A video of the final round of this year’s Barkley Forum for High Schools at Emory University has been posted on NFLTV.org. The round features Glenbrook South’s Richard Day and Will Thibeau taking on the Westminster Schools’ Ellis Allen and Daniel Taylor.
It has been brought to my attention that a LD debater from Greenhill has been reading this NC about how the aff should lose for not disclosing.
This seems pretty awesome and likely to catch people by surprise.
Stacy Nathan Scholarship
Stacy Nathan was a very successful high school and college debater winning in the course of her career NFL Nationals, the Tournament of Champions, CEDA Nationals and losing in the final round of the NDT on a 3-2 decision. Stacy may be the most successful debater in the history of the Cal Debate program and is a role model for women in debate. Stacy is currently a very successful attorney in Washington D.C. and we are honoring her hard work and success by naming this award after her.
In keeping with the CNDI and the Regents program continued commitment to supporting women in debate we are pleased to be able to offer the Stacey Nathan Scholarship to an outstanding female debater. This scholarship will cover the full tuition and room cost for the scholarship winner to attend the CNDI. Interested applicants should send an email to the institute director Greg Achten at gregachten@berkeley.edu outlining qualifications to receive this scholarship. Decisions may be made on a combination of merit and potential for future success. Deadline for submitting applications is March 1st and the winner will be announced by March 20th.
Established in 2006, The David P. Baker Award for Season Long Excellence is presented at the National Debate Coaches’ Association Championship to the high school policy debate team with the highest point total using the tournament’s qualification system.
Modeled to some extent after college debate’s Copeland Award, the Baker is calculated based on a mathematical formula rather than on a poll of coaches or voters. This basic statistical approach to evaluating a debate team’s performance over the course of a season has been criticized by some participants and coaches who have advanced several critiques of the formula.
This article is an attempt to first explain the way that the Baker Award is calculated and then to highlight the major complaints that have been levied against it.
This email alert has been automatically generated by www.nflonline.org.
NFL is a finalist for Pepsi’s Refresh Everything grant, which helps groups from across the country improve their local communities. NFL’s proposal will create weekend-long communication leadership summits in six major cities for students and teachers in Title I schools. Most of the grant money will be given directly to students, teachers, and coaches in the six major cities we serve. That’s over $210,000 directly into the hands of deserving students and educators.
We need your help to reach our goal! Grant recipients will be decided by community votes. Voting is open now! You may vote every day from today through the end of February.
Please visit www.refresheverything.com/nfl now to read our entire proposal and vote to make speech and debate education available to new populations.
Carrie Crenshaw PhD, Former President of CEDA Perspectives In Controversy: Selected Articles from Contemporary Argumentation and Debate 2002 p. 119-126
I don’t know that analytics have ever been particularly prominent in the time that I’ve been involved in debate, but they have definitely moved from the endangered species act to extinct. One of the reasons for this is that many judges don’t seem to be giving weight to reasonable analytics- like say sever perms are a vi…
Just kidding. But this is related to Part 1 about judge intervention because I believe that many judges are inserting themselves into the debate and making the argument “evidence trumps analytics” when that argument is not made by the team on the side of the card. The most common instances I see of this are things like:
-generic K link card vs specific K no link analytic, same with alt solvency
-generic CP solvency card (like states) vs specific analytic no solvency arg
-disad internal link card vs internal link press
So, the thesis of this post is: if you are a tabula rasa judge (which you should be) you should not give particular weight to an argument simply because it is carded in the absence of an argument made by the team that you do so.
Neg reads reps K (generic), you need to answer it- blah blah blah.
In answering this, think about what the neg argument is- what are they trying to accomplish by making the debate about reps? Obviously the negative is trying to exclude certain parts of the aff so that they can’t win them as offense (like reasons the plan is good for instance) so in choosing the best card you want a card that will help you stop them from doing that. Arguments off the top of my head that the neg uses to do this are things like
-reps limit our consideration of alternatives
-reps highlight underlying thought structures that impact our ability to decide if the plan is desireable
-flawed reps make the plan unnecessary since there is no need for action
For those of you who have netflix on demand below are some recommendations for debate related (or tangentially debate related) stuff to watch. For those of you who don’t have netflix on demand… get netflix on demand.
Recent Comments