson.
The Victor-E action figure: comes with accessory sister action figure, with which it argues incessantly.
The O’C action figure: comes with accessory collection of antique trophies; we recommend you glue this action figure to the shelf, as it tends to wander off.
The ivy-covered Palmer action figure: comes with accessory crashed MacBook, over which it peers while muttering, “I’ll have what he’s having.”
The JV action figure: comes with accessory evil eye; we recommend you keep this action figure away from any debater action figures, which it tends to scare to death, thus voiding any implied warranties from the manufacturer.
The Do Bee action figure: comes with accessory ballot premarked for the wrong side; this action figure is the only one in the series capable of striking itself from the field.
The Little Jake action figure: comes carrying accessory miniature version of itself, which will act as a trophy named after itself. Please note that the miniature version of the Little Jake is also carrying a miniature version of itself, etc., etc.. thus illuminating both the concept of infinity and the concept of having attended way too many tournaments in four short years.
The Craven Savage action figure: comes with no accessories, and in fact, doesn’t exist, but this is the action figure with the best name of the group.
The Hockaday Boys' School action figure: Sorry, sold out.
The Bietz action figure: comes with accessory set of endless gadgets, this figure mostly sits in the corner and grunts.
The Hammy action figure: comes with accessory Mitt mitts, this figure mostly sits in the corner and grunts about Democrat liberal commies.
The Coachean action figure: comes with accessory tabroom, this figure mostly sits in the corner and grunts about the other action figures.
The complete list of Series #1 of the Debate Action Figures for 2009:
The J. W. action figure: comes with accessory list of names of clearing debaters, all of which it pronounces incorrectly, including the names Smith, Jones, and Patterson.
The Victor-E action figure: comes with accessory sister action figure, with which it argues incessantly.
The O’C action figure: comes with accessory collection of antique trophies; we recommend you glue this action figure to the shelf, as it tends to wander off.
The ivy-covered Palmer action figure: comes with accessory crashed MacBook, over which it peers while muttering, “I’ll have what he’s having.”
The JV action figure: comes with accessory evil eye; we recommend you keep this action figure away from any debater action figures, which it tends to scare to death, thus voiding any implied warranties from the manufacturer.
The Do Bee action figure: comes with accessory ballot premarked for the wrong side; this action figure is the only one in the series capable of striking itself from the field.
The Little Jake action figure: comes carrying accessory miniature version of itself, which will act as a trophy named after itself. Please note that the miniature version of the Little Jake is also carrying a miniature version of itself, etc., etc.. thus illuminating both the concept of infinity and the concept of having attended way too many tournaments in four short years.
The Craven Savage action figure: comes with no accessories, and in fact, doesn’t exist, but this is the action figure with the best name of the group.
The Hockaday Boys' School action figure: Sorry, sold out.
The Bietz action figure: comes with accessory set of endless gadgets, this figure mostly sits in the corner and grunts.
The Hammy action figure: comes with accessory Mitt mitts, this figure mostly sits in the corner and grunts about Democrat liberal commies.
The Coachean action figure: comes with accessory tabroom, this figure mostly sits in the corner and grunts about the other action figures.
Department of Clarification
To answer Max's comment question, yes, the dream was entirely as I described it. And extremely vivid, which is why I was able to describe it in such detail hours later. And, too, it scared the crap out of me.
I also did dream about the Tesla, although that wasn't as interesting.
In other words, all dreams reported in this blog, unlike any else you'll read here, are guaranteed to be entirely real and accurate.
I also did dream about the Tesla, although that wasn't as interesting.
In other words, all dreams reported in this blog, unlike any else you'll read here, are guaranteed to be entirely real and accurate.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Dream a little dream, again, etc.
There must be something in the water in Sailorville. I had another dream last night, after seeing the new Harry Potter movie. I dreamt I was driving a new Tesla. Cool, except I’ve never driven a high-performance car before and I was really worried about crashing into the car in front of me when I was parallel parking. Obviously, this dream wasn’t as interesting as dreaming that I was running Big Bronx from my basement. Blame Harry Potter.
For those of you who have been following the Feed (I haven’t checked the stats, so it could be two of you or a million and two) you’ve probably noticed that I’ve fallen into the swing of it pretty well, with a reasonable handful of articles a day. I’m doing something similar for the DJ, only book-oriented, with a Twitter account to announce each posting. It’s just something I like doing, I guess. Silly me, but I get the impression that the interwebs are huge and we could all use a little help finding the good stuff, and as much as I like crowd-sourcing I do not feel that it is enough. But that’s all right. I will start soliciting articles for the Feed, by the way, in the near future (although vacating may slow me down, because when I’m vacating, I like to be electronically vacant, otherwise I might as well stay in the chez basement running Big Jake). Excelsior, you fathead (as Shep—one of my personal heroes—would say).
I will try to wrap up the series on Pffft before I disappear. Obviously what I’m doing is putting down my thoughts in the broadest, unedited approach here first. Then my plan is to boil them down into one single (albeit long) how-to article, an outline for the Sailors for discussions/lectures, and maybe a podcast. I’m almost done with the phase one. All that’s really left is talking about sealing the deal, i.e., being a closer. Easier said than done, maybe, in the world as it is today, where LD 2ARs forgo crystallization in aid of arguing points that have already been argued to death…
I have been getting field reports from WTF Camp Debatamucka in addition to the endlessdrivel updates on their site. The Panivore is out there hearing tales of my judging past, all of which have been improved for narrative purposes. Funny that I remember a lot of rounds going back for generations. For instance, Nadir talked about hitting Ben Schultz, and I remember that round where Ben first hit Nadir at NFA distinctly. Anyhow, at WTF, Dougo Malfoy is referencing the round where I picked him up at TOC when his opponent managed to rebuild Doug’s case in CX. It was rather paradigmatic. If your opponent has a case that is as mathematically elegant and complicated as a moon launch, it probably doesn’t behoove you in CX to request further information on the areas where the math is the most complicated so that the judge can fill in any links he might have missed during the constructive. Other TOC rounds I remember? The coin toss where the tosser I dropped wouldn’t shut up about it. The round where you-know-who brought his mother (all I remember, actually, is his mother). The round where the girl who later went on to greatness blithely and with no intended malice congratulated her opponent on being better than all the other opponents she had crushed. With mutual preferences, mostly I would be relegated to the boondocks, though, of people who didn’t know me well enough to realize that striking me would be better than giving me a C. Whatever. Golden memories, eh? Of course the thing that always comes to mind first with TOC is that it’s always manuring season down there when we arrive. The air is scented with—
Oh well, you get the idea.
For those of you who have been following the Feed (I haven’t checked the stats, so it could be two of you or a million and two) you’ve probably noticed that I’ve fallen into the swing of it pretty well, with a reasonable handful of articles a day. I’m doing something similar for the DJ, only book-oriented, with a Twitter account to announce each posting. It’s just something I like doing, I guess. Silly me, but I get the impression that the interwebs are huge and we could all use a little help finding the good stuff, and as much as I like crowd-sourcing I do not feel that it is enough. But that’s all right. I will start soliciting articles for the Feed, by the way, in the near future (although vacating may slow me down, because when I’m vacating, I like to be electronically vacant, otherwise I might as well stay in the chez basement running Big Jake). Excelsior, you fathead (as Shep—one of my personal heroes—would say).
I will try to wrap up the series on Pffft before I disappear. Obviously what I’m doing is putting down my thoughts in the broadest, unedited approach here first. Then my plan is to boil them down into one single (albeit long) how-to article, an outline for the Sailors for discussions/lectures, and maybe a podcast. I’m almost done with the phase one. All that’s really left is talking about sealing the deal, i.e., being a closer. Easier said than done, maybe, in the world as it is today, where LD 2ARs forgo crystallization in aid of arguing points that have already been argued to death…
I have been getting field reports from WTF Camp Debatamucka in addition to the endless
Oh well, you get the idea.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Announcement: Menick quits debate
There comes a time in your life when you know you have reached a turning point. I now know that I have reached such a point.
I spent a bunch of time yesterday discussing the Big Bronx tournament with Jon Cruz. Yes, it’s July, and the tournament is October, but he’s running a little late with his worrying this year—what can I say? Anyhow, we worked out this and that through a combination of email and tweet and IM and smoke signal, and, I thought, that was the end of it.
How wrong I was!
I am not making up any of the following. I’ll swear it on my copy of any Dead White Philosopher you want to name.
Last night I dreamed that, for reasons that are unclear, the Big Bronx tournament had to be relocated from the high school to my house. People began arriving with all their luggage days in advance, all of them teenagers. They would come up to me as they were moving in and say, “Remember me?” and I’d say yes, but it wasn’t true. Their faces, sort of, but that was the extent of it, except for a couple of known felons who everybody knew inside and outside of the activity. Being teenagers, they were an incredibly hungry group, and we ran out of food long before round one even started. There were no bathrooms in the house, or maybe the bathrooms were just steadily occupied by someone who wouldn’t come out, but there was no question that there were plumbing issues that everyone was complaining about. One cheeky young man who insisted I knew who he was (I think I dropped him at TOC a couple of times) suggested that he should be allowed free access to the liquor cabinet, in that he was quite the connoisseur of wines. Meanwhile, I was trying to get round one started, but I didn’t have the data, and, of course, O’C, who did have it, was nowhere to be found. I also couldn’t find my printer, but since I didn’t have any data to print, this didn’t seem too much of a problem.
I woke up. The alarm had not gone off yet, and it was pouring rain outside, and I drifted back to sleep, the way one will. O’C turned up and I was trying to convince him that next year the tournament should be in D.C. or Maine or Wyoming but he kept insisting that having it at my house was the best Big Bronx ever.
I woke up again, and wrote this entry on my blog. If this isn’t a subconscious warning that it is time for me to find a new pastime, I don’t know what is.
I spent a bunch of time yesterday discussing the Big Bronx tournament with Jon Cruz. Yes, it’s July, and the tournament is October, but he’s running a little late with his worrying this year—what can I say? Anyhow, we worked out this and that through a combination of email and tweet and IM and smoke signal, and, I thought, that was the end of it.
How wrong I was!
I am not making up any of the following. I’ll swear it on my copy of any Dead White Philosopher you want to name.
Last night I dreamed that, for reasons that are unclear, the Big Bronx tournament had to be relocated from the high school to my house. People began arriving with all their luggage days in advance, all of them teenagers. They would come up to me as they were moving in and say, “Remember me?” and I’d say yes, but it wasn’t true. Their faces, sort of, but that was the extent of it, except for a couple of known felons who everybody knew inside and outside of the activity. Being teenagers, they were an incredibly hungry group, and we ran out of food long before round one even started. There were no bathrooms in the house, or maybe the bathrooms were just steadily occupied by someone who wouldn’t come out, but there was no question that there were plumbing issues that everyone was complaining about. One cheeky young man who insisted I knew who he was (I think I dropped him at TOC a couple of times) suggested that he should be allowed free access to the liquor cabinet, in that he was quite the connoisseur of wines. Meanwhile, I was trying to get round one started, but I didn’t have the data, and, of course, O’C, who did have it, was nowhere to be found. I also couldn’t find my printer, but since I didn’t have any data to print, this didn’t seem too much of a problem.
I woke up. The alarm had not gone off yet, and it was pouring rain outside, and I drifted back to sleep, the way one will. O’C turned up and I was trying to convince him that next year the tournament should be in D.C. or Maine or Wyoming but he kept insisting that having it at my house was the best Big Bronx ever.
I woke up again, and wrote this entry on my blog. If this isn’t a subconscious warning that it is time for me to find a new pastime, I don’t know what is.
Monday, July 20, 2009
PF 2009 Part 8
This is going to be really simple.
First, one side tells you why you should pro/con. After a little discussion atwixt the two sides, the other side tells you why it should do the opposite. So far, so good. We’ve talked about these speeches, The Big Idea, and the content of the first XF (crossfire).
The second XF is mostly like the previous one. Both sides now know the other side’s Big Idea. Both sides know the other side’s strategy and content. So this XF needs to tear down what has been said by the opponent and reset the stage for one's own Big Idea. Not exactly brain surgery, and more sophisticated examination processes can be developed as one gains experience. The key is, tear down opponent, build up self. It is ever thus in CX or XF or whatever you want to call it.
The breakdown of which team member goes when depends on a lot of factors, but one thing that is clear is that the second member of a team to present is going to be doing a rebuttal as compared to presenting a position. One theory is that the lovable debater goes first, to win over the judges, and the mad dog debater goes second, to attack everything that needs attacking. I would subscribe to this approach at least as a starting point for organizing a team, but I wouldn’t take it to the grave. I see no intrinsic reason why both team members might not want to try one position on one topic and the other position on another. Why not work on developing all the potential skill sets?
But regardless of how you pick your second speaker, one thing is clear. The second speech has to win the round. Two many rounds I saw did not believe that this was the case, which was not a sound strategy. In a good debate, every speech potentially wins the round. This is clearly seen in LD, where each speech covers the entire flow (except, probably, the 2AR). But in PF, this isn’t quite as clear. A lot of teams get up in their second speech and attack the other side. Period. They cover everything that was said by the opponent, they tear it to shreds, they stomp on it, they feed it to the dogs, all of which is fine and dandy, but strategically, all that does is tell me why I shouldn’t vote for the opponent. It doesn’t tell me why I should vote for you. Even the instructions from NFL suggest that this speech is more than just attack: “In addition, some time in either of these speeches should be allocated to rebuilding the original case.”
Now, four minutes isn’t a lot, granted, but it’s exactly the same as LD’s 1AR. I don’t think offhand that you should go two and two. If you spend three minutes attacking the opponent, then a minute or so rebuilding yourself, this should work. The structure is simple:
1. Attack opponent’s Big Idea.
2. Attack opponent’s main lines of argument with solid evidentiary refutation. (Demonstrate lack of warrant, lack of link, over-reliance on facts that are in fact pure bull-oney, etc., keeping in mind that to overcome their evidence you need, uh, other evidence.)
3. Demonstrate in the end why your Big Idea is so much better.
This lack of coverage of a side’s own case was the biggest lapse I saw in my (admittedly limited) experience judging PF rounds. Like everything else I’ve been saying, it’s not particularly groundbreaking; hell, it’s written right into the instructions. But people don’t do it. And what this means from the judging point of view is that you have this big hole on your flow that, presumably, will be filled at some other time. That’s not good enough. As I say, in a debate, every speech should act as if it’s the one that has to win the round. And winning the round always means not just refuting what the other team has said but also providing support for why what you say is so much better.
To remember this—and this may be the first thread of theory to be presented in the PF world—I would suggest you tattoo the following on your partner’s forehead: “Don’t just say no.” Saying no just isn’t enough. Never has been, never will be. The best defense is a good offense? Yep. If you have an extra partner that you only use on religious holidays, you can tattoo that on that one’s head. “The best defense is a good offense.”
Truer words, in debate, have never been spoken.
First, one side tells you why you should pro/con. After a little discussion atwixt the two sides, the other side tells you why it should do the opposite. So far, so good. We’ve talked about these speeches, The Big Idea, and the content of the first XF (crossfire).
The second XF is mostly like the previous one. Both sides now know the other side’s Big Idea. Both sides know the other side’s strategy and content. So this XF needs to tear down what has been said by the opponent and reset the stage for one's own Big Idea. Not exactly brain surgery, and more sophisticated examination processes can be developed as one gains experience. The key is, tear down opponent, build up self. It is ever thus in CX or XF or whatever you want to call it.
The breakdown of which team member goes when depends on a lot of factors, but one thing that is clear is that the second member of a team to present is going to be doing a rebuttal as compared to presenting a position. One theory is that the lovable debater goes first, to win over the judges, and the mad dog debater goes second, to attack everything that needs attacking. I would subscribe to this approach at least as a starting point for organizing a team, but I wouldn’t take it to the grave. I see no intrinsic reason why both team members might not want to try one position on one topic and the other position on another. Why not work on developing all the potential skill sets?
But regardless of how you pick your second speaker, one thing is clear. The second speech has to win the round. Two many rounds I saw did not believe that this was the case, which was not a sound strategy. In a good debate, every speech potentially wins the round. This is clearly seen in LD, where each speech covers the entire flow (except, probably, the 2AR). But in PF, this isn’t quite as clear. A lot of teams get up in their second speech and attack the other side. Period. They cover everything that was said by the opponent, they tear it to shreds, they stomp on it, they feed it to the dogs, all of which is fine and dandy, but strategically, all that does is tell me why I shouldn’t vote for the opponent. It doesn’t tell me why I should vote for you. Even the instructions from NFL suggest that this speech is more than just attack: “In addition, some time in either of these speeches should be allocated to rebuilding the original case.”
Now, four minutes isn’t a lot, granted, but it’s exactly the same as LD’s 1AR. I don’t think offhand that you should go two and two. If you spend three minutes attacking the opponent, then a minute or so rebuilding yourself, this should work. The structure is simple:
1. Attack opponent’s Big Idea.
2. Attack opponent’s main lines of argument with solid evidentiary refutation. (Demonstrate lack of warrant, lack of link, over-reliance on facts that are in fact pure bull-oney, etc., keeping in mind that to overcome their evidence you need, uh, other evidence.)
3. Demonstrate in the end why your Big Idea is so much better.
This lack of coverage of a side’s own case was the biggest lapse I saw in my (admittedly limited) experience judging PF rounds. Like everything else I’ve been saying, it’s not particularly groundbreaking; hell, it’s written right into the instructions. But people don’t do it. And what this means from the judging point of view is that you have this big hole on your flow that, presumably, will be filled at some other time. That’s not good enough. As I say, in a debate, every speech should act as if it’s the one that has to win the round. And winning the round always means not just refuting what the other team has said but also providing support for why what you say is so much better.
To remember this—and this may be the first thread of theory to be presented in the PF world—I would suggest you tattoo the following on your partner’s forehead: “Don’t just say no.” Saying no just isn’t enough. Never has been, never will be. The best defense is a good offense? Yep. If you have an extra partner that you only use on religious holidays, you can tattoo that on that one’s head. “The best defense is a good offense.”
Truer words, in debate, have never been spoken.
Absence makes the heart grow fungus
I’m going to be away for a while, with limited computer access, which means that I won’t be posting for a couple of weeks after this Friday (if I make it that far). I’ll try to finish up the PF analysis, which is about the only major thing pending. Feeding will be sadly absent as well. But if you’re a good Do Bee and have everything in your RSS feed, none of this will bother you. (Some of you may recall that the [dreadful] TV show Romper Room classified its audience into Do Bees and Don’t Bees. I just checked in Wikipedia and found that the show ran for over 40 years. Yikes! Those who had any contact with it, of course, are unable, ever, to consider the existence of Sam Duby without a wry, ironic smile.) If you can’t miss me for even this short period, feel free to follow my exploits away from home on Twitter (@jimmenick). And if you’re planning on robbing my house, please try not to disturb the house sitter or, for that matter, Tik (pronounced teek), whose vicious streak has sent many a debater packing permanently. (“He bit me!” they cry as they go running out the door. Cat bites debater? Not news. Debater bites cat? Well, that’s probably not news either, considering the nature of most debaters.)
I’d like to say I’ve read every inch of WTF’s coverage of its summer camp, but that would not be truthful on my part. I trust that you can say, or more to the point, not say the same. O’C did note to me privately, by the way, that he realized following this year’s screening that the movie Tron is sort of boring. Sort of boring? Generous praise indeed for one of the great overrated stinkers of the 20th Century. Oh, yeah, we really need that one remade…
The hardest thing about packing for a vacation is deciding what books to bring. Excluding audiobooks, I’m looking at short pieces by Gaiman and this guy you’ve never heard of, Ed McClanahan, plus Wilfred Sheed’s take on the Great American Songbook, and maybe a Jeeves novel. That should hold me, I think. I can always buy more when I’m out there (we're doing the Northwest). I had hoped to be in the middle of Anathem (300 pages and I was still bored, so I stopped) or Against the Day (never even made it to 300) or Infinite Jest (couldn’t find it anywhere in the chez), but what can I say? The second hardest thing about packing for a vacation is deciding what electronic gizmos to bring. To be honest, packing clothes is at the absolute bottom of the list. Given that one year I went away for vacation and forgot to bring any pants, I probably should elevate clothes-packing to a higher priority, but I just can’t bring myself to do it.
I’d like to say I’ve read every inch of WTF’s coverage of its summer camp, but that would not be truthful on my part. I trust that you can say, or more to the point, not say the same. O’C did note to me privately, by the way, that he realized following this year’s screening that the movie Tron is sort of boring. Sort of boring? Generous praise indeed for one of the great overrated stinkers of the 20th Century. Oh, yeah, we really need that one remade…
The hardest thing about packing for a vacation is deciding what books to bring. Excluding audiobooks, I’m looking at short pieces by Gaiman and this guy you’ve never heard of, Ed McClanahan, plus Wilfred Sheed’s take on the Great American Songbook, and maybe a Jeeves novel. That should hold me, I think. I can always buy more when I’m out there (we're doing the Northwest). I had hoped to be in the middle of Anathem (300 pages and I was still bored, so I stopped) or Against the Day (never even made it to 300) or Infinite Jest (couldn’t find it anywhere in the chez), but what can I say? The second hardest thing about packing for a vacation is deciding what electronic gizmos to bring. To be honest, packing clothes is at the absolute bottom of the list. Given that one year I went away for vacation and forgot to bring any pants, I probably should elevate clothes-packing to a higher priority, but I just can’t bring myself to do it.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
PF 2009 Part 7
The Big Idea is nothing more than the advocacy of a given position. Each side should have a clear advocacy, and the debate that ensues is the clash of the different advocacies. Simple enough, at least at the broadest view. And, given the nature of your audience, the broadest view may be the best one. It is a truism in LD that if as a judge you want to be struck by everyone in the tournament you should use the words “big picture” in your paradigm. By the same token, big pictures are probably what win most PF rounds. And big ideas lead to big pictures. Nothing complicated about it.
The first speech for either presents that side’s advocacy. I don’t have much to say about coin flips and what to choose, mostly because I don’t have much experience with it, and it seems as it it’s very topic-related. Needless to say, given that any aspect of a toss can go against you, it is best to be prepared for all contingencies on all sides. One especially nice thing about this that I like is that it encourages both sides to actually have an advocacy. The weakest LD cases, as I’ve often said, are the ones that simply say no to everything the aff proposes. As a general rule, this is not good enough. Both sides need offensive positions, not just defensive positions. This is not to be confused with counterplans, however, which don’t make much sense to me (and, for that matter, with some of the policy folks I’ve talked to) because they inherently agree with the core aff position, and merely suggest another way to go about solving. Everything I concede to the other side strengthens them and weakens me. Why would I want to do that voluntarily? In LD, a counterplan almost invariably can be construed by the opposing side as support of that side’s framework, meaning that counterplans in LD can only be won by strong debaters against weaker debaters. Given that there are no counterplans in PF, you may find this discussion irrelevant, but there does seem to be a tendency to write counterplans and attempt to call them something else. You might get away with this if your judge is inexperienced enough, but the reason not to run them goes beyond that they are not acceptable: they’re also not a good idea.
So we’ve talked about what a case should include, and the first speaker now presents that case, with its Big Idea and its demonstration through evidence of how that idea will be achieved by supporting this particular side of the resolution. The four minutes available seems okay to me. Given that there is no need to explain a complex V/C framework, you’ve probably got the same amount of real time that you would have in an LD constructive, either in most of a 1AC or half a 1NC. Nothing much for me to say here.
The crossfire that follows looks not much different from an LD cross-ex but I would suggest that there are a few serious differences that might be overlooked. First of all, it is very likely that a round can be won or lost in crossfire. It is not really separate from the round as it is in LD. From the judge’s point of view, it’s all part of the deal, and there’s lots of it. Every time you turn around there’s more cross-examination. There is no sense that this is somehow ancillary to the proceedings. Everything that is said in crossfire can become, for the judge, a voting issue. Which means that, right off the top, there is no rest for the wicked. Crossfire counts probably way more than it counts in LD (where some people would prefer to forgo it completely with flex prep).
Crossfire, like cross-ex in LD, needs to be focused, for the same reasons and in most of the same ways. The sides wish to set up their own side and take down the opposing side. First of all, the questioner needs to find the flaws. Then the questioner needs to ask the leading questions that set up the questioner’s position. Very standard. Simple enough.
But, and I have said this elsewhere, in PF a debater should never open his or her mouth unless there’s a piece of evidence in it. We are arguing fact-based material. The judge is going to be convinced, or not, on the basis of facts. Every time you answer a question with something other than a fact, it’s a lesser answer. I will admit that not every question is answerable with a fact, but that’s the paradigm you should attempt. The rounds that I have watched, where someone is able to answer a question in a form something like, “As we pointed out with the Cheney evidence, 45% of whatever do such-and-such” is much better than any less specific response. One hit against PF is that it is dueling facts, but what is meant by that is that there is a core fact for each side that goes up against but does not overcome the other side’s core fact, and you just keep hammering each other with contradictory data. I agree that that is pretty dull, and that’s not what I’m talking about. What I’m saying is, support your position with evidence at all times. First of all, it makes you more authoritative. It shows that you have researched. And most importantly, it makes judges think you’re as smart as a prime pumpkin. And, given the nature of the activity, it’s inherently the right thing to do.
I learned quickly as a judge to flow the CX (all right, the CF). I also learned that I needed two colors on my flow to cover things correctly. I’ll be recommending this to all future PF judges, i.e., two colors. Makes sense. Keep that in mind when you’re debating. In LD, I’ve never used multiple colors because I can flow in a very structured way. There’s less structure to PF, once you throw in CX as a voting factor. Multiple colors help me track through the lack of structure. And, more to the point, I’m voting on anything, at any time. Never forget that for a minute.
The opposing side’s four-minute case is no different, whether it’s pro or con. The same rules apply in all ways. Which means that we’re done with the easy part, and it’s on to Speaker Number Two.
The first speech for either presents that side’s advocacy. I don’t have much to say about coin flips and what to choose, mostly because I don’t have much experience with it, and it seems as it it’s very topic-related. Needless to say, given that any aspect of a toss can go against you, it is best to be prepared for all contingencies on all sides. One especially nice thing about this that I like is that it encourages both sides to actually have an advocacy. The weakest LD cases, as I’ve often said, are the ones that simply say no to everything the aff proposes. As a general rule, this is not good enough. Both sides need offensive positions, not just defensive positions. This is not to be confused with counterplans, however, which don’t make much sense to me (and, for that matter, with some of the policy folks I’ve talked to) because they inherently agree with the core aff position, and merely suggest another way to go about solving. Everything I concede to the other side strengthens them and weakens me. Why would I want to do that voluntarily? In LD, a counterplan almost invariably can be construed by the opposing side as support of that side’s framework, meaning that counterplans in LD can only be won by strong debaters against weaker debaters. Given that there are no counterplans in PF, you may find this discussion irrelevant, but there does seem to be a tendency to write counterplans and attempt to call them something else. You might get away with this if your judge is inexperienced enough, but the reason not to run them goes beyond that they are not acceptable: they’re also not a good idea.
So we’ve talked about what a case should include, and the first speaker now presents that case, with its Big Idea and its demonstration through evidence of how that idea will be achieved by supporting this particular side of the resolution. The four minutes available seems okay to me. Given that there is no need to explain a complex V/C framework, you’ve probably got the same amount of real time that you would have in an LD constructive, either in most of a 1AC or half a 1NC. Nothing much for me to say here.
The crossfire that follows looks not much different from an LD cross-ex but I would suggest that there are a few serious differences that might be overlooked. First of all, it is very likely that a round can be won or lost in crossfire. It is not really separate from the round as it is in LD. From the judge’s point of view, it’s all part of the deal, and there’s lots of it. Every time you turn around there’s more cross-examination. There is no sense that this is somehow ancillary to the proceedings. Everything that is said in crossfire can become, for the judge, a voting issue. Which means that, right off the top, there is no rest for the wicked. Crossfire counts probably way more than it counts in LD (where some people would prefer to forgo it completely with flex prep).
Crossfire, like cross-ex in LD, needs to be focused, for the same reasons and in most of the same ways. The sides wish to set up their own side and take down the opposing side. First of all, the questioner needs to find the flaws. Then the questioner needs to ask the leading questions that set up the questioner’s position. Very standard. Simple enough.
But, and I have said this elsewhere, in PF a debater should never open his or her mouth unless there’s a piece of evidence in it. We are arguing fact-based material. The judge is going to be convinced, or not, on the basis of facts. Every time you answer a question with something other than a fact, it’s a lesser answer. I will admit that not every question is answerable with a fact, but that’s the paradigm you should attempt. The rounds that I have watched, where someone is able to answer a question in a form something like, “As we pointed out with the Cheney evidence, 45% of whatever do such-and-such” is much better than any less specific response. One hit against PF is that it is dueling facts, but what is meant by that is that there is a core fact for each side that goes up against but does not overcome the other side’s core fact, and you just keep hammering each other with contradictory data. I agree that that is pretty dull, and that’s not what I’m talking about. What I’m saying is, support your position with evidence at all times. First of all, it makes you more authoritative. It shows that you have researched. And most importantly, it makes judges think you’re as smart as a prime pumpkin. And, given the nature of the activity, it’s inherently the right thing to do.
I learned quickly as a judge to flow the CX (all right, the CF). I also learned that I needed two colors on my flow to cover things correctly. I’ll be recommending this to all future PF judges, i.e., two colors. Makes sense. Keep that in mind when you’re debating. In LD, I’ve never used multiple colors because I can flow in a very structured way. There’s less structure to PF, once you throw in CX as a voting factor. Multiple colors help me track through the lack of structure. And, more to the point, I’m voting on anything, at any time. Never forget that for a minute.
The opposing side’s four-minute case is no different, whether it’s pro or con. The same rules apply in all ways. Which means that we’re done with the easy part, and it’s on to Speaker Number Two.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
MHL Grand Finale for the smartly attired, WTF photos for the masochists, Feeds for the hungry
Last night I sent out a general announcement about the MHL. First of all, although this was second of all in the actual announcement, we’re going to change the name to the Metro-Hudson League. This does make sense to me, given that we cover the metropolitan and Hudson regions pretty equally. It was O’C’s idea. It means we’ll have to change a few things on the back end, but I don’t think there’s anything too onerous. Secondly, O’C and I, in our attempts to organize next year’s TNC, ultimately came up with a Grand Finale MHL on 4/10, and eliminated the Northeast Chumps. (There’s a whole song and dance about the Chumps that I’ll go into eventually, but now is not the time.) The Grand Finale (O’C wants to call it the Metrofinals, which sounds to me like a final round featuring metrosexuals) will be a one-day hoo-ha for all divisions, including limited varsity in a sort of RR format. Lots of details to iron out, but it looks like fun. I like the idea of ending the MHL season with a bang rather than a whimper.
Meanwhile, for those of you with a serious masochistic streak, you might want to wander over and look at photos of Camp WTF. O’C just posted a couple of thousand of them, representing hour one of the festivities. I love summer.
And I think I’ve actually figured out the Feed now. Given that I’ve been trying different versions since Jimmy Carter was in the White House, it’s probably about time. The Feed page is revised and relatively final at http://coacheanfeed.blogspot.com. There will be nothing in it but articles that I have selected and commented on, with sample text. The automated page (called Midhudson League’s Starred Items, which I paste as a widget here and there) will only reference those articles, and not other, uncurated articles; no more raw, uncommented articles, in other words. I’ll keep pasting that widget in various places as a sort of advertisement for the Feed. The basic Coachean Life page will go back to my ramblings, and will not be fed into the Feed.
In other words, I’m now running two separate companion blogs. One is what I create, the other is what I curate. The former is primarily to amuse myself and to annoy everyone else, the latter is primarily to assist students of the debater persuasion, mostly providing regular deep background on subjects of relevance. I won’t try to cover Policy, which I had been marking up in the raw feed; it’s just too much (unless a Policy article looks relevant to the non-Policy universe).
And that’s enough of Feedism for the foreseeable future.
Meanwhile, for those of you with a serious masochistic streak, you might want to wander over and look at photos of Camp WTF. O’C just posted a couple of thousand of them, representing hour one of the festivities. I love summer.
And I think I’ve actually figured out the Feed now. Given that I’ve been trying different versions since Jimmy Carter was in the White House, it’s probably about time. The Feed page is revised and relatively final at http://coacheanfeed.blogspot.com. There will be nothing in it but articles that I have selected and commented on, with sample text. The automated page (called Midhudson League’s Starred Items, which I paste as a widget here and there) will only reference those articles, and not other, uncurated articles; no more raw, uncommented articles, in other words. I’ll keep pasting that widget in various places as a sort of advertisement for the Feed. The basic Coachean Life page will go back to my ramblings, and will not be fed into the Feed.
In other words, I’m now running two separate companion blogs. One is what I create, the other is what I curate. The former is primarily to amuse myself and to annoy everyone else, the latter is primarily to assist students of the debater persuasion, mostly providing regular deep background on subjects of relevance. I won’t try to cover Policy, which I had been marking up in the raw feed; it’s just too much (unless a Policy article looks relevant to the non-Policy universe).
And that’s enough of Feedism for the foreseeable future.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
PF 2009 Part 6
None of what I’m going to say here is going to come as any sort of surprise to coaches, who know this and certainly teach it, or good, experienced PFers, who are already doing it. But the point here is to take a complete, starters’ position, so bear with me. It may not be new, but it’s not useless. And it may help get stuff across to newbies, especially those I’m concentrating on, the previously-trained-in-LD newbie.
Let’s start here. If you want to argue something, you’ve got to follow a fairly basic structure. You have to have the point you’re trying to make—that is, your side of the argument—clearly defined. You’ve got to have reasons in support of your side of the argument, and you’ve got to demonstrate how those reasons do, indeed, support your side. This structure applies to any argument, either within or outside debate.
You can throw all kinds of names and details and definitions of the above, but the structure remains the same. For LDers, we look at it very specifically. First, to clearly define our side of an argument, we go to the underlying value of our side. LD was originally conceived as values debate, differing from the existing two-person policy debate in that while policy obviously was concerned with instituting or challenging specific actions (policies) usually on a practical level (this will work, this won’t work), LD was going to go into the philosophical considerations of actions. Should we do something because it’s the right thing to do, in other words, as compared to its practicality. The right thing to do is often wildly impractical, the wrong this to do is often immediately practical, but that doesn’t warrant the latter or bar the former (although one could make such arguments). Closing one’s eyes at the formation of LD and imagining the difference between it and policy could not have been difficult. Frankly, it still doesn’t seem difficult, even though there is much more overlap than anybody probably ever expected. They are just different animals.
The genius of LD was, in its formative years, the institution of a literal value into the framework of argumentation. If you look at the literature, maintaining a value and criterion were not initially structural necessities; my understanding is that a few coaches brought the concept to light at their institute (O’C can elucidate, I’m sure). A couple of years or so ago, NFL actually upgraded its LD rules and incorporated the literal value into the rounds, along with the criterion for measuring if that value had been successfully incorporated (i.e., the weighing mechanism). When I first started judging, there were plenty of teams that did, by design, not include literal values in their cases or arguments, and often they got away with this (although personally I found it hard to track what they were trying to do). Teams doing that today would, if one were to follow the rules (which I highly recommend) lose on face out of the gate.
PF has not come up with its literal analog to V/C yet, if it ever will. In many ways, it is harder to close your eyes now, so soon after the formation of PF, and imagine the differences separating it from policy or LD than it was to separate LD from policy. The thing is, there are plenty of differences, but they don’t have that much to do with content per se. PF topics tend to be mostly of a policy nature, and there is no specific V/C structural aspect, so those are differences, of course, but the real difference is in the ever-changing topic, which allows just so much depth before the next topic comes along, and the relatively short speaking times, which limit the amount of argumentation (especially as PF debaters continue to face lay judges, which will remain the case for the foreseeable future, just as it was an aspect of LD for a very long time, only recently declining in favor of un-lay judges, whatever they are). You’re going to have to get to the point quickly in a PF round, and you’re going to have to stay on the point, and you’re going to need classical oratory skills. Wackiness will not be rewarded. Misreadings of resolutions will not be rewarded. Lack of research will not be rewarded, but neither will facts without meaning. The nature of PF begins to determine itself through its actions (which is a very philosophical evaluation of a thing’s nature).
Which brings us back to the basic idea of what an argument has to be. You have your side of the argument, clearly defined. You’ve got to have reasons to support your side. You need to show how those reasons do, indeed, support your side. And if you’re talking about PF, and you apply an implicit value construct borrowed from LD to the argument, I think you’ll end up with a really solid case.
The value in an LD case is the thing you are trying to achieve, the underlying big social aspect like justice or morality. It’s the reason you go aff, or neg, to get to justice or wherever. If the resolution is, say, banning nuclear weapons, your argument in LD is not that we ban nuclear weapons because they’re dangerous or something like that, but because it is the moral thing to do. We would cite the dangers as evidence in aid of our argument for morality. Put another way, the value is the underlying reason you support your side of the resolution, and your arguments point sooner or later to that underlying reason. You win or lose because you convinced on the level of the underlying reason.
That is exactly what is needed in a PF case right off the top, an underlying reason to support one side or the other. This reason serves exactly the same role as the value in LD.
Let’s go back to our hypothetical loosey-goosey PF resolution that we’ve been kicking around on health care. Let’s specify that it’s that the US should enact Obama’s healthcare plan. Before proceeding to defend one side or the other, we would need to decide why we want to defend that side. This comes, of course, after having done research (you don’t write a case and then find research to support it, although I’ve known novices who attempt just that, with predictably dim results). And once we decide what that reason is, and it needs to be big and important, that is what our case is about, and what our evidence will support. Let’s call it The Big Idea.
Before showing an example, let’s imagine that we don’t have The Big Idea. We could run a case in favor of BHO’s health plan that goes like this:
1. We stand in support of the rez.
2. If we enact this plan, the following 3 good things will result.
3. Evidence for result A, which is a good thing.
4. Evidence for result B, which is a good thing.
5. Evidence for result C, which is a good thing.
6. Because of these 3 good things, we urge a pro ballot.
Even if this case has great evidence, convincingly delivered, it lacks an underlying idea. It lacks underlying tissue. The resolution alone is not enough. Think of it as the difference between a plot and a theme. The plot of Moby-Dick is, well, there’s this big whale. The theme of Moby-Dick is obsession. Either one without the other is, well, a fish story or a psychological essay. Together they are arguably the Great American Novel. (And, yeah, Melville calls whales fish, so don’t get me started.)
Now let’s throw in The Big Idea. After doing research, the team decides that The Big Idea in favor of healthcare is better healthcare, that the government would do it better than independent providers, and therefore everyone would be healthier as a result. That case goes like this:
1. We stand in support of the rez because of The Big Idea slash better healthcare.
2. If we enact this plan, we will get better healthcare for these 3 reasons.
3. Evidence for result A, which is a good thing.
4. Evidence for result B, which is a good thing.
5. Evidence for result C, which is a good thing.
6. Because these three good things result in better healthcare and healthier people, we urge a pro ballot.
(By the way, I’m simplifying here, of course. Don’t fault me on the technicalities.)
In other words, The Big Idea is the thing that you put at the end of the sentence where you say you support the rez because. The because is The Big Idea. And The Big Idea is, of course, analogous to the value in LD.
Because of the examples I’ve used, I’m hard-pressed to demonstrate a further level of connecting evidence to The Big Idea (to wit, criteria), and as a rule that may not be necessary. The existence of a criterion in LD is to translate contentions of action/fact into transcendent values. In PF the reality might be that, since all the discussion is about actions and facts, no translation is necessary. Then again, occasionally PF rezzes do include words like justice. In that case The Big Idea has to be why a given side is just, and depending on the rez, a translation factor like a criterion might also be required. Probably not, though. I think that TBI will be enough to cover the conceptualization of why one side versus the other side.
In LD, I ask my debaters what they’re running on a given side. If they can’t answer that question in one simple sentence, then they’re not ready to debate yet. The same should be held true for PF. What are you running? If you answered for the pro in our hypothetical example, “BHO’s healthcare plan is good,” you wouldn’t be ready to debate yet. If you answered, “BHO’s healthcare plan leads to this Big Idea and therefore we should support it,” you’re ready to go.
The key to writing a case then, is to build it around The Big Idea. If you don’t have The Big Idea, get one.
Let’s start here. If you want to argue something, you’ve got to follow a fairly basic structure. You have to have the point you’re trying to make—that is, your side of the argument—clearly defined. You’ve got to have reasons in support of your side of the argument, and you’ve got to demonstrate how those reasons do, indeed, support your side. This structure applies to any argument, either within or outside debate.
You can throw all kinds of names and details and definitions of the above, but the structure remains the same. For LDers, we look at it very specifically. First, to clearly define our side of an argument, we go to the underlying value of our side. LD was originally conceived as values debate, differing from the existing two-person policy debate in that while policy obviously was concerned with instituting or challenging specific actions (policies) usually on a practical level (this will work, this won’t work), LD was going to go into the philosophical considerations of actions. Should we do something because it’s the right thing to do, in other words, as compared to its practicality. The right thing to do is often wildly impractical, the wrong this to do is often immediately practical, but that doesn’t warrant the latter or bar the former (although one could make such arguments). Closing one’s eyes at the formation of LD and imagining the difference between it and policy could not have been difficult. Frankly, it still doesn’t seem difficult, even though there is much more overlap than anybody probably ever expected. They are just different animals.
The genius of LD was, in its formative years, the institution of a literal value into the framework of argumentation. If you look at the literature, maintaining a value and criterion were not initially structural necessities; my understanding is that a few coaches brought the concept to light at their institute (O’C can elucidate, I’m sure). A couple of years or so ago, NFL actually upgraded its LD rules and incorporated the literal value into the rounds, along with the criterion for measuring if that value had been successfully incorporated (i.e., the weighing mechanism). When I first started judging, there were plenty of teams that did, by design, not include literal values in their cases or arguments, and often they got away with this (although personally I found it hard to track what they were trying to do). Teams doing that today would, if one were to follow the rules (which I highly recommend) lose on face out of the gate.
PF has not come up with its literal analog to V/C yet, if it ever will. In many ways, it is harder to close your eyes now, so soon after the formation of PF, and imagine the differences separating it from policy or LD than it was to separate LD from policy. The thing is, there are plenty of differences, but they don’t have that much to do with content per se. PF topics tend to be mostly of a policy nature, and there is no specific V/C structural aspect, so those are differences, of course, but the real difference is in the ever-changing topic, which allows just so much depth before the next topic comes along, and the relatively short speaking times, which limit the amount of argumentation (especially as PF debaters continue to face lay judges, which will remain the case for the foreseeable future, just as it was an aspect of LD for a very long time, only recently declining in favor of un-lay judges, whatever they are). You’re going to have to get to the point quickly in a PF round, and you’re going to have to stay on the point, and you’re going to need classical oratory skills. Wackiness will not be rewarded. Misreadings of resolutions will not be rewarded. Lack of research will not be rewarded, but neither will facts without meaning. The nature of PF begins to determine itself through its actions (which is a very philosophical evaluation of a thing’s nature).
Which brings us back to the basic idea of what an argument has to be. You have your side of the argument, clearly defined. You’ve got to have reasons to support your side. You need to show how those reasons do, indeed, support your side. And if you’re talking about PF, and you apply an implicit value construct borrowed from LD to the argument, I think you’ll end up with a really solid case.
The value in an LD case is the thing you are trying to achieve, the underlying big social aspect like justice or morality. It’s the reason you go aff, or neg, to get to justice or wherever. If the resolution is, say, banning nuclear weapons, your argument in LD is not that we ban nuclear weapons because they’re dangerous or something like that, but because it is the moral thing to do. We would cite the dangers as evidence in aid of our argument for morality. Put another way, the value is the underlying reason you support your side of the resolution, and your arguments point sooner or later to that underlying reason. You win or lose because you convinced on the level of the underlying reason.
That is exactly what is needed in a PF case right off the top, an underlying reason to support one side or the other. This reason serves exactly the same role as the value in LD.
Let’s go back to our hypothetical loosey-goosey PF resolution that we’ve been kicking around on health care. Let’s specify that it’s that the US should enact Obama’s healthcare plan. Before proceeding to defend one side or the other, we would need to decide why we want to defend that side. This comes, of course, after having done research (you don’t write a case and then find research to support it, although I’ve known novices who attempt just that, with predictably dim results). And once we decide what that reason is, and it needs to be big and important, that is what our case is about, and what our evidence will support. Let’s call it The Big Idea.
Before showing an example, let’s imagine that we don’t have The Big Idea. We could run a case in favor of BHO’s health plan that goes like this:
1. We stand in support of the rez.
2. If we enact this plan, the following 3 good things will result.
3. Evidence for result A, which is a good thing.
4. Evidence for result B, which is a good thing.
5. Evidence for result C, which is a good thing.
6. Because of these 3 good things, we urge a pro ballot.
Even if this case has great evidence, convincingly delivered, it lacks an underlying idea. It lacks underlying tissue. The resolution alone is not enough. Think of it as the difference between a plot and a theme. The plot of Moby-Dick is, well, there’s this big whale. The theme of Moby-Dick is obsession. Either one without the other is, well, a fish story or a psychological essay. Together they are arguably the Great American Novel. (And, yeah, Melville calls whales fish, so don’t get me started.)
Now let’s throw in The Big Idea. After doing research, the team decides that The Big Idea in favor of healthcare is better healthcare, that the government would do it better than independent providers, and therefore everyone would be healthier as a result. That case goes like this:
1. We stand in support of the rez because of The Big Idea slash better healthcare.
2. If we enact this plan, we will get better healthcare for these 3 reasons.
3. Evidence for result A, which is a good thing.
4. Evidence for result B, which is a good thing.
5. Evidence for result C, which is a good thing.
6. Because these three good things result in better healthcare and healthier people, we urge a pro ballot.
(By the way, I’m simplifying here, of course. Don’t fault me on the technicalities.)
In other words, The Big Idea is the thing that you put at the end of the sentence where you say you support the rez because. The because is The Big Idea. And The Big Idea is, of course, analogous to the value in LD.
Because of the examples I’ve used, I’m hard-pressed to demonstrate a further level of connecting evidence to The Big Idea (to wit, criteria), and as a rule that may not be necessary. The existence of a criterion in LD is to translate contentions of action/fact into transcendent values. In PF the reality might be that, since all the discussion is about actions and facts, no translation is necessary. Then again, occasionally PF rezzes do include words like justice. In that case The Big Idea has to be why a given side is just, and depending on the rez, a translation factor like a criterion might also be required. Probably not, though. I think that TBI will be enough to cover the conceptualization of why one side versus the other side.
In LD, I ask my debaters what they’re running on a given side. If they can’t answer that question in one simple sentence, then they’re not ready to debate yet. The same should be held true for PF. What are you running? If you answered for the pro in our hypothetical example, “BHO’s healthcare plan is good,” you wouldn’t be ready to debate yet. If you answered, “BHO’s healthcare plan leads to this Big Idea and therefore we should support it,” you’re ready to go.
The key to writing a case then, is to build it around The Big Idea. If you don’t have The Big Idea, get one.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
More on the expunging of the Feed, et cetera
So Palmer complains that this blog has become too mix-and-match for him, but it’s hard for me to tell, since I never read it. But I’m willing to believe that he’s right (he usually is, except for when he disagrees with me), so I’ve created an entirely separate blog for feeding. I will cross-reference it here, so you’ll know what you’re missing, but CL will go back to whatever it is that CL is famous for, and CF will carry on the new tradition of posting articles of enormous interest that you should read but probably won’t. In other words, I am doing what Solomon suggested and cutting myself in half, or something like that. Whatever it takes to keep Palmer happy.
It will take a little time to polish up the new blog. At the moment, it’s black, so you won’t confuse it with this one (which, if you haven’t noticed, is white). I’m also still putting out the raw feed, which is stuff of interest but not that interesting, I guess, and maybe I’ve evolved out of that with the annotated feed. Hard to say. The experiment continues.
Meanwhile, I’ve got a big long piece continuing the PF series that I need to polish, which I should post tomorrow, about case structure. The fact that the piece is endless probably won’t disguise the fact that the point of it is amazingly simplistic. Easy stuff is always the hardest to explain.
On the home front, I’ve finally finished my first run through of all my iPhoto pix. Now to edit down to the good ones. The nice thing about digital versus film is the elimination of the literal cost of the bad-to-good ratio. The percentage of good pix is about the same regardless of the medium, but digital doesn’t cost anything; it always used to pain me, throwing away five or more pictures for every one kept, but why keep crappy pictures? Even professional photographers don’t exclusively take good pictures: they probably work up an even higher ratio of tossed to kept. (Throw in film and bracketing, and you’ve got 5 to 1 just on exposure, regardless of the content.) I used to travel with 30 or 40 film canisters. Now I just charge my camera. I also used to carry a camera around my neck that weighed about as much as Pip the Wondercat. I have to admit, I don’t miss lugging around the weight, but I do miss the sharp lenses, especially this one zoom I used to have… Oh, well. It’s either convenience (camera in pocket) or excellence, and I can guarantee the former and only hope for the latter, so for the foreseeable F, no digital SLR for me. (Maybe it’s just that I need to get buff. More buff, I mean. Excuse me: I’m going to drop down and give myself twenty.)
And what did you miss in the Coachean Feed today? Religious intolerance in Ireland, kidney donations for money, affirmative action, immunization, Plato, Nozick, international handouts and a new social network for Policians. Nothing there of concern to any of you, I’m sure.
It will take a little time to polish up the new blog. At the moment, it’s black, so you won’t confuse it with this one (which, if you haven’t noticed, is white). I’m also still putting out the raw feed, which is stuff of interest but not that interesting, I guess, and maybe I’ve evolved out of that with the annotated feed. Hard to say. The experiment continues.
Meanwhile, I’ve got a big long piece continuing the PF series that I need to polish, which I should post tomorrow, about case structure. The fact that the piece is endless probably won’t disguise the fact that the point of it is amazingly simplistic. Easy stuff is always the hardest to explain.
On the home front, I’ve finally finished my first run through of all my iPhoto pix. Now to edit down to the good ones. The nice thing about digital versus film is the elimination of the literal cost of the bad-to-good ratio. The percentage of good pix is about the same regardless of the medium, but digital doesn’t cost anything; it always used to pain me, throwing away five or more pictures for every one kept, but why keep crappy pictures? Even professional photographers don’t exclusively take good pictures: they probably work up an even higher ratio of tossed to kept. (Throw in film and bracketing, and you’ve got 5 to 1 just on exposure, regardless of the content.) I used to travel with 30 or 40 film canisters. Now I just charge my camera. I also used to carry a camera around my neck that weighed about as much as Pip the Wondercat. I have to admit, I don’t miss lugging around the weight, but I do miss the sharp lenses, especially this one zoom I used to have… Oh, well. It’s either convenience (camera in pocket) or excellence, and I can guarantee the former and only hope for the latter, so for the foreseeable F, no digital SLR for me. (Maybe it’s just that I need to get buff. More buff, I mean. Excuse me: I’m going to drop down and give myself twenty.)
And what did you miss in the Coachean Feed today? Religious intolerance in Ireland, kidney donations for money, affirmative action, immunization, Plato, Nozick, international handouts and a new social network for Policians. Nothing there of concern to any of you, I’m sure.
Farewell Feed
Not a going out of business farewell, but rather, a moving farewell.
Follow CoacheanFeed.blogspot.com for the feed articles. Simple as that. That will keep them out of here. I'm still playing around with this. Bear with me.
Details to come.
Follow CoacheanFeed.blogspot.com for the feed articles. Simple as that. That will keep them out of here. I'm still playing around with this. Bear with me.
Details to come.
Monday, July 13, 2009
General generalities
Going forward I’m going to put together a more complete analysis of PF than I have so far, just to keep ideas closer together. I’m being a lot windier than I expected. Who knew? I should at least have a cogent approach to case-writing finished in a couple of days. I’ll put disparate pieces together rather than breaking them up day-by-day.
Other items on the agenda:
1. Update the MHL site. The big news on this front is the addition of a late-season one-day tournament, a sort of free-for-all MHL Championships. We’ll have novice and JV as usual, plus Policy and LD RRs. This looks like it could be a lot of fun, and a much better way to end the season than just petering out, as we usually do. I’ll send out details to folks within the next couple of days.
2. I have been working on putting together a listserver for the NYSFL so that members can effectively communicate with the regional directors. I should shortly make this public, which was the goal when we met with the NYSFL folks. Good communication is the starting point of understanding.
3. I need to keep track of every bloody minute of every bloody day of WTF Summer Camp. Thank God they post every bloody thing online, from lectures and labs to which students are actually using the deodorant and, more importantly, which students are not. I would hate to miss even one bloody minute of the action. I just wish they weren’t working on that bloody make-poor-countries-pay-through-the-teeth topic…
4. I’m cleaning up my digital photo collection. This is proving much harder than I had anticipated. I didn’t realize just how disorganized I was in the first place. Why is Prague in WDW, for example? Screwy.
5. Prep for vacation. Coming up soon, which means shutting down CL HQ for a couple of weeks, but don’t worry, you’ll have minute-by-minute updates from WTF to hold you in my absence.
Meanwhile, Feed content is a little more abridged than usual. So it goes. Take advantage of the summer. Read a book that has nothing to do with debate. Something to clear your head. I’ve got a nice pile for my trip, including Wodehouse and Huxtable and some book on the 1889 Paris Expo, plus maybe a Pynchon. That should hold me.
Other items on the agenda:
1. Update the MHL site. The big news on this front is the addition of a late-season one-day tournament, a sort of free-for-all MHL Championships. We’ll have novice and JV as usual, plus Policy and LD RRs. This looks like it could be a lot of fun, and a much better way to end the season than just petering out, as we usually do. I’ll send out details to folks within the next couple of days.
2. I have been working on putting together a listserver for the NYSFL so that members can effectively communicate with the regional directors. I should shortly make this public, which was the goal when we met with the NYSFL folks. Good communication is the starting point of understanding.
3. I need to keep track of every bloody minute of every bloody day of WTF Summer Camp. Thank God they post every bloody thing online, from lectures and labs to which students are actually using the deodorant and, more importantly, which students are not. I would hate to miss even one bloody minute of the action. I just wish they weren’t working on that bloody make-poor-countries-pay-through-the-teeth topic…
4. I’m cleaning up my digital photo collection. This is proving much harder than I had anticipated. I didn’t realize just how disorganized I was in the first place. Why is Prague in WDW, for example? Screwy.
5. Prep for vacation. Coming up soon, which means shutting down CL HQ for a couple of weeks, but don’t worry, you’ll have minute-by-minute updates from WTF to hold you in my absence.
Meanwhile, Feed content is a little more abridged than usual. So it goes. Take advantage of the summer. Read a book that has nothing to do with debate. Something to clear your head. I’ve got a nice pile for my trip, including Wodehouse and Huxtable and some book on the 1889 Paris Expo, plus maybe a Pynchon. That should hold me.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
This is good to know
I just read on WTF that they encourage students at their institute to bring deodorant. I am happy to hear this. It completely changes my thinking on debate institutes.
Friday, July 10, 2009
FEED: Civil rights
Very interesting piece on socialism/communism/capitalism/liberalism and the history of race relations.
{As quoted from the former Nation of Islam leader Malcolm X]: "You can't have racism without capitalism. If you find antiracists, usually they're socialists or their political philosophy is that of socialism."
Spend time on most college campuses and you're likely to hear something very similar. Progressives and leftists, the conventional narrative goes, fought the good fight while conservatives and libertarians either sat it out or sided with the bad guys. But there's a problem with this simplistic view: It completely ignores the fact that classical liberalism—which centers on individual rights, economic liberty, and limited government—played an indispensable role in the fight for equal rights. More...
{As quoted from the former Nation of Islam leader Malcolm X]: "You can't have racism without capitalism. If you find antiracists, usually they're socialists or their political philosophy is that of socialism."
Spend time on most college campuses and you're likely to hear something very similar. Progressives and leftists, the conventional narrative goes, fought the good fight while conservatives and libertarians either sat it out or sided with the bad guys. But there's a problem with this simplistic view: It completely ignores the fact that classical liberalism—which centers on individual rights, economic liberty, and limited government—played an indispensable role in the fight for equal rights. More...
Thursday, July 09, 2009
PF 2009 Part 5
Debate is debate. I think we can easily make the mistake that different kinds of debate are more different than they actually are. Their forms and structures may be slightly different, and their content may be radically different, but their underlying essence is identical. In a debate, we are trying to convince someone of something. In academic debate, we have rules to guide how we do that convincing. But in the end, it’s all about the convincing.
The unfortunate tribalism of high school forensics asserts that whichever activity the group is participating in is the best, and all the rest are less than the best. This is no different from supporting one’s football team or baseball team as the best, not because they win all the time, but because there is some inherent aspect of that particular team that just makes them better in the eyes of the beholder. It is all entirely arbitrary. There is no more reason to root for the Mets than to root for the Yankees unless one is to judge them entirely on win/loss record, which is not how fans become fans. Fans identify with something about their team, and then the fanaticism sets in, the word fan of course being derived from the word fanatic. At least the high school forensician is a part of the group that he or she is hailing as the best; since none of the Mets or Yankees fans I know are actually either Mets or Yankees, their commitment is beyond my understanding. But my inability to identify with sports fans is not the point here. The point is that, if you’re a Polician, you think Policy is the best, and you look down on LDers. LDers used to have to do their sneering at Speecho-Americans (who have their own hierarchies), but now that PF is around, LDers get to look down at Pfffters. The VCA knows that I personally feel that all forensics activities are valuable, and I have argued that at great length in the past, so I won’t repeat it here. But PF, because it is new, probably has to work the hardest to get any respect. LD used to be the upstart, but after 30 years or so that’s really not the case anymore. But on the other hand, most coaches today recall not too long ago the birthing pains of PF, its various name changes and the like, and some of us have yet to accept it as a full-blooded activity in its own right.
The students, however, know little or none of this. PF has been around long enough now that no student recalls from firsthand experience any of those birthing pains. The name Ted Turner rings no bells whatsoever. PF is, simply, PF. (By the way, a lot of what I’m saying here has been said by others, but I can’t cite who because it was a while ago and I’ve internalized it. Feel free to step forth if you’ve said it first.) But that doesn’t mean that PF doesn’t get a bum rap as the new kid on the block. It’s the newness that’s the problem. Any new kid will feel the heat.
I think that a lot of LD coaches may, no matter how much we wish to treat PF as an equal activity, come to it initially as Debate Lite. I say this not to accuse others but to accuse myself. Even the cursory lecture I gave on PF, which is about all I had to say on the subject, treated it as if it were a piece of cake once one had mastered the art of LD. But giving myself over to some serious study of the activity, including judging hither and yon for a while, has convinced me of what I instinctively knew but was denying, that PF is complete, and, done well, it’s hard. It isn’t “lite” anything. It’s PF. It’s debate. It’s good stuff.
But as I began, all debate at some point is, still, debate. It’s about convincing people that your side is right and the other side is wrong.
And I still haven’t gotten around to the specifics of applying LD to PF. Okay, next time. I promise that maybe next time I’ll get down to it.
You can take that to the bank.
The unfortunate tribalism of high school forensics asserts that whichever activity the group is participating in is the best, and all the rest are less than the best. This is no different from supporting one’s football team or baseball team as the best, not because they win all the time, but because there is some inherent aspect of that particular team that just makes them better in the eyes of the beholder. It is all entirely arbitrary. There is no more reason to root for the Mets than to root for the Yankees unless one is to judge them entirely on win/loss record, which is not how fans become fans. Fans identify with something about their team, and then the fanaticism sets in, the word fan of course being derived from the word fanatic. At least the high school forensician is a part of the group that he or she is hailing as the best; since none of the Mets or Yankees fans I know are actually either Mets or Yankees, their commitment is beyond my understanding. But my inability to identify with sports fans is not the point here. The point is that, if you’re a Polician, you think Policy is the best, and you look down on LDers. LDers used to have to do their sneering at Speecho-Americans (who have their own hierarchies), but now that PF is around, LDers get to look down at Pfffters. The VCA knows that I personally feel that all forensics activities are valuable, and I have argued that at great length in the past, so I won’t repeat it here. But PF, because it is new, probably has to work the hardest to get any respect. LD used to be the upstart, but after 30 years or so that’s really not the case anymore. But on the other hand, most coaches today recall not too long ago the birthing pains of PF, its various name changes and the like, and some of us have yet to accept it as a full-blooded activity in its own right.
The students, however, know little or none of this. PF has been around long enough now that no student recalls from firsthand experience any of those birthing pains. The name Ted Turner rings no bells whatsoever. PF is, simply, PF. (By the way, a lot of what I’m saying here has been said by others, but I can’t cite who because it was a while ago and I’ve internalized it. Feel free to step forth if you’ve said it first.) But that doesn’t mean that PF doesn’t get a bum rap as the new kid on the block. It’s the newness that’s the problem. Any new kid will feel the heat.
I think that a lot of LD coaches may, no matter how much we wish to treat PF as an equal activity, come to it initially as Debate Lite. I say this not to accuse others but to accuse myself. Even the cursory lecture I gave on PF, which is about all I had to say on the subject, treated it as if it were a piece of cake once one had mastered the art of LD. But giving myself over to some serious study of the activity, including judging hither and yon for a while, has convinced me of what I instinctively knew but was denying, that PF is complete, and, done well, it’s hard. It isn’t “lite” anything. It’s PF. It’s debate. It’s good stuff.
But as I began, all debate at some point is, still, debate. It’s about convincing people that your side is right and the other side is wrong.
And I still haven’t gotten around to the specifics of applying LD to PF. Okay, next time. I promise that maybe next time I’ll get down to it.
You can take that to the bank.
FEED: Intellectual Property
The Pope speaks out on the subject in a Papal encyclical. The gist seems to be that people come first, at least in health care.
On the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care. At the same time, in some poor countries, cultural models and social norms of behaviour persist which hinder the process of development. More...
On the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care. At the same time, in some poor countries, cultural models and social norms of behaviour persist which hinder the process of development. More...
FEED: Civil rights
The People's Champion has cited a story on the Massachusetts Attorney General filing suit against the federal government over the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The chief basis of the suit seems to be that the business of marriage is a state and not a federal one, then it goes on to discuss discrimination. On the federal/state issue alone, it sounds right.
It is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate, as it does because of DOMA's restrictive definition of marriage. It is also unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who is married and to create a system of first- and second-class marriages. The federal government cannot require states, such as Massachusetts, to further the discrimination through federal programs, either. The time has come for this injustice to end. More...
It is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate, as it does because of DOMA's restrictive definition of marriage. It is also unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who is married and to create a system of first- and second-class marriages. The federal government cannot require states, such as Massachusetts, to further the discrimination through federal programs, either. The time has come for this injustice to end. More...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)