Archive

Archive for September, 2009

Glenbrook North Wins The 2009 Marquette Hilltopper Classic

September 20th, 2009 Bill Batterman Comments off

The 2009 Hilltopper Classic at Marquette University High School ended at approximately 2:30PM on Sunday when Flynn Makuch and Alex Pappas of Glenbrook North High School were awarded the Varsity Policy Debate Championship. Glenbrook North earned the James Madison Copeland Cup by defeating Evan McCarty and Lee Quinn from Mountain Brook High School in the finals. Both teams–as well as Glenbrook North’s Alexis Shklar and Vinay Sridharan, who were walked over in the semifinals–receive a bid to the National Tournament of Champions at the University of Kentucky. Shklar also received the Clark/Foley Outstanding Speaker Award for finishing as the top individual speaker at the tournament.

Complete results are available via Joy of Tournaments.

Share
Categories: Results

RANT- Handling evidence

September 19th, 2009 Roy Levkovitz 6 comments

Forward:

I thought the title was innovative, and being a curmudgeon (or so I’m told) this could be a new 3nr series that I might get too busy to continue but hey who knows.

Bill: I didn’t mean to be a (hill)TOPPER and post this during your tournament.

I promise you’re more likely to laugh below

Actual Post

I feel like I’ve talked about this growing epidemic in our community with some of you all; its rapid proliferation across the community makes swine flu outbreaks seem like a walk in the park.  It is a silent killer of time at debate tournaments and if unchecked could cause who knows what.  The issue I am writing to you about is the hand or (mis)-handling of evidence in between speeches.

Here’s how this crisis plays out in debates across the country (probably in a debate going on RIGHT NOW). Timer goes off speech of team “AB” ends.  Y of team “XY” announces,  “Before prep I need all the evidence that you read and I need all of my evidence back.”  2-3 mins of dead time elapses as these kids who appear to have just emerged from an F4 tornado look for the scattered sheets of white paper often finding flows, timers, and lost treasures prior to finding the horrible Uniqueness evidence on Health Care that the team actually wants .  Nevermind that team XY had a total of 90 seconds of prep left for their 2nr, but this 2nr is content on looking at EVERY piece of evidence rather then use that time more constructively.   In honor of National Pirate Day (yes that is for real and it is today) ARRRRGGGGGGGh.

This happens in every single debate  seemingly after every speech.  And maybe its because at debate camp I noticed this , it has become  like that stain on a shirt that once you notice you can’t stop staring at but debate after debate this drives me crazy and is raising my blood pressure just thinking about it.

I feel like this wasn’t an issue when old timers like myself, scott and bill debated so this is obviously a more recent development.  I’m not sure there are perfect solutions to the problem but here are some tips to saving easily 10 mins per debate.

1.) Take only the evidence you actually need- for some reason debaters now interpret “can you flip to the right” to mean we need to take every single piece of evidence that clown read for 8 mins and hold onto it.  The flip and gathering evidence was designed to make it easier for you to get access to the cards you needed specifically, if you take every single card that they flip to you you’ve kind of defeated the purpose of gathering evidence.  Also considering the amount of evidence comparison I see in most debates, I’m frankly confused what you’re doing with their evidence.   Hoping if you have a nose bleed you can use their evidence and not yours?  Take the cards that you need and leave the rest.

2.) After you are finished with a speech don’t sit back down, pick your nose and ask your partner “how awesome was that speech huhh.”  Stay up there, gather the evidence from 1nc,2ac, 2nc, 1nr whatever, organize it, cross hatch it, separate it by issues.  If you are a 1n, you should do this for your whole 1nr  so if the 2nr goes for what you took you can have it cross hatched and ready for them to prep/ reference in the 2nr.  It also helps solve the next issue…

3.) Manage your debate real estate (DRE)  Your areas are beyond messy.  I’ m not sure who taught this to you all but much like not flowing this is a fad that will hopefully be out of style soon.   Your desk areas look horrible, you don’t know where your evidence or their evidence is, you have no semblance of organization.  I frankly don’t care if you choose not to keep your stuff organized at all but when you tell me we need to use the judge prep or take an officials’ time out to find the evidence then that is where you’ve got it wrong bucko.  Judges have served as enablers for this little addiction you have and much like crack, this is wack.   Keep your area neat and you’ll know where your business is.

I am considering instituting various measures to solve this crisis because in reality it garners both / at least one side some unfair free prep time.  So maybe timing the amount of dead time and then dividing that number by 2 and taking it off both teams prep time OR if one team seems to be at fault charging them with the whole amount of time OR maybe even having it effect speaker points, after all this is another way you all as debaters conduct yourselves.  If you are intentionally stealing prep or too lazy to clean your area, give back evidence etc that reflects on you as a debater.

Share
Categories: Essays and Columns

Live From The Marquette Hilltopper Classic – Day Two

September 19th, 2009 Bill Batterman Comments off

Results from day two of the Hilltopper Classic at Marquette University High School will be updated throughout the afternoon and evening.

Round six of Varsity policy debate is underway. Results entering this round (in bracket order) are below the fold.

Read more…

Share
Categories: Results

Live From The Marquette Hilltopper Classic – Day 1 Results

September 19th, 2009 Bill Batterman Comments off

The 10th Annual Hilltopper Classic at Marquette University High School is being held this weekend in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. After a marathon day one that did not end until close to midnight, 56 teams remain in contention for the elimination rounds–a full list of the teams (in order) that have accumulated 3-0, 2-1, or 1-2 records is available below the fold. Round four is underway this morning and rounds five and six and octafinals and quarterfinals will follow.

Read more…

Share
Categories: Results

Response articles

September 16th, 2009 Scott Phillips Comments off

An ex student recently emailed me with some questions about a morality advantage from a camp aff my lab turned out a few years ago. His problem was that he had lost repeatedly on the same card over and over again in the past, and therefore disagreed with his partner about reading something similar this year. The card in question was the Isaacs morality answer prominent in many teams util frontlines. To paraphrase the email conversation:

him: “we keep losing on this card”

me: “well what kind of arguments are you making in response to it”

him: “the usual, the problem is we have no specific answers”

me: “why don’t you have any specific answers”

him: “there aren’t any”

me: “did you look”

him: “…”

I have had similar conversations with debaters many times over. The fact is many debates that will go on this year were decided months, if not years, in advance. They were “decided” because at some point at a summer institute someone did a certain amount of work and then stopped. That work then got distributed throughout the country and comes up in debates. The debates are “decided in advance” because that person’s work, however good it is, only goes so far- and that usually leaves one side too far behind evidence wise to win. Since no one picked up the assignment since then and did any fresh research on it, one side will end up with a few particularly good arguments that win them the debate.

The idea that there “are no answers” is a mental block that many debaters need to get over. People develop this belief either because a few minutes of scattered research do not find them the perfect card to respond to an argument, or because they see that an argument is so widespread and yet not responded to in the debate community and therefore assume that the search for an answer has been exhausted and is therefore fruitless.

Sometimes its exceedingly difficult to find a specific response. When an argument is published in an obscure journal by a not well known academic, responses don’t appear on the front page of the NY times. But the fact is that people in academia basically live to argue in journals, and no matter how obscure a publication is, if the article in there has a good debate card in it that means it is saying something radical and saying it forcefully- 2 things that get people itching to respond.

Other times finding a response is as easy as typing the persons name (isaac) and the publication (dissent) into google and looking at the 2nd result.

Arguments in debate are part of an evolutionary arms race- as each side develops a little better of an argument, the other side is at a little bit more of a disadvantage. The back and forth on this can be fast- from tournament to tournament or from round to round. But a lot of times it is slow- authors get read for years before someone takes the time to seriously look into their work and find the critics. Getting out their on the front lines by being the kind of squad that does this work and breaks these new answers is something that differentiates getting a bid from winning a tournament or clearing at the TOC.

Many people now know that you can use google scholar to see who is referencing a particular author or article, but few people are actually following up on this. There is also the social sciences citation index which is more of an old school method but still useful. Add to that the old name search described above and you should be well on your way.

Share
Categories: Evidence/Research

Westminster Wins The Greenhill Fall Classic

September 14th, 2009 Bill Batterman 1 comment

Ellis Allen and Daniel Taylor of the Westminster Schools defeated Misael Gonzalez and Kevin Hirn from Whitney Young on a 3-0 decision.

Share
Categories: Results

Live From The Greenhill Fall Classic – Finals

September 14th, 2009 Bill Batterman 9 comments

Finals–2:45PM

Westminster AT (aff) vs. Whitney Young — Cholera, Peretz, Greenstein

Share
Categories: Results

Live From The Greenhill Fall Classic – Semifinals

September 14th, 2009 Bill Batterman 4 comments

Semifinals–11:45AM

Glenbrook North SM (aff) vs. Whitney Young HG — Dheidt, Cholera, Batterman
Brond Science ME (aff) vs. Westminster TA — Abelkop, Bricker, Greenstein

Share
Categories: Results

Live From The Greenhill Fall Classic – Quarterfinals

September 14th, 2009 Bill Batterman 6 comments

Quarterfinals–8:30AM

Damien EG vs. Whitney Young HG — Petit, Tate, Peterson
Westlake MB vs. Bronx Science ME — Greenstein, Batterman, DHeidt
Westminster DM vs. Westminster TA
Woodward PP vs. Glenbrook North SM — Bricker, Abelkop, Cholera

Share
Categories: Results

Live From The Greenhill Fall Classic – Octafinals

September 13th, 2009 Bill Batterman 7 comments

Octafinals–7:00PM

Bronx Science ME vs. Carrollton DG — Baker, Batterman, Mulholland
Damien EG vs. Highland Park PY — Cholera, Petit, CQuinn
Glenbrook North SM vs. College Prep YP — Osborn, Querido, Manuel
Glenbrook South TD vs. Westminster DM — Berthiaume, Abelkop, Bricker
Westlake MB vs. Kinkaid KB — Marks, Sykes, Rubaie
Westminster TA vs. New Trier SC — Crowe, Levkovitz, Sabino
Whitney Young HG vs. Coppell KD — Matheson, BPeterson, Tate
Woodward PP vs. Grapevine QS — Greenstein, Randall, DHeidt

Share
Categories: Results