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.

2019: Congress as Usual, Somehow

Someone somewhere will eventually write her dissertation on what Congressional Debate was like during the Trump Administration.  One reason:  we are America's biggest political game, attracting some of our most gifted young people to talk about the issues of the day.  Another:  Everything will have a dissertation written about it sometime.  Still flush from having contributed Urban Dictionary's Word of the Day for May 23rd (a definition which had previously been cited in the Washington Post), I'm going to do that grad student a solid (assuming she has the research skills to find this tiniest of blogs). 

What I think our historian will discover is that the Trump administration's bonfire of norms didn't really register with Congress.  Looking through the NSDA 2019 docket, only one bill directly addresses itself to this:  the Kansas Hills District's "Bill to Limit Presidential Authority Authorized by the National Emergency Act."  (And here only the last of three parts of the bill would restore the previously unwritten norm through legislation.)

Two other pieces of legislation would overturn Trump administration foreign policy moves ("A Bill to Cease Sale of Weaponry to Saudi Arabia" and "A Resolution to Rejoin Iran Nuclear Deal").  But those are the kinds of bills you'd see during any presidency. 

These bills were written by national qualifiers and then emerged from their districts via discussions among coaches and finally were overseen and then selected by the national tournament committee itself. The nationals docket reflects the event-as-event more than dockets at regular tournaments which tend to pass through fewer adult hands and more closely reflect the debaters' understandings (and sometimes misunderstandings) of how things work.  I'll leave this to the historian to confirm, but I believe that the NSDA 2019 docket is pretty representative of Student Congress since 11/9/16 in that it doesn't reflect a sense of crisis.

The event is supposed to reflect on the important issues of the day.  It isn't. 

Some possibilities:

• He's the only president most of our debaters have paid any attention to so there's no "normal" frame of reference to see what an outlier this presidency has been.
• Our debaters, especially on the national circuits, are largely whiter and wealthier. They're insulated from or are even short-term beneficiaries of administration policies.  
• Most of the topics are lopsided AFF.  For instance, fully funding and implementing plans to prevent hacking of federal elections.   How do you go NEG on that?  
• Debaters believe that adult judges can't be trusted to set aside their partisan identities while judging.
• Debaters believe it would be seen as uncool by other debaters (or maybe just all-downside) to take a straightforwardly political stance. 
• Maybe all of high school speech and debate is really about kids pleasing adults by playing together in a way that adults approve of.  Maybe the kids who really care about politics just go do politics.   

I'm not saying we really ought to be debating impeachment but . . . we really ought to be debating impeachment. 

P.S.  And climate change?  We can't get a bill on that either?  (Kansas Hills' bill has something that would make it harder for states to skirt pollution rules.  That's as close as we get.) 

Glenbrooks 2018 prelims Chamber 1

As always, just make use of anything that makes sense and ignore the rest

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yO1Kern-K-HlPaatKrQSpjs6X0ob_Ngttx7RgFLCJA8/edit?usp=drivesdk

The "Stop Punching Yourself" Omnibus of 2018 continues to grow.  It's been an odd experience tallying up the damage--large and small, humorous and horrifying--for which the bill will eventually come due.  It's almost up to Section 1, subsection AAA at this point, but I don't think I've seen any of the items in actual legislation form so far this year.

Two other things:

• This song, Jon Baptiste's cover of  "What a Wonderful World," captures the uneasy hope of 2018.  
• This article ought to be required reading for people attached to Congressional Debate.  

Free Legislation

If you'd like to adopt ***this bill*** as your very own, I don't mind at all.  In fact, rename it and trim it down to just the provision(s) you like.   I'm leaving it in www.congressionaldebate.org's googledocs format so you'll at least have to paste it in to your own doc.

Consider this like CBI's monthly bill packet released at NSDA:  there for the taking or at least as inspiration for your own legislation.

(Yes, it's silly.  But it's not entirely silly.)

MS Nats 2018

Such a great chamber!

This is exactly the advice I'd give you if I were your coach.  But take it with a grain of salt. 

CatNats 18 Chamber 5 Prelims

So on this one I tried to cut out all the snark.

And failed. 

So maybe just pay attention to the ballots if they make more sense.  (But I stand by the advice.)

Harvard Semis Chamber C 2018

Congrats to all in an event that seems to be more competitive each tournament.

Here it is.  As always, take whatever helps and ignore all the rest. 

Here's Emory

As always, take whatever makes sense and ignore the rest.

Here they are.

While we're waiting for the fun to begin at Emory . . .

I've long thought that I should confess that I have a terrible memory of debaters and the schools they go to?  Hand-in-hand with that is the fact that I'm practically face-blind, so as soon as we leave the chamber, poof.  It's all gone. 

I get the sense sometimes that everyone else knows everyone and where they go to school.  Not me.  At Sunvite Finals I gave a richly deserved 1 and 2 to debaters from the same school--I knew because their code BT was the same--and I assumed they were from some powerhouse in South Florida or in the Northeast or one of those schools out west.  But they were from Napierville, wherever that is.  (Illinois, I'm thinking.) 

In the room I just parlied, I'm pretty sure I know where one of the fourteen debaters is from.  The rest, even the ones I've judged a few times?  No idea.  (OK, DeVito is from New York--I know because it was In. Every. Intro.) 

I could learn where y'all are from, if I made an effort.  I won't. 

If my ballot-rankings seem eccentric sometimes, all I can say is that I'm sure of them (they seem obvious and indisputable to me), and you should be proud if I've ranked you, even if no other judge did.  School reps and relationships aren't playing any role in my decision, because I have only the vaguest idea who anyone is. 

Minneapple 2017 Prelims Chamber 4 Notes

Sorry these are going up a few hours later than promised.

As always, use whatever feedback seems helpful to you and ignore the rest.  

Here they are.

Resources NFCFL Fall Gathering Novice Congress Workshop

Here are my thoughts . . .

. . . on what makes Congress special.

. . . on how to select a bill topic.

. . . on how Congress judges think (to the extent we do).

And here's a manifesto of sorts.

TOC 2017 Chamber C Prelims

My commentary here is . . . a little uneven.  More useful than nothing, I hope.  TOC prelims chambers are like starting in a tough semis chamber.  Your judges and I had difficult decisions to make.

As always, use whatever makes sense and ignore the rest.

I didn't go on my usual "sanctity of evidence" rant (see earlier posts if you'd like) at the beginning of the round to see what would happen if I didn't.  It might have hurt a couple of people, but generally I did not see much of a difference.

Emory 2017 Chamber 7

The usual disclaimer:  Take whatever makes sense to you and ignore the rest of my lunatic ravings.

Chamber 7 notes.  Y'all were really good.  My top two were obvious but after that I struggled.