The 3NR

With many teams preparing to make the transition to paperless debating next season and many more still on the fence about doing so, we wanted to provide our readers/listeners with insights from three of the pioneers of this transition. In this special edition of The 3NR Podcast, we host a panel discussion of paperless debating with a particular emphasis on the experiences of debaters themselves—from pre-tournament organization to pre-round preparation to in-round execution.

To get this debater-centric perspective on paperless debating, we turned to Ellis Allen and Daniel Taylor, rising seniors at the Westminster Schools in Atlanta and winners of the 2010 Tournament of Champions. Ellis and Daniel were one of the first high school teams in the nation to transition to paperless debating and their insights into the process can provide a helpful blueprint for students now beginning the transition themselves. Joining Ellis and Daniel is Alex Gulakov, a debater at the University of Texas and the creator of the Synergy system of paperless software. Alex has been one of the biggest advocates of paperless debating and is currently working with several summer institutes and debate programs across the country to aid them in the transition.

The discussion—clocking in at just over an hour—covers a wide range of paperless topics that debaters will find helpful. After beginning with a discussion of the transition from paper to paperless, we delve into the specific mechanics of preparing each speech including pitfalls to avoid and tips to improve your debating. There’s something for everyone—including coaches—but our primary goal was to provide debaters with the information they need to confidently make the paperless transition.

As usual, you can download this special edition podcast directly or access it through iTunes. Special thanks to Ellis, Daniel, and Alex for making this podcast possible.

While doing some electronic housekeeping I came across a wonderful article from the December 1999 issue of the National Forensic League’s Rostrum magazine. A written version of the speech delivered by Jim Fleissner at the Barkley Forum Coaches Luncheon in 1995, it is a poignant and compelling affirmation of the value of high school policy debate and a testament to the importance of those who teach and coach it. With another season winding down, it is a good time to reflect on the amazing power of our activity to transform lives. The full text of Fleissner’s speech is below the fold.

Read more…

Central to almost every high school policy debate round is the concept of causality: one event is said to cause a second event, either good or bad. Debates are laden with the language of causality: “X is key to Y” is the most popular phrasing of taglines, as in “deficit spending is key to the economy” or “military readiness is key to hegemony”. But what does it mean for one thing to cause another? Philosophers have been discussing this very question for millenia and there is no easy answer, but the concept of necessary and sufficient conditions is one way to make sense out of claims of causality.

What is the difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition? And how can debaters use these concepts to improve their debating?

Read more…

The Center for Economic and Policy Research posted a blog entry today by Shawn Fremstad entitled “How Do We Correct Misinformation in Public Policy Debates?”. The author cites a recent article in The Forum about the health care debate and the role that misconceptions played in it. Both Fremstad’s post and the journal article—by Brendan Nyhan, the Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in Health Policy Research at the University of Michigan—are interesting reads that provide important insights into the way that public policy arguments are won and lost. Fremstad’s conclusion, in particular, seems like prudent advice for debaters:

Where does this leave us then when we’re responding/defending against misinformation in the public sphere or even in non-elite private ones, like discussions with friends and family? Instead of just providing the fact or data that rebuts misinformation in a narrow or technical sense, it’s important to identify the frame or mental preconceptions that likely underlie or reinforce the misinformation, and then come up with an argument or response that seeks to undermine or replace those broader preconceptions as much as it does the specific piece of misinformation.

Beyond this particular article, however, The Forum is an excellent journal that every debater should add to their bookmarks and RSS feeds. Published four times per year, each issue focuses on one subject that is timely and important. The July 2009 issue, for example, focused on immigration policy and will be highly useful for college debaters researching next year’s resolution. The journal is available free of charge to “guests” via The Berkeley Electronic Press, itself an essential source of electronic journals.

In February, we announced the creation of The 3NR Spirit of Disclosure Award to recognize the team that best represents the spirit of disclosure throughout the season. In announcing this Award, we established five criteria: completeness of information, organization of information, consistency of disclosure, responsiveness to requests, and post-season disclosure practices. Our goal was for this Award to become a coveted honor that would motivate students and teams to improve their disclosure practices for the benefit of the entire community. After just a few months, we are confident that this has indeed been the case and have plans to continue (and perhaps expand) this Award in the future.

After careful review of The National Debate Coaches’ Association National Argument List wiki that took into account the stated criteria, the writers of The 3NR have submitted their ballots and the votes have been tabulated. Each ballot included an ordinal ranking of five teams and the results were then compiled by assigning a point value to each placement (5 points for a #1 ranking, 4 points for a #2 ranking, 3 points for a #3 ranking, 2 points for a #4 ranking, and 1 point for a #5 ranking). The authors were free to name any team on their ballot; there was no list of finalists from which to choose and there was no set criteria that must be followed.

Despite the open-ended nature of the voting system, the results were very consistent across all three ballots. In total, seven teams appeared on at least one ballot and three teams appeared on all three. The top five teams (as well as two honorable mentions) are listed below the fold along with an explanation of their placement. In parentheses, each team’s rankings on the individual judges’ ballots is also provided (in the order of Bill, Scott, and Roy).

Congratulations to all of the teams that received votes.

Read more…

Thanks to Aaron Timmons of Greenhill School for scanning this for everyone.

2010 TOC Policy Results

There were substantially fewer new cases read at this year’s TOC than in the recent past. But how did they do? I would like to compile a comprehensive list—the following is what I have so far:

Head Royce, Round 1, vs. Rowland Hall AF, LOSS
St. George’s, Round 1, vs. Wayzata, LOSS
Ashland, Round 2, vs. Lexington CS, LOSS
St. Francis AP, Round 2, vs. Head Royce, LOSS
GDS, Round 3, vs. Kinkaid, LOSS
St. George’s, Round 3, vs. Westwood, LOSS
Pembroke HV, Round 4, vs. CPS PT, LOSS
Glenbrook South KS, Round 5, vs. Rowland Hall AF, LOSS
McDonogh, Round 5, vs. Woodward, LOSS
St. Mark’s, Round 5, vs. Glenbrook North MP, LOSS
Eden Prairie, Round 6, vs. Dallas Jesuit, LOSS
Rowland Hall FT, Round 6, vs. Pembroke HV, LOSS
Whitney Young, Round 6, vs. Kinkaid, LOSS
Pembroke HV, Round 7, vs. Chattahoochee VW, LOSS
Woodward, Octafinals, vs. Rowland Hall AF, LOSS
Chattahoochee CR, Octafinals, vs. Westminster, LOSS
Glenbrook South DT, Octafinals, vs. Bronx, LOSS

Gulliver Prep, Round 1, vs. MBA, WIN
Harker PM, Round 1, vs. Rowland Hall FT, WIN
Oak Park-River Forest, Round 1, vs. Harker, WIN
Westwood MT, Round 4, vs. MBA, WIN
Edina, Round 5, vs. Grapevine, WIN
New Trier, Round 5, vs. CPS, WIN
Ashland, Round 6, vs. Damien FV, WIN
Westminster, Round 6, vs. Chattahoochee, WIN
Woodward, Round 6, vs. Bronx, WIN
New Trier, Round 7, vs. Chattahoochee CR, WIN
Pembroke BS, Round 7, vs. CR Washington, WIN
Westminster, Quarterfinals, vs. Bronx Science, WIN

Please use the comments to post additions/corrections using this format (team reading the new aff, the round, vs. opposing team, WIN/LOSS).

The final round of the 2010 Tournament of Champions pitted Ellis Allen and Daniel Taylor of the Westminster Schools in Atlanta against Rishee Batra and Alex Miles of the St. Mark’s School of Texas in Dallas. The affirmative from Westminster prevailed on a 2-1 decision to win this year’s title, the school’s second consecutive championship and the third in school history.

In the tradition of the National Debate Tournament, The 3NR is proud to provide the judge’s ballots from this year’s final round of the TOC—they are available below the fold.

Read more…

Octofinals:

Kinkaid KB (aff) defeated Glenbrook North SS (2-1) Burton, D. Heidt, *Polin
Rowland Hall AF (neg) defeated Woodward PP (2-1) Berthiaume, *Forslund, Peterson
Westminster TA (neg) defeated Chattahoochee CR (2-1) Greenstein, *Klinger, Tate
St. Mark’s MB (neg) defeated Glenbrook North MP (3-) Buntin, Lamballe, Rubaie
Carrollton DG (neg) defeated New Trier SC (3-0) Cambre, Kearney, Struth
St. Paul Central QJ (neg) defeated Lexington VE (2-1) *Crowe, DeLong, J. Heidt
McDonogh RB (neg) defeated Whitney Young HG (2-1) Antonucci, Warden, *Wunderlich
Bronx ME (neg) defeated Glenbrook South TD (3-0) Hardy, Quinn, Vint

Quarterfinals:

Kinkaid KB (neg) defeated Rowland Hall AF (2-1) D. Heidt, *Struth, Turner
Carrollton DG (neg) defeated McDonogh RB (2-1) *Greenstein, Herndon, Marks
St. Mark’s MB (neg) defeated St. Paul Central (3-0) Berthiaume, Crowe, J. Heidt
Westminster TA (aff) defeated Bronx ME (2-1) Bowen, *Cholera, Wunderlich

Semifinals:

St. Mark’s MB (neg) defeated Carrollton DG (2-1) *D. Heidt, J. Heidt, Mulholland
Westminster TA (aff) defeated Kinkaid KB (3-0) Cholera, Herndon, Maczulski

Finals:

Westminster TA (aff) defeated St. Mark’s MB (2-1) *Bricker, Greenstein, Herndon

Congratulations to Ellis Allen and Daniel Taylor of The Westminster Schools for winning the 2010 Tournament of Champions. Ellis and Daniel defeated Rishee Batra and Alex Miles from The St. Mark’s School of Texas in the final round.

Safe travels home, everyone… and for our loyal readers/listeners, expect a post-TOC podcast soon.