What Congress Could Use: Debates about People

One effect of requiring Expert Solvency Advocates for any legislation (which couldn't ever be a rule but should be a custom throughout the activity, esp. for coaches, summer camp staff, and--oh my God, please--tournament organizers) is to limit debate from "the US should implement my daydream"  legislation to the thousands of actual real-world policy options the US must choose from at home and abroad.

Some people might find the "No ESA=No Way" limit too constricting, but there's an unjustifiably neglected area of debate that features ESAs:

Debates about people.

A few years ago, before it was cool, then (post-11/9) deeply, deeply uncool again, one of my debaters wrote a resolution urging that Edward Snowden be granted clemency.  This was the stated position of the New York Times editors, so we had our Expert Solvency Advocate covered.

Congress kids treated this as radioactive, however, and I don't think it ever made the agenda, but I think it would have been a really interesting debate if it had been given a chance, touching on both larger issues and potential crimes--the kind of courtroom drama a lot of debaters would enjoy.

There's a constitutional basis for this, too, which will be a headline issue through February:  the confirmation process.

We tried something like this last year with our "Confirm Merrick Garland" resolution.  Again, no luck.  Seemed too political, I guess.

Resolutions of impeachment--hey, they're coming--are also debates about people.  I'm hoping that one of my debaters will be the first in America to run this for our new president, but someone surely will.

(Here's my suggested intro:  I want to begin by putting my cards on the table.  I'm a committed partisan, a Democrat since way back in high school, and I believe that it is to my party's advantage to retain Donald Trump as president because that makes him the face of the Republican party.   But I think parties and partisans ought to set aside their own narrow interests and do what's right for the country.  And that's why the President's violations of the Constitution's emoluments clause justify this resolution to impeach.)

One could also use resolutions to remove lower-rung people from the executive branch.  (Cough--Bannon.)

Anyway, Congress kids are a deeply conservative bunch in terms of the activity.  To some extent that's a good thing.  We're still comparatively light on jargon, though I heard the word "counterplan" three or four times recently.

My squad's push to use real legislation as their legislation has gained some national traction over the years, but things like Glenbrooks Finals 2016 still happen:  three bills to choose from, all from the NSDA November packet, but none with an Expert Solvency Advocate, meaning that all anyone had to do to win for the negative (from my paleo-policy perspective) was to ask, as the 2nd place finisher on my parli ballot did, "Notice how no one proposing that we pass this legislation can point to a single outside source saying we should do it?"

So if Debates about People are going to be a thing, it'll have to come from tournament-provided out-round legislation.  If anyone's listening at Sunvitational, Emory, or Harvard, I wouldn't mind you running with this idea.

If anyone knows those folks, and they happen to ask you for ideas, maybe steer them here?
________________________________

I'd take this even further, honestly.  We could have really interesting debates about naming or renaming post offices after certain important, controversial figures.  Or national holidays.

I guess I can admit that this is going too far, but can everyone else admit that it's better than many of the debates we have?  And a debate designating the month of May as National Funk Heritage Month would be educational, worthwhile, and fun.

And I'm sure we can find an Expert Solvency Advocate for it somewhere.  :)

Glenbrooks 2016

As always, take whatever's useful and ignore the rest.

Here's prelims.

And here's finals.

Minneapple 2016

As always, I'm a glass-half-empty kind of coach, always hoping for the best--ask my debaters--and I can't turn that off.  

Use what makes sense to you and completely ignore and forget anything that just seems cranky and random. 

Here's Chamber A.

And here's Semifinals A.

With great power comes great opportunities for empty gestures

Catholic Nationals Chamber C 2016

It's mostly a roast.

As always, use whatever's useful and ignore the rest.  


Regarding the Usual Obsession:

Guys, I can't call for evidence unless you challenge someone on it.

That would look like this:  "You claim that [Source X] on [Date Y] said that [totally convenient argument].  Can I see that card during break and can you make that available for the judges to see, too, if they'd like?"

And that requires listening.  Your pals in the other debate events wouldn't let this stuff fly.

It's time for the circuit to get its head out of the sand

Denial ain't just that the thing you made up (from "The New York Times in 2015") about there not being any rivers in Egypt.

Harvard Quarterfinals A 2016

I came away with two frustrations which account for my role as apparently an extreme outlier in ranking the round:

1. I wish y'all had debated the second bill as it was written rather than as if it were a big budget infrastructure bill.
2. I wish I could ask for evidence I suspect is being either willfully or accidentally misinterpreted.  Get on it NSDA.  

Anyway, here's the link.

Harvard 2016 Chamber P Prelims Notes

Here's the link to the googledoc.

Please make use of whatever part of this feedback makes sense to you and ignore the rest.

Why We Debate

(This is a draft.)

The founders put debate at the heart of our democratic process because they believed it was the best way to find the truth.

They didn't put debate there as merely an occasion for expressing eloquence, charm, cleverness, or dominance.

Eloquence serves debate's search for the truth.  We don't talk about America's challenges just to demonstrate our eloquence.

Searching for the truth requires engagement with the real world, and the proof that we're making that engagement is what we call evidence.

Without these smaller pieces of the truth, we can't assemble a larger truth on which we can act with confidence.

To me, respect for evidence is the single most important part of debate.  Without it, we might as well be doing Impromptu.  

Concretely, this means I'd prefer by a factor of one thousand that you look down at your legal pad and read a clean, fully-cited quotation than to try to dazzle me with confident eye-contact.  If you speak without a legal pad, you're expecting me to trust you more than I'm usually willing to.    

It's easy to guess how I feel about these loose "trust me they said this" paraphrases, citing daily newspapers by year only (if that).  Might as well not even bother.  And if it sounds illegit, welcome to the bottom half of the ballot.  

It's also easy to guess how I feel about the late "crystallization" speeches which nearly always substitute rapid-fire error-free delivery for actual insight or advancement of the debate.   Crystals are beautiful because their apparent complexity belies an elegant simplicity.  Those speeches are neither beautiful nor elegant.  Don't call it crystallization.  Call it a sugar buzz:  fun, quick, ultimately unsatisfying and at least a little bad for you.   

I confess I'm in the minority on this, but I'm not alone.  And every chance I get, I preach this to my colleagues, most of whom didn't sign on to watch our brightest kids dissemble prettily most weekends of the year.  

I do get a lot of chances.  

Sunvite RR Committee Notes

Here they are.  

I got progressively grumpier.

It is my way.