Over the course of the summer I recorded several lectures that have been posted to Debate Vision. While some readers might have already seen them, it can’t hurt to share them again here on The 3NR. This lecture discusses the use of film study in debate — it is embedded below the fold. A written adaptation of this lecture will appear in the September Rostrum.

Note: The version posted on Debate Vision has the audio and video out of sync. A properly synced version is available for download from Mediafire.

Over the course of the summer I recorded several lectures that have been posted to Debate Vision. While some readers might have already seen them, it can’t hurt to share them again here on The 3NR. The first lecture discusses team leadership — it is embedded below the fold. Additional lectures will be shared over the next few days.

Note: The version posted on Debate Vision has the audio and video out of sync. A properly synced version is available for download from Mediafire.

The value of incorporating theory article reading and review into a student’s debate curriculum has been discussed at length in previous articles. One method that coaches can use to encourage students to delve into this literature is to provide a set of guided questions to accompany selected theory articles. In schools with formal debate classes, these short answer questions can be assigned as homework or used as quizzes to confirm that students are keeping up with their assigned reading.

To demonstrate this approach, a set of guided questions for Jim Lyle’s “Getting out of the Cards and into the Arguments: Strategies for Refutation (pdf)” is available below the fold. This article provides a wealth of actionable instruction about refutation techniques and is suggested for debaters of all levels. Coaches, feel free to reuse these questions however you would like.

1. Lyle presents three models for assessing arguments. What are they?

2. According to the Toulmin model, an argument includes six parts. Name them.

3. Despite being “secondary”, the latter three components of an argument are—in Lyle’s opinion—extremely important. Explain why.

4. In the Fisher model, an argument presents a “good story” if it relies on “good reasons” and provides “narrative rationality” (including “narrative probability” and “narrative fidelity”). Explain the Fisher model and define “narrative probability” and “narrative fidelity”.

5. Lyle contends that there are “arguments within arguments”. What does he mean? How can this help a debater improve her refutation skills?

6. “Although an argument may be true,” Lyle writes, “it is only true under certain conditions and these are determined by the qualifiers and rebuttals that are offered with it.” Explain what he means and why he thinks this is important for debaters to understand.

7. Lyle suggests that cross-examination can be used effectively to ‘get out of the cards and into the arguments’. Why is it important to use cross-examination to support your refutation strategies?

8. In the “additional strategies for refutation” section, Lyle outlines six techniques that debaters can use to improve their refutation. List the six techniques and briefly explain them.

Special thanks to Max Tagher from Newburgh Free Academy for cleaning up the original PDF — the version linked above is crystal clear!

Students attending schools that provide them with competitive debate opportunities are fortunate. Those that are provided with access not only to debate but also to instruction from a professional debate coach are even more fortunate. But having a coach is not enough: students need to make the most of their interactions with coaches to truly reap the benefits that they can provide.

Previous installments in this series discussed general strategies for improving at debate and specific suggestions for developing a personal debate curriculum. This time, the focus shifts from out-of-the-classroom improvements to tangible ways that students can better utilize the expertise of their coaches inside the classroom. For those fortunate enough to have access to a professional debate coach, the following ten tips will help students maximize the value of their interactions with them.

1. Coaches should not be treated like Wikipedia.

This is first on the list for a reason: there are few things more frustrating for a debate coach than to be bombarded with questions that could easily have been answered by a quick internet search. The cardinal rule for debaters should be to never ask a question of a coach if the answer could be found independently. If the information being sought is accessible from another source, students need to demonstrate intellectual self-sufficiency and seek it out for themselves. Not only does this allow coaches to spend more time teaching and less time informing, it also results in superior comprehension for the student.

Instead of asking her coach “What does the Badiou critique say?,” for example, an enterprising debater should consult a summer institute backfile, read the Badiou entry on Wikipedia, and conduct a few basic Google searches until she feels that she has at least a cursory understanding of the argument. Only after this initial investigation occurs should the student consider asking her coach for further information.

2. Ask coaches for confirmation, not an introduction.

If a student enters a conversation with their coach with no background on the topic being discussed, chances are good that they will get very little out of the interaction. Using the previous example, a student that asks their coach “What does the Badiou critique say?” might get a fantastic answer from their coach, but they will not have the background knowledge necessary to make sense of it. If, on the other hand, the same student describes their understanding of the Badiou critique to their coach (after having done the background reading described above) and asks for confirmation that they are on the right track, the subsequent conversation can be profoundly productive.

This lesson can be applied not just to questions about arguments but to all interactions with coaches. If a student is struggling with his 1AR speeches, for example, he should not go to his coach and ask “What can I do to improve my 1ARs?”—this will elicit only general suggestions that are unlikely to stick. Instead, the student should review their flows and judge comments, discuss their 1AR strengths and weaknesses with their partner, read any available materials about the 1AR, and produce a self-assessment that identifies a set of specific pathways for improvement. Once this assessment has been generated, the student can share it with his coach and ask for targeted feedback. Perhaps the coach will disagree with the self-assessment. Perhaps they will have additional suggestions about ways for the student to improve. Or perhaps they will agree fully with the student’s gameplan. Regardless, the student will reap the benefits of a more accurate, thoughtful, and productive interaction with their coach.

The bottom line is that discussions with coaches should serve as opportunities for students to confirm and build upon what they already know about a given subject. When students rely on coaches to introduce new material rather than confirm and improve existing knowledge, they significantly decrease the value of their interactions.

3. Discuss the process being undertaken, not just the result.

Students that are struggling with an assignment or skill improvement often come to their coaches seeking assistance: “I can’t find any cards on this!” or “I don’t understand this!”, they assert impatiently. The first thing a coach does in response, inevitably, is ask the student to calm down and explain what they have done so far. The student’s response then dictates whether the interaction will be productive or not: if a clear and complete explanation of the work they’ve done so far is provided, the coach can usually provide helpful feedback that will allow the student to right the ship.

In many cases, however, it becomes immediately clear that the student hasn’t really thought things through and is just venting to the coach rather than genuinely asking for help. This kind of interaction is a waste of time for both the debater and the coach.

If a student is genuinely “stuck” and needs help, she should come to her coach ready to discuss the process that she has been undertaking and not just the result. Working on a hegemony update assignment and having trouble finding recent evidence? Instead of telling a coach that she “couldn’t find anything” and pleading for help, she should explain to the coach what searches she has done (including what search terms and what search engines and databases she used), what kinds of articles she is finding, and why those articles aren’t yielding the cards that she is hoping to cut. Given that knowledge, the coach can provide specific feedback regarding search terms, databases, and expectations that can help the student get over the hump. The feedback that the student receives in this interaction is also substantially more valuable: it will help not only with the current assignment but also with all future assignments.

4. Don’t ask questions just for the sake of asking them.

Many students seem to think that asking questions demonstrates commitment to debate and will win the admiration of the coach. While this is true to a degree, the quality of the questions a student asks is much more important than the quantity. Students that constantly bombard their coaches with questions about a laundry list of subjects can quickly become perceived more as irritating than passionate. A coach’s time is a valuable and finite resource for the students on a debate team: it is in the best interests of the entire squad for coaching interactions to be as productive as possible. In many cases, that means cutting out the “fluff” questions and getting down to business.

5. Plan interactions with coaches in advance.

In order to make the most of one’s interactions with a coach, it is helpful to come prepared with an agenda. What do you want to discuss with your coach? What information does he or she need to answer your questions? What is the most important issue you want to discuss? If the coach is pressed for time, what issues can be tabled until a later date?

Coaches are generous with their time and want to help their students improve. At the same time, students need to show initiative and help their coaches provide efficient and effective instruction. While many interactions with coaches will be guided by the coach, students should make sure that they are prepared to set the agenda when coaches provide opportunities for open discussions. Want to redo a rebuttal? Come prepared not just to deliver it but also with the information the coach needs to provide targeted feedback about the areas in which you are seeking to improve. Want to discuss the negative strategy you are preparing against your rival school? Come prepared not just to tell the coach what arguments you’re cutting but also with the 1AC outline, notes about the strengths and weaknesses of your strategy, and specific questions about ways to improve it.

The preparation that occurs before a student-coach interaction largely determines whether it is productive or not.

6. Be open to constructive criticism.

Debate is one of the most challenging activities in which a high school student can participate. It is also, by nature, adversarial: one’s arguments are consistently assaulted from all sides and one’s performance is constantly evaluated in comparison to one’s peers. The role of a debate coach, in many cases, is to identify the flaws in a student’s arguments and performance so as to facilitate improvement. This can create an uncomfortable environment if students take criticism too personally. In response to perceived hostility, it is easy for students to either lash out in anger or retreat into frustration and despair. Obviously, neither response is productive: it is impossible to improve as a debater without accepting the criticism of others—and especially one’s coaches.

When interacting with a coach, it is imperative that students accept constructive criticism. Students (and coaches) need to always remember that criticism of an argument or speech is not criticism of a person. When coaches point out flaws in a debater’s research or speaking, they are not criticizing that person’s character or integrity. Quite the opposite, in fact: the reason that the coach is taking the time to constructively criticize the student’s performance is because they respect the student and want them to improve.

7. Be willing to defend your opinions.

While being open to criticism is essential, students also need to demonstrate a willingness to defend their opinions—even when doing so challenges a coach. One of the crucial attributes of debate that makes it such an educational activity is that it forces students to defend their arguments. While students can “agree to disagree” after the conclusion of a contest round, the process of preparation and debate requires them to take a stance on a public policy controversy and defend it. Competition provides both a carrot and a stick: students work hard in order to reap the glory of a win and to avoid the disappointment of a loss. At the same time, the back-and-forth that occurs during a contest round—and the preparation that leads up to it—sheds a bright light on the issues being discussed and often clarifies issues that might otherwise remain opaque.

The same principle applies to interactions between debaters and coaches: the back-and-forth of a discussion helps both parties identify the core controversy and each side’s competing positions more clearly and with more comprehensive knowledge. Indeed, walking through an argument that is likely to come up in a debate is one of the most effective ways to prepare for it; coaches often play devil’s advocate for exactly this reason.

Convinced that the counterplan you’ve prepared can effectively overcome the weakness your coach has identified? Say so — and explain why. At the same time, be willing to acknowledge that improvements might need to be made in light of your coach’s criticism. After all, your opponents are likely to raise the same arguments in a debate that your coach did at practice.

Always be respectful and keep an open mind, but students should not be afraid to stick to their guns and defend their opinions. The end result of this kind of spirited interaction will be better arguments and a more prepared debate team.

8. Take notes and reference previous interactions.

If being treated like Wikipedia is a debate coach’s biggest pet peeve, being asked the same question more than once is number two on that list. Students that repeatedly ask the same question or fail to incorporate the same feedback are perceived by their coach as disrespectful and lazy—and for good reason. If a coach takes the time to answer a question or provide feedback, the least that they can expect in exchange is that the student listens and attempts to make the suggested improvements. Whether or not the student succeeds in mastering the new concept or implementing the suggested change is secondary: the coach’s primary concern is with whether the student tried to do so.

The best way for a student to avoid this situation is to take notes whenever they interact with their coaches. Discuss an assignment? Write down the feedback that was provided so that it can be incorporated into future projects. Give a rebuttal redo? Keep track of speeches delivered and comments received so specific details can be referenced during future redos. Review a 2AC block? Make the suggested changes immediately and keep a log so that improvements can be integrated into subsequent blocks.

The next time that a student works with a coach, he can then make reference to their previous interactions. This improves the quality of the feedback that a coach provides and communicates to them that the student is serious, committed, and respectful of their time. The effort required to maintain this kind of written record is minimal but the potential payoff is huge.

9. Know the appropriate time and place.

Most debate coaches are overworked and underpaid. In addition to coaching, there is a lot of “behind the scenes” work that needs to be done to administer a debate program that students rarely see. Given the amount of responsibility placed on their shoulders, it is understandable that debate coaches sometimes just need some space.

Some students recognize this; others do not. Those that do tend to become their coach’s favorites. Those that do not tend to give their coaches grey hair and migraines. The goal of every debater should be to fall into the former category and not the latter.

How can you tell if your coach is in a bad mood or busy with other responsibilities? Pay attention and empathize with their situation. Did he or she just get back from a tournament the night before? Do you know that they have dozens of essays to grade? Were they more irritable than usual during practice? If so, give them some space and don’t choose that time to ask for extra help or to do an additional redo speech. While many coaches have trouble saying no and are willing to stay late to work with dedicated students, the overall health of a student-coach relationship will improve if students know when not to press the issue.

An important part of a debate coach’s job is to tailor their expectations of students to particular situations and times of the year. The week before finals? Practices and assignments are minimal. A student is struggling in History class? Their travel schedule is pared back so they have more time to study and work on an important paper. A student is feeling sick? They are excused from practice.

This kind of accommodation is not just good for team morale. It is also common human decency. Students that know when to push for more feedback and more help and when to lay low will ultimately have more productive and rewarding relationships with their coaches.

10. Demonstrate passion and respect.

Above all, coaches enjoy working with students that are passionate about debate and committed to doing what it takes to improve. The best way for a debater to earn the respect of their coach is to work hard, demonstrate respect for coaches and teammates, and put in the extra effort necessary to succeed.

For most coaches, there is nothing more rewarding than a long practice session with a group of students that share a passion for debate and are working hard as a team to improve. Not all students are destined to become excellent debaters; thankfully, excellence is by no means necessary for a student to earn the appreciation of their coach.

Smile, show up with a good attitude, work hard, help out your teammates, and say “thank you”. If you do, you’ll have a productive relationship with your coach and a wonderful experience in debate.

What about students that lack access to professional coaching? In the next installment of this series, suggestions will be provided for improving student interactions with judges. Until then, many of the tips discussed in this article can be applied to a student’s interactions with judges, lab leaders, and even coaches of other schools.

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.

“Chain Reaction,” Rostrum (Volume 74, Number 4), December 1999.

I know I date myself by keeping my notes on these little index cards. It has been 20 years since I was a high school debate student and 10 since I was a coach. As a person who literally grew up in this activity, but who now has the perspective that a little distance brings, I am here today to pay tribute to you, the coaches—especially those of you who have spent your careers in coaching and devoted your lives to this activity.

It is an honor to be once again in your midst. As my wife, Eileen, and I made the trip from Macon this morning to be with you, I had a feeling about bringing her here. I realized that it was the very same kind of feeling I had when I brought her to meet my family and to see the place where I was raised.

You coaches have a remarkable impact as teachers. You have a profound effect on the intellectual growth of your students and, because of the great amount of time you invest in your students, you have an effect other teachers seldom can: You are role models and counsellors and friends.

Your powerful influence as teachers extends beyond the students currently in your program. Coaches are often relied upon by students after graduation. That’s a sign of how you are mentors who guide students in their continuing education, their careers, and their lives.

As I see it, coaches set in motion a chain reaction of good effects. When you teach skills and substance and serve as role models, your effect on students starts a chain reaction that extends through the students’ lives and to the lives of the persons they encounter. It is difficult to imagine the sum total of the chain reaction caused by a devoted career coach. And thinking about the sum total of the chain reactions caused by all the people in this room simply boggles the mind.

Part of your effect is the result of the skills you teach—communication skills, argument skills, and research skills. And part of it is the result of attitudes you encourage in your students—attitudes about hard work and determination, about thorough preparation, about learning from mistakes, about competing fairly, about losing and winning with grace. You even encourage intellectual curiosity, itself.

For me, the skills and attitudes I learned in debate have meant everything. I recall a moment in the fall of 1971 like it was yesterday. I remember going to school as a ninth grader one day that fall and going to the glass trophy cases of the Marquette High School forensic team. I was looking to see if my name was on a list posted there, a list of those selected by the coach, Jim Copeland, to be on the team. Seeing my name on that list was the critical moment in my education. The lessons I learned from my coach served me well when I became a coach, and later as a law student and as a prosecutor in the trial court and the court of appeals. As a prosecutor, those lessons were also invaluable to me when trying to solve difficult problems and make hard decisions. Mr. Copeland used to have a saying: “Evidence is where you find it.”

Now there is a generation of federal prosecutors in Chicago, a group I was fortunate to help train, who are familiar with that concept. And let me also add that the lessons from debate also were with me when I first stood, somewhat petrified, in front of a law school class last fall.

Don’t mistake me. I’m not just saying those lessons helped me in my pursuits and in achieving any success I’ve had. I’m saying they made those pursuits possible.

Beyond the skills and attitudes, let me mention an often neglected facet of your teaching: the substantial body of knowledge acquired by your students. Debate students study about complex issues of public policy. In the fall of 1971, we were debating a topic concerning the jury system. I bet there were not many ninth graders who, when asked by their parents what they wanted for Christmas, gave the answer I did. I wanted a copy of The American Jury, the famous book by Professors Harry Kalven and Hans Zeisel. If ideas are the currency of our political system, your students leave high school with hefty savings accounts.

How many times have you heard a news report about some startling new development, only to realize that you heard about it years ago in debate? For example, the first time I encountered the notion that there were forces that might cause the collapse of the Soviet Union resulting in dangerous regional instability was in a high school debate over a decade ago. Silly academic dream-world arguments? I say if you want a glimpse at the issues of 2005, listen to a high school debate today.

Of course, exposure to the complexity of issues and the value of research imparts another critical lesson to students. In an age when politics seems driven by polling data based on quick and easy responses to general propositions, it is your students who are most likely to respond by saying “What are the specifics of the plan?” or “I’d have to do some research to give you an intelligent answer.”

Finally, I want to remark about an even more neglected fact about your work, and that is the achievement of the learning you do. Being a coach is to be enrolled in a continuing graduate course in public policy.

You are members of what might be called “The Academy of Debate.” The knowledge acquired over the years by career coaches is formidable. As a person who graduated from “The Academy of Debate”, I envy the breadth and depth of your continuing education. This group is a great resource with tremendous potential to do good.

And so I congratulate you on your careers in coaching. I know it is consuming, hard work. But when you are next pacing a dank, dark school corridor late on a weekend evening, waiting for the last round to end and the long drive home, please be mindful of the chain reaction of good effects you continually set off, and remember that it touches people—at that very moment and for generations.

Jim Fleissner has been a Professor of Law at Mercer University since 1994. As a high school debater at Marquette University High School, he reached the semifinals of NFL Nationals and was the champion of CFL Nationals, the Bicentennial Forum in Philadelphia, the Motor City Special in Detroit, the Ruby Krider Tournament in Tennessee, and the National Round Robin in Washington, DC. After high school, Fleissner coached at his alma mater and at the Kinkaid School in Houston. He earned a J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School in 1986 and has had a distinguished career in both academia and government service.

In the last 6 months or so there have been quite a  few articles in the Rostrum attacking fast, national circuit policy debate. I was going to write a response for the NDCA coaches corner but in the interim several other response pieces were posted, so having my thunder stolen I decided to write something else. Below is some of what I wrote in a rough draft for the article.

Not so fast Mr. Clark. Yours is the latest in a series of articles I have noticed in the Rostrum decrying the state of policy debate as it is now practiced on the national circuit. I won’t rehash the old arguments about critical thinking, psychological studies on rate of delivery etc. that demonstrate fast debate is more educational. Instead I want to start off talking about basketball.

As a first time basketball fan with no previous experience playing the sport, I was somewhat amazed at the success of the San Antonio Spurs in the 2003 NBA playoffs. As far as I could tell they didn’t have any elite superstar players, and played a style of basketball that was quite boring to me. “I don’t understand this!” I proclaimed, “Why don’t they play basketball the way I want them to play basketball!”. A friend then explained to me the many reasons for the spurs success using lots of jargon like “pick and roll” that I didn’t understand. I had always assumed basketball was a random chaotic game where 10 people ran around as fast as they could trying to get an open dunk, but now I was being told there were actual plays and strategies going on that I just wasn’t seeing. This seemed like nonsense to me, however, since I was totally inexperienced and was being schooled by someone with much more knowledge then me, I decided to investigate further before reaching my conclusion. This process of researching an issue before I formed an opinion was something I learned doing fast national circuit policy debate. It is always interesting to me when critics of this style of debate spout off the same old arguments about why its bad and in so doing indicate that they clearly have not carried out this process of research and exploration. The scene is usually something like this: I am in the judges lounge of a major national tournament that brings in students of many debate styles. In the room there will be a few people spread around with computers out preparing “canned” material for their students. There will be another group who sit their drinking their coffee, and discussing the educationally bankrupt style of fast policy debate. The truth is- fast policy debate is really really hard. Coaching it well is also really really hard. Sitting around complaining is very very easy.

Learning jargon is difficult, but as Condilac observed, “Every science requires a special language because every science has its own ideas”. That’s what debate is- a science. You wouldn’t walk into an organic chemistry class at Harvard and say “Slow down here, what is all this jargon”- or maybe you would. Jargon is useful- its an intellectual heuristic that makes communication among people educated in a particular field much easier. I don’t see why a person on the street should be able to understand every single debate anymore than they should understand every article in the Review of International Studies. Debate is about judge adaptation. When you have a judge who is knowledgeable about the topic, and about debate in general, speaking quickly and using jargon allows you to introduce and examine an exponentially larger number of ideas. Obviously if your judge is not up for it, you should slow down and avoid using jargon- but what is to be gained by making all debate homogeneously this way? That is the crucial issue- critics of speed and jargon don’t just want the debates they judge to be that way, they wan’t all debates to be their way because their way is the best. When was the last time you saw an article from a fast national circuit style judge decrying the lack of speed or lack of critical arguments from a non national circuit team? Critics of fast circuit debate hate what they don’t understand, what they can’t comprehend. Rather than put in the hours to learn, they wish that everyone else would simply forget. No one grows taller by cutting down giants.

Mr. Clark worries about the reputation of debate, and while I appreciate his concern, this is a bit like a freshman at Yale who doesn’t think his class about The Wire is academic enough worrying about the institutions reputation. Having such little experience Mr. Clark I do not believe you are in a position to worry. The issue of speed in debate is not one you discovered recently any more than Columbus discovered America. In a 1992 edition of Unger and Company a group of the top college coaches in the country got together to hash out this very issue (it was not new then either, but it is the oldest recording of such a discussion I can find). In it they discuss the doom and gloom prophecies of fast debate destroying the activity. Almost 20 years later, the sky has not yet fallen. Also in the video the coach of the Harvard debate team Dallas Perkins says that in an academic competition relying on critical thinking he will take his debaters vs any other students at Harvard and I have to say- I wouldn’t bet against that Texan coming down the stretch.

An implicit assumption of all these critics seems to be that all forms of debate need to be the same- homogenized mush pandering to the least informed and least adept. Last I checked, there were like 40 different speech activities and two other kinds of debate you could do at NFL nationals. If you don’t like fast, evidence intensive, complex debate about policy making you don’t have to. I don’t know of anyone from a fast circuit policy school deriding Public Forum in a Rostrum article for being too slow or or too accessible. As a wise philosopher once said, it takes different strokes. But more importantly than that, not only do the styles of debate not have to be the same, the goal of the activities do not have to be the same either. If you talk to policy alums from the 60′s,70′s, and 80′s who have moved on into business or law and ask them what it is about their time in policy debate that helps them in their careers now they won’t tell you its their “persuasion” skills. In their professions its rational, well evidenced argument that wins the day. Goldman Sachs doesn’t make investment decisions based on which analyst talked the prettiest, and the Supreme Court doesn’t rule in favor of smooth talking attorneys. So when asked what skill set does fast talking jargon filled policy debate prepare students with to enter the world  compared to other kinds of debate I would have to say: the right one.

I’ll leave you with two closing thoughts. First, speed is not exclusive with other styles- people who go fast can go slow while the opposite is not true. As proof: in the last 20 years a fast, circuit style policy team has won every NFL nationals, no team eschewing speed and jargon has won the Tournament of Champions in that time period. Second, the reputation of fast jive talking policy debaters seems to be doing just fine: Robert Allen recent editor of the Harvard Law Review and future Supreme Court clerk, Michael Gottlieb former supreme court clerk and now associate counsel to the president, Colin Kahl- deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, Neal Katyal- principle deputy solicitor general, Larry Summers – chair of the council of economic advisors…

A closing quote from Michael Gotlieb- two time NDT winner, two time NDT top speaker, and one fast mofo:
For those of you judges who are moving towards hating fast debate, etc.  PLEASE REMEMBER: many of you [not all] engaged in fast intense debates  where you read tons of cards. You did this for a reason. Please ask  yourself why you did it. I do it because IT IS FUN. I love doing it. I  don’t think that we should be denied the opportunity to continue this  practice. However, I’m pragmatic enough to recognize that if all judges  want to discontinue the practice, than it will be so. I have no problem  with judge adaptation, I grew up debating in Kansas. I just think, after  sampling both forms of advocacy, that the fast intense one is a) more  educationally rewarding, b) more intellectually challenging and c) more fun.

I was reading this book on comedy writing and it had some chapter about how the reason most people aren’t funny is that they don’t really come up with their own jokes, they basically just re-hash jokes people wrote a long time ago that they have seen before. Since the majority of humor is based on surprise, these recycled jokes lose some of their impact with each retelling. On top of that, the more times a joke gets told by different people the more of its original meaning gets lost and the less funny it becomes.

This got me thinking about how arguments/strategies work in debate and a few thoughts came to mind.

1. The college case list- is a great resource to get cites/ideas for arguments. A lot of times though someone will take 2-4 cards they got off their and call it a day without actually putting in the work to try and make a file. This can sometimes work- a quick 2 card add on can win you a debate. But the more complex or research intensive arguments this is a terrible strategy for a few reasons

A. You will have no idea what you are talking about- this is particularly true for K arguments- you generally have to read the whole article if not several articles and a book to rap your head around a philosophically sophisticated argument. Just cutting and pasting in the requisite paragraphs from the 3 card shell on the casebook won’t give you the knowledge to explain your 1NC a lot of the time- and certainly won’t teach you how to respond to likely 2AC arguments or specifically apply your generic K to their specific aff.

B. They debate a different topic- while the cap K may spillover to both, and any other topic, most often you will need to find specific link arguments to really make your argument apply. Even if its something like a generic heg K a lot of time the arguments won’t be applicable. I judged a debate earlier in the year where the aff read a soft power adv with a sort of international coop key to solve climate change/prolif etc laundry list impact. The 2NC got up and read a huge link block with specific cards about Kagan, hard power, conventional superiority etc. The 1AR grouped it and said “no link, we don’t boost hard power”. Just kidding- obviously the 1AR didn’t go for no link but instead read a bunch more generic heg cards and said they were impact turns, but he SHOULD of grouped it all and just said no link…

C. I actually saw someone read a k pilfered from the case book where the college team hadn’t written in their full tags- and the neg just read them, nonsense lists of words like “nuke discourse agency alienation genocide”.  You should follow a rule whereby if you can’t understand a piece of evidence enough to write a complete tag, you probably shouldn’t be reading it.

Solution- this problem is simple, what you should do is try and write complete files and not just piece a few cards together on an issue. Obviously there are time constraints and sometimes you only have 20 minutes to cut cards on 10 issues etc. But the process of crafting a complete argument where you go through the process of reading a good chunk of the literature base, craft nuances, write and revise blocks etc. will make you 100X more effective when you go for that argument. Even if you are the only person doing work, if you went to 8 tournaments a year and only did 1 neg assignment for each of them by the TOC you would be a stone cold killer on 8 generics all of which you could go for at any time- think about how terrorizing that would be to the aff team you are debating. Think about how totally irrelevant it would be if they read a new case, new advantages, had a sweet coach etc. That last part is particularly important and it is how I learned to deal with bigger squads/better coached teams in high school- no matter if the other team has some kind of Heidt/Repko/Matheson coaching staff of the gods they still only get 30-40 minutes before the debate to talk to their kids. If they have to prepare for 8 things that means they only get 5 minutes to talk about each, and the kid then has to keep all that crap straight about 8 different arguments, highlight all the cards etc. Its an impossible burden for teams who are coach dependent. Whereas when you have 100 crappy arguments, they may only spend 2 minutes getting their answers ready- but that is the SAME amount of time you spent getting it ready so there is no asymmetry.

2. Exaggeration- everybody does this. The debate telephone effect is hurt by exaggeration in a few ways like what do judges like/don’t like- when it gets passed down by 10 people to a young debater they are hopelessly lost as to how judges actually feel about issues. The worst way this happens though is debaters teaching debaters. It has to happen- coaches can’t be everything to everyone, so at some point kids are going to try and pass knowledge on to one another. There are any number of ways this process can get screwed up but the most common one is big fish stories that get passed around about what happened in X debate and how it worked. I heard these when I debated and thought “why would X person make this up, they have no incentive to, so it must be accurate, maybe I will attempt strategy Y”. It seems like good logic, but you can easily see how things get out of hand when you hear people talk about what happened in a debate that you watched and they didn’t. It usually goes something like this

-Really good Team A screws something up, and to compensate does something sort of smart

-Mediocre Team B doesn’t pick up on it and goes on about their business and loses

-Observer reports facts to another person “omg, they facecrushed team B despite under covering conditionality”

-3rd party discusses round with 4th party “Team A won even though they dropped condo”

-4th party asks “how” a question 3rd party doesn’t know the answer too, so 3rd party hypothesizes “the judge said they would never vote on it”

-4th party retells story to 5th party with 3rd party’s hypothesis now inserted into the story as fact

-5th party debates in front of same judge and drops condo confident it won’t be voted on

Oops. This doesn’t seem like a big deal, but consider that it goes on 10 times a tournament, 50 tournaments a year, for the last decade. Now you have near infinite amounts of information floating around out there that are all wrong. The internet makes this even worse- typing is such hard work that people “boil down” everything- stories, explanations etc. so that what ends up getting read are absurd simplifications and wild misnomers. Read any long thread on that other debate site and just look at the number of people who chime in with advice who, as evidenced by what they say, should probably be doing less typing and more thinking through.

Solution – you should rigorously question everything. Even things you read here (at least that are written by Roy/Batterman). Unless you can answer the “why” question you should not accept an argument, strategy, or debate convention. The best way I have found to think things through is imagine a debate. So you read online someone says “5 minutes of no neg fiat is a tuss 1AR strat”. Think about: what would I say for 5 minutes on no negative fiat? Cant fill that much time- that is sign 1. Then think ” how would the neg respond to 5 minutes of no neg fiat?”- they would prob kick the CP and extend all the crap you dropped. Then- can I make no neg fiat a VI? How?

Maybe your answers to those questions will be different from mine and you will decide it sounds like a smashing idea, well then you are sorted- at least you have thought it through.

3. Reporting judge comments to your coaches- this is pretty important. No one fills out paper ballots anymore, so they only way your coaches know what you need to work on is if you accurately write down judge feedback and report it. Usually this process breaks down pretty quickly. Even if you don’t agree with what the judge is saying its important to write it down so that you can both report it to your coaches, and also so that if you have that judge again you can use it. I know people who would lose the same debate in front of the same judge repeatedly and not get that while in their mind they kicked ass that the judge saw things differently- they didn’t just flip a coin and decide to screw you the first time.  You may think you are perfectly clear, but when several judges express that they feel otherwise its time to take not and ask your coach how to work on getting clearer.

Ryan Ricard–author of the excellent debate blog Lucy does some ‘splaining–has posted a wonderful article about the dilemma that we all face as high school debate coaches.

The more I coach debate and talk to others in the activity, the more I come face-to-face with a disconcerting reality. You, me and everyone else who coaches debate is about to be hit by a bus.

By “A bus” I mean any one of the long list of eventualities that could suddenly force you out of the activity. Between new jobs, grad school, law school, funding cuts, and even the actual miniature human beings that are in the care and protection of some of us, our lives as debate coaches is short. Even for the lucky ones of us who are able to make debate part of our “day job,” our activity is subject to forces far out of our control.

In some ways we as a community are victims of our own success. As we give students the tools to advance in debate, we also open up access to far-off schools, high-power careers, and the kind of fulfilling life that is incompatible with coaching debate. Of course this is a natural process, the very reason that we are willing to do so much for the activity in the first place. It’s a good problem to have.

Unfortunately, it means we are sowing the seeds of our own destruction. we can’t ignore this reality, and absent some major changes to the public education system we can’t make it go away.

The conclusion that I’m becoming convinced of is that we need to embrace it. We need to embrace the bus that is careening toward us and do everything we can to help the activity before it hits us. I’m not entirely sure what this means yet, but there are already a few things that I’ve started to see differently about debate.

I don’t really have anything to add… Ryan nailed it. Read the whole article.