https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FKh2pK1yfxBFrsyN-pBxnbD0QorNPvRY29bsL2LlmSM/edit

Wise words from a colleague about respecting your sources

Dean Rhoads of Trinity Prep wrote this as an RFD for a chamber he parlied at Sunvitational a few weeks ago, and, with his kind permission, I'm posting it here: 

This isn't really an explanation about rankings since every student was, to some degree, a participant in the practice I want to discuss.

We live in polarized country where there's no longer any consensus about what is real and true. Fake news is the accusation of our president when others disagree with him about reality. However, this didn't originate with Mr. Trump. It started back in 1968 when the mainstream press started reporting on the riots surrounding the Democratic Convention in Chicago. Conservatives felt the press had lost its objectivity when condemning police brutality against war protesters. Conservative radio talk show hosts actively promoted an alternative narrative and built a listener base that saw the world differently than those who watched only the major news outlets. Fox News came on the scene to promote a different narrative. Since then, the internet has allowed us to fragment into alternative news sources which are largely viewed by partisans who already agree with the point of view.

This is why I really want you to consider adding source citations and publication dates to the evidence you offer in your speeches. In a contentious world, it is important for rational people to assess the credibility of the sources being used to support an argument. I prefer to hear from sources that I judge to be more or less objective in preference to ones with a decided bias that promotes a particular point of view. I try to be aware of my biases and to avoid advocacy from either the left or the right.

It is difficult to establish an objective reality that accurately and truthfully describes reality because we are limited by our senses and technology and emotions to perceiving only partially the actual or complete truth. But we must try. Otherwise, arguments becomes impossible to evaluate because they are nothing more than competing claims.

You did a superb job of mixing reason and rhetoric to advance your positions, but for many of you, argument structure is weak. Arguments need a claim, a warrant, and an impact, to be effective. It is the warrant that needs you attention in the manner I have described.

Good luck to you all.

The Debate Climate

It's been years since I've even seen a policy round. I'm sure there are game-level considerations that at least partly drove this.  Still, as important as criminal justice reform is, the policy debate community's  decision doesn't fill me with hope. 

https://www.nfhs.org/articles/criminal-justice-reform-selected-as-2020-2021-national-policy-debate-topic/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=NFHS_Org

Remind you of anything?

Dr. Young (whose book Irony and Outrage I'm now enjoying) is talking about why the president's audiences love it when he rambles about toilets needing 15 flushes etc.  To a lesser extent, she could also be talking about how "zingers" determine "winners" in primary and presidential debates on both sides.

But unintentionally this tweet illustrates how Congressional Debate is a microcosm of the current moment.

For at least the decade before 2016, it was also a terrible harbinger.  I remember hearing how debaters who needed bill ideas would literally just go to the ALEC database!

Legislation Blessed and Cursed

A “cursed bill” is a piece of legislation for which AFF can’t quote an expert saying this legislation is what we should do.  

A “blessed bill” is a piece of legislation for which the AFF can quote an expert saying the legislation is what we should do.

That's it.  That's the post.

Minneapple Chamber 8 Prelims Parliamentarian's Notes

Here's where they are. 

As always, my comments are decidedly glass-half-empty, and if I didn't critique you for something, you're probably doing it pretty well.   Make use of whatever feedback makes sense and ignore the rest.

Debate Dysfunction in the News

A colleague shared this story from NPR, which is worth listening to or reading.

Here's part of what I wrote in response:

Thanks!  I'd have totally missed this if you hadn't sent it.

This guy wrote a hilarious article about ten years ago for Harper's about how the hierarchy of events inside high school debate teams was ruining American political discourse.  Seems like I need to dust that off.  Probably wouldn't be as funny.  

My own take is that spreading isn't even metaphorically the problem. The common crisis shared by America and its biggest political game is that paraphrase has displaced quotation.  

I'd really like to Tweet this link out on the team account in part because some people would find it interesting but mostly just to needle people who think that spreading is not to be mocked.  

I'll add the book to my list, though.  Thanks again.