Minneapple 2014 Chamber A Flows and Ballots

Here they are.

Thanks for your good work.  As always, the quality of my comments varies from speech to speech.  (You'll see they trail off toward the end of most debates unless I'm getting cranky.)

If I say that I couldn't find a source, that doesn't mean I know for a fact that it was manufactured.  Things move too fast for me to authoritatively source-check.  I just wish I were allowed to ask.  (Or that you guys chose to.)

I mostly focus on changes you should make rather than on strengths you have.  If I'm not complaining about it, assume that you're doing it well.

The speech scores by your name in the column are purely decorative.  The only ballot I'm given is my single parli ballot.

The thing about my eccentric evidence preferences (name-qualifications-publication-date) is that it actually helps you, too, because it sounds impressive and it gives the judges time to ready themselves really to hear the quotation.  The small-room debate events (PF, LD, TD) are moving to ban paraphrases, and that evolution can't come to Congress too quickly.

ISIS
Climate Change
Incumbency
Common Core
E-Cigarettes
Kurdistan
USA FREEDOM 

Finally, my sole consolation for my team not making finals this year is that I can praise the tournament without that being mistaken as mere happiness at the results.

Minneapple is the way Congress should be run everywhere at every level.  It's a showcase for the effective organization of a tournament designed to emphasize the educational value of the activity.  We are all lucky to have it.

So hats off to Mr. Jacobi and his staff.  If I had a hat.  I wish I had a hat because it's very cold up here.  But even if I did have one, I'd still take it off in salute.

One Judge's Pref: Truly Random

I'll post the Minnie ballots when the rest of the ballots are distributed after awards.  The following has nothing to do with Minnie.



I understand that several POs are now using a randomizer app to set precedence.

Well done.

A full-on PO app with built-in randomizer, speech and question tracker, etc., is long overdue.

Anyway, if you PO in front of me while using this technique, I will smile upon you.

If you don't, I won't frown more highly than usual.  I usually rank POs after all of the excellent speakers unless there are serious errors, and that seems to be about right.  POs are important, but it's not an exceptionally demanding job, and too often it's a get-out-of-research free card.

(You get more credit for being the sole, reluctant PO than POing after winning a multi-candidate contest.)

I can imagine a PO using a transparent randomizer for setting precedence might vault ahead of even excellent speakers.

"And/Or Their Judges": Blue Key Changes the Rules, But Will Anyone Change the Game?

If you agree that there's still an unhealthy level of dishonesty in Congress research, then two sentences from the all-boldfaced Source Integrity section of the Blue Key rules packet at bluekeydebate.org ought to interest you.

Debaters must make said sources available to either their opponent(s) in the round, and/or their judges after the round upon request.   Debate entries failing to do so, or debaters who significantly misrepresent sources in the round may be disqualified at the discretion of Tab. 

The Source Integrity language isn't a sub-section of any of the debate events, so if one considers Congressional Debate as a debate event (it's in the name), these rules ought to apply.

Under traditional rules, judges can't ask to see sketchy-sounding evidence unless it's questioned or challenged in round by a debater, and no debater ever does that because, well, no one wants to start a war with another team or region or summer camp.  The upside of challenging a cheater is that you get to pants someone who's turning Congress into the Olympic event of hyper-fluent lying, but the downside risk is seldom perceived to be worth it.

The traditional rules work fine in the small-room debate events (PF, LD, Policy) because those debaters really don't care how anyone feels about them at the end of the round.  There's a huge incentive, then, for small-room debaters to police themselves, and since extra time-on-topic lets small-room debaters familiarize themselves with the research base, they actually spot fabrications more easily.  Congress, restlessly consuming topics like a shark and never looking back, just doesn't work that way.

This year's Blue Key rules, though, allow me as a judge to ask any debater for any suspicious card without having to hope that anyone else will burn a precious cross-ex question on it.

So when someone says that Cuba is in possession of a special mineral which, when manufactured into a drug, will lower US entitlement spending by 20% (NFL Nats Indianapolis), I could ask for the card.  And when someone says that according to RAND, US adoption of Network Neutrality regulations would double the number of Middle East uprisings (CatNats Baltimore), I could ask for that card.  Heritage says we should double the minimum wage (Minneapple 2013)?  Show me the card.  The New York Times reports that US drone strikes could destroy the Iranian nuclear program (Minneapple 2012)?  The Economic Policy Institute says environmental regulations cost every American family 10 grand (TOC '14)?  Card, card, card.

As it is now, I just call these people out on ballots and if I can't imagine some reasonable doubt, I drop them.  But my one ballot hasn't kept cheaters from breaking.

As much as allowing educators to enforce honesty in the event appeals to me because it allows hard-researching debaters to even the score against those born with the gift of gab, I don't actually prefer Blue Key's solution.  If these rules went national, it would only be a matter of time before some second-year-out Machiavelli used repeated unsubstantiated evidence challenges to cast a shadow over a debater just for the sake of it.  That could delegitimize the activity, too.  The best solution would be for debaters themselves to run cheaters out of Congresstown and into Oratory, where they'd be mostly harmless.

But that isn't going to happen, at least not until judges show that evidence matters by asking for it themselves, and Blue Key's answer is better than any other tournament's answer to date.

Flows from Bronx 14

Congrats to all who broke. 

These are light on commentary because of what happened last year with Tab.  This year I split it between ballots and comments on the flow.  I'm looking at some beautiful round 3 ballots for a kid who didn't break and scratching my head about the disconnection.  

I on the other hand tend to accentuate the negative.  It's more useful to you, I hope.

Here's Chamber 4 in Session 1:

Nigeria

Arabian Peninsula

Myanmar

Here's Chamber 3 in Session 3:

SEATO

Student Loans

Marijuana

The Script

Here's a link to the script introducing Congressional Debate and other materials from the CFDI presentation on 8/3/14.

Please feel free to make use of any of it.

What is Congressional Debate?

Choosing a Bill Topic

The Script

Policy Analysis Chart:

Here's NSDA 2014: Nats Flow-Ballots

More ballot comments than flows, especially for House 8.  Sorry if I seem a little testy on those.  As always, my comments are purely intended to help.  Ruthlessly disregard anything that isn't helpful.  My motto in all things:  It's probably better than nothing.

Congrats to everyone who made it to NSDA Nats 2014.

Senate:  Bitcoins
Senate:  Ban Arms Sales to Iraq
Senate:  Renegotiate NAFTA

House:  Space Societies
House:  Sahel
House:  Civil Unions
House:  Minimum Wage

NSDA Nats flow-ballots . . .

. . . will appear here when Sen. Klein and Rep. Rucci are done with competing and I'm done with judging, so either tonight (I hope not) or tomorrow night (I hope).

In the meantime, eat your veggies and cite your sources, everybody.

Will the tournament apologize for putting two House chambers in a room?  I certainly hope so if it hasn't done so already.  My pref sheet should have been distributed with two tabs of Adderall and close captioning.  (Actually, that's probably just a good idea in general.)

All Instagram captions of this unfortunate choice should honor our Wizard of Oz setting:  "Pay no attention to that House behind the curtain!"

TOC 14

Generally really great work everyone.  Everyone in the room clearly deserved clearly to be there.

Argument flow and comments on top with general comments at bottom.  Please just treat these as if they were non-interactive.

As always, take what you can from these.  If you disagree with anything I wrote, you're probably right.  (But give me a little credit for trying?)

To get them out close to when you get the rest of your ballots, I am publishing without proofreading.  Enjoy the inevitable typos.

Top 8 Round by Round
Morning Hour and PO RFD
Electricity
Chemical Facilities
Treaty-Rama
Patents
Hate Crimes
ESA
DDT
DC
FDA

Great Midwestern Novice Nats Flow-Ballots: Updated with working links!

Don't be overwhelmed.  Instead of flows by speaker, the arguments are arranged by type.  You made the arguments beside your initials.  At the bottom of the spreadsheet, you'll see ballot-type comments in speaker order left-to-right.

If you think I'm wrong about something, it's probably true.  This is the best I could do.  

Good job, generally, overall.  My biggest complaint was that people didn't prep, even on the easy-to-prep bills like Minimum Wage (a high priority for the Dems) and Tax Reform (a major initiative met with a lukewarm embrace by both parties).  A half-hour per bill would have been enough to get anyone into Supers, I'd bet.

Foreign Language

Space

Infrastructure

Marijuana

OK, here they are. Harvard Prelims and Semis Parli Flows and Comments

The usual caveats apply--these are snapshots of my thinking as each debate unfolded with some feedback I hope will be helpful.  They're at least a little better than nothing, I hope.  In some cases I make the arguments I'd make against yours.  (Usually anything starting with "But" is a response I'd make.)

If you're sure I'm wrong about something, let's just agree that I probably am.

Prelims Chamber L s1 Nuclear Cuts

Community Service

Immigration

Microloans to L.A.

Disability Insurance

South Sudan (notes only as I switched to tabbing my list)

Semis Chamber A

SNAP

Crop Insurance

Sugar

Pretty good rounds all the way through.  At this year's Harvard tournament I learned these things: 

• Snappy, dramatic, and even scenery-chewing delivery is a key skill for many judges (but it's not for me).  A few of the finalists would make great silent film actors.
• Very few people pay attention to my earnest pleas and dire threats about using complete sources (name, qualification of source, publication name, and date).  But some do try to adjust.  And there were only a few instances where I thought something sounded sketchy and no instances at all where I was completely certain I was being lied to.  
•  I've lost patience for half-baked legislation.  The best bills closely follow existing real-world proposals.  Outside of congress, I'm pro-imagination.  But I'm against imaginative bill writing.  Don't use your imagination!  Bills are homework for everyone, and bad bills are just cruel, cruel, cruel.  If you can't find at least one expert who directly says that your plan exactly will solve the problem, you need to find another topic (for everyone's sake).  
• People generally are getting better at Congress, and that's causing the event to mature and become more challenging.  About ten years ago, PF was immature.  Around that time I judged a PF semis round at TOC where one team had only a single piece of evidence!  Congress has matured from clash-free parallel oratories to an actual debate event to a sometimes rigorous debate event.  I hope we can keep that up.  Congress really is the best.  

Laird Lewis flows and ballots from your prelim parlimentarian (House D)

Here we go.  Again, just my opinion here.  I may have missed something brilliant you said--sorry!

The flows follow my own system, where arguments are clumped according to a modified policy debate scheme.  Initials identify the speaker.  Arguments that are framed as responses to a prior argument are in the box to the right of that argument.

Generally I was happy with the round.  If you received harsh comments from one of the first- or second-year-out judges, well, that's just how they do, usually.

Great job by the tournament staff.  Also, Bennington won the Better P.O. despite being unable to pronounce the other P.O.'s last name. 

  

Geothermal

Israel

Pakistan

CEASE (aid to Egypt)

Afghanistan

Mexico

Cuba

Marijuana