So I do a fair amount of complaining at debate tournaments, mostly about the way Texas debate tournaments are run. Instead of sounding like a broken record at tournaments, I am now just going to start a running list of all the things at local Texas tournaments that I see as either bad for debate or just plain irritating.
• No Strikes whatsoever
• Bad judges' lounges. I'll get to that later
• 4 prelim rounds instead of 5
• A four-and-then-quarters tournament that lasts till 11PM on saturday.
• A four round tournament with 3 presets and 1 powered round.
• Tournaments that break brackets (including the breaking of brackets at state. What the deuce?)
• Speech judges in varsity debate. this is unfortunate
• Speech judges in varsity debate elimination rounds. this is unacceptable.
• Absolutely no consideration for cleanliness of judges in out rounds.
• Ballot tables that say "no, you can't pick up your ballot. Tell me your name and I will hand it to you, so as to waste the most time"
• Ballot tables that say "no, you can't pick up your fiancee's ballot for her. She needs to come over so I can waste her time too"
(quick note: here's how to tell which ballots haven't been picked up: THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE STILL SITTING THERE ON THE TABLE)
• Tournaments where round 1 doesn't come out on time. Seriously. how hard is it to pair round one on time?
• Nobody running ballots. Ever.
• Getting mad at me when I hand my ballot to a student to run it to the ballot table.
• No pairings available at the ballot table. They just have one for the table.
• No communication from the judges lounge to the ballot table. So I can't be "standing by" and "eating food" at the same time. And of course no pairings in the judges lounge.
• Sometimes, no pairings available at all. They post one copy on the wall for 30+ teams, judges, and coaches. Jerks.
• Pushing ballots 5 minutes after pairings come out. To whoever is nearby. Without any consideration about what events they are experienced in or whether they are clean. Bonus points when it happens for outrounds.
• Kids that ask me "What are your paradigms?" don't think about that one too long. It might make your eyebrows start to burn a little.
• Kids that are double entered between extemp and debate, delaying the entire tournament when they break in both
• Structuring the entire tournament around the need for kids to double enter in speech and debate, sacrificing timeliness and/or an appropriate number of rounds.
• Judges lounges that pack up all the food after speech is done, while there are still 3 debate outrounds remaining. I know I already mentioned bad judges lounges, but that one deserves special mention
• Bonus points when they pack up all the food for the kids, too.
• Coaches that bail before the first elim round, or bail as their kids are eliminated.
• Calling it CX instead of Policy. Pet peeve.
• No JV division, ever.
• No novice case limits.
• The rule that the kids can't enter the room without a judge present, so I get to watch everyone set up every round.
• Two bad tournaments every weekend instead of one good one.
• Trophies that say "3rd place" instead of "semifinalist." Ok, another pet peeve, but there can't be two teams in third place!
Now, there are some tournaments in Texas that actually do a wonderful job. But this only underscores the bad tournaments' liability. There are perfectly good examples of what to do nearby, why must we continually suck week after week? And I do mean week after week. I have seen all of these on multiple occasions.
Anyone who uses Texas debate as an example of a thriving debate community to be emulated needs to actually come down here. If this is what it takes to save policy debate, policy debate ain't worth saving.
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Terrible Terrible Arguments
So one of the realities of debate is that many terrible arguments get to see the light of day. some even end up winning rounds. At risk of being a voice in the wilderness, I'm going to go ahead and out a few common ones so maybe someone will read my list and take one of these off their blocks:
This week's theme is topicality, the place from which many terrible arguments emerge:
-Our interpretation is good, because it increases education. Education about our plan.
-You read some arguments in the 1NC, so clearly you weren't abused on Topicality.
-If we are "reasonably topical," you shouldn't vote on topicality. Oh, by the way. We are reasonably topical. Seriously.
-Topicality is a voter because of tradition
-Topicality is a voter because it's an 'a priori' issue
-Our interpretation is better because it gives the negative all sorts of link ground!
-Extra topicality is good because it gives the negative all sorts of link ground!
-Our case is predictable! I mean, there's ton of literature about it! Hell, we found enough literature to make a 1AC! Quit whining!
-Topicality is a voter because the judge is like a senator and the resolution is like the constitution and the judge can't think that something is a good idea if it's out of his jurisdiction
So yeah, if you are a debater and you are reading this and your T blocks are nearby, please take out your sharpie and violently exclude all of these arguments from the rhetorical space of debate.
And oh man am I glad that the word "establish" isn't in this year's policy resolution. Someone upstairs at the framers meeting likes me.
This week's theme is topicality, the place from which many terrible arguments emerge:
-Our interpretation is good, because it increases education. Education about our plan.
-You read some arguments in the 1NC, so clearly you weren't abused on Topicality.
-If we are "reasonably topical," you shouldn't vote on topicality. Oh, by the way. We are reasonably topical. Seriously.
-Topicality is a voter because of tradition
-Topicality is a voter because it's an 'a priori' issue
-Our interpretation is better because it gives the negative all sorts of link ground!
-Extra topicality is good because it gives the negative all sorts of link ground!
-Our case is predictable! I mean, there's ton of literature about it! Hell, we found enough literature to make a 1AC! Quit whining!
-Topicality is a voter because the judge is like a senator and the resolution is like the constitution and the judge can't think that something is a good idea if it's out of his jurisdiction
So yeah, if you are a debater and you are reading this and your T blocks are nearby, please take out your sharpie and violently exclude all of these arguments from the rhetorical space of debate.
And oh man am I glad that the word "establish" isn't in this year's policy resolution. Someone upstairs at the framers meeting likes me.
Debate Camps are a scam
I know that there are a bunch of sites that sell debate evidence. Frankly, I think it's a little silly (and probably against the law), and I personally wouldn't ever make the decision to sell evidence, but it's a free country.
But selling camp evidence? I know that this has been going on for a while, but that's just ugly. Kids are pretty much required to go to debate camps to be successful in this day and age of debate. So they pay thousands of dollars to a college for the privilege. That college then takes their work, sells it for profit, and doesn't give the students back a dime. I mean I know you (hopefully) get more out of debate camp then a chance to cut cards, but that sucks.
End child exploitation. Boycott camp evidence.
Luckily, it looks like the fine folk at the NDCA are making this practice obsolete.
But selling camp evidence? I know that this has been going on for a while, but that's just ugly. Kids are pretty much required to go to debate camps to be successful in this day and age of debate. So they pay thousands of dollars to a college for the privilege. That college then takes their work, sells it for profit, and doesn't give the students back a dime. I mean I know you (hopefully) get more out of debate camp then a chance to cut cards, but that sucks.
End child exploitation. Boycott camp evidence.
Luckily, it looks like the fine folk at the NDCA are making this practice obsolete.
Mutual Judge Paininthebutt
I'll admit it, I'm not a fan of Mutual Judge Preference.
Everyone else seems to loooove MJP. It's a standard for any circuity tournament, and I hear all the time at tournaments about how nice it is. But man is it a pain in the ass. I'm pretty new at this coaching thing, but oh let me count the crap we have to put up with for MJP.
-Going through the list of judges, most of which we don't know
-Trying to find philosophies for judges online, many of which aren't there despite the perennial requirement for judges to post their philosophy
-Trying to discern something useful out of judge philosophies in the first place. What does it mean to "default to a policy maker?" is someone who "likes to see the evolution of debate" going to be ok with a performance aff?
-Calling around to ask about judges that we don't know anything about, wasting more time.
-Figuring out when the pref sheet needs to be done by, and who to turn it in to. At registration? The day before at 9AM? it's just one more thing to keep track of.
Also, in addition to being irritating, I really think that it's bad for debate. The idea of MJP is to make sure that each round has a judge that both teams equally prefer. But what if you are new to debate and know absolutely nobody? Who do you prefer? Or what if you have 10 As that you can come up with but need to mark at least 20? The whole system seems to assume that everyone has reliable, useful information about every judge.
That ain't true. And since it's the established, big programs that have more information, it's the established, big programs that get the real benefit of MJP.
I also think there's an argument to be made about how MJP eliminates the need for judge adaptation. Now, let me qualify that statement. There are a lot of really crappy policies that are justified by touting the benefits of "judge adaptation," so let me say that it's not like being required to adapt more is always a good thing. I think that lay judges are bad in varsity divisions. I also think that debaters should be able to avoid judges that have a specific agenda to eliminate from debate the style of arguments that they prefer. But there's an amount of education that comes from, say, having to slow down a bit to debate for a judge who's been out of the game for a while, or having to carry a few disads along with your representations kritik.
It's a balance. I think that strikes do a decent job of preserving that balance. I also think that MJP tips it a bit too far in the "I don't have to adapt" direction. It also tips the balance in that direction specifically for the big programs, and I think that's bad.
Everyone else seems to loooove MJP. It's a standard for any circuity tournament, and I hear all the time at tournaments about how nice it is. But man is it a pain in the ass. I'm pretty new at this coaching thing, but oh let me count the crap we have to put up with for MJP.
-Going through the list of judges, most of which we don't know
-Trying to find philosophies for judges online, many of which aren't there despite the perennial requirement for judges to post their philosophy
-Trying to discern something useful out of judge philosophies in the first place. What does it mean to "default to a policy maker?" is someone who "likes to see the evolution of debate" going to be ok with a performance aff?
-Calling around to ask about judges that we don't know anything about, wasting more time.
-Figuring out when the pref sheet needs to be done by, and who to turn it in to. At registration? The day before at 9AM? it's just one more thing to keep track of.
Also, in addition to being irritating, I really think that it's bad for debate. The idea of MJP is to make sure that each round has a judge that both teams equally prefer. But what if you are new to debate and know absolutely nobody? Who do you prefer? Or what if you have 10 As that you can come up with but need to mark at least 20? The whole system seems to assume that everyone has reliable, useful information about every judge.
That ain't true. And since it's the established, big programs that have more information, it's the established, big programs that get the real benefit of MJP.
I also think there's an argument to be made about how MJP eliminates the need for judge adaptation. Now, let me qualify that statement. There are a lot of really crappy policies that are justified by touting the benefits of "judge adaptation," so let me say that it's not like being required to adapt more is always a good thing. I think that lay judges are bad in varsity divisions. I also think that debaters should be able to avoid judges that have a specific agenda to eliminate from debate the style of arguments that they prefer. But there's an amount of education that comes from, say, having to slow down a bit to debate for a judge who's been out of the game for a while, or having to carry a few disads along with your representations kritik.
It's a balance. I think that strikes do a decent job of preserving that balance. I also think that MJP tips it a bit too far in the "I don't have to adapt" direction. It also tips the balance in that direction specifically for the big programs, and I think that's bad.
A little language kritik
Debate is a silly thing. This activity is ostensibly designed around logic and reason, but we have so many names for things that are relics of tradition and habit.
I'm pretty big on names for things. I really love a good name - something that is witty, maybe helps in understanding some concept. I think everyone does. But when something has a bad name, a name that obscures meaning or is just plain silly, most people tend to ignore it. I mean sure, we don't have racist names for disads anymore, but with all the talk about how to make debate a more accessible place to the outside world, why is there no discussion about making our jargon a little more user-friendly?
Let me get to some examples:
"Intrinsicness perm" - this one is a straight up relic. It comes (as I understand) from an era in which disadvantages needed to be "intrinsic" to plan. If the affirmative could think up something else that a policy maker could do to avoid the disadvantage - an "intrinsicness answer" - the disad would not be considered a reason to reject the plan. If plan causes a drop in business confidence but is otherwise a good idea, well then we'll do plan and then do something about the business confidence. Frankly, I have no idea how a negative team ever won a round in that world.
Anyway, the kernel of this concept - an addition of something else to plan - carried over into the world of counterplan theory, and the name has stuck around today. This sucks. If someone asks me what an intrinsicness perm is, I can simply explain what it is - a perm that includes some action neither in plan nor counterplan - but then that person has to manually connect the word "intrinsicness" (which isn't even a word) to that concept to be able to use it in a round. Really nasty. Why don't we just call them "addition perms" or "add-on perms" or "rider perms" or "staple perms" or something?
"Double Bind" - This one is just silly. The idea is that you set up a system of arguments that puts your opponents between the ol' rock and a hard place - the more they link-out of one argument the more they link into the other. Running a topicality violation on the word "public" along with a marxist kritik of the public/private dichotomy, for instance. This is generally a pretty good strategic move, so it deserves a good name. A hell of a lot better name than "double bind." There's nothing "double" about it. It's just a bind! They are in a bind between one argument or another. The word "double" is there just to make it sound harder to get out of. You'd be just as well off calling it a "XXTREME Bind" or something. silly.
I'll probably have a bunch more as time goes on and I get reminded of them, that's why I'm using a label just for silly debate words.
Really I think it'd be awesome if we made something like the Jargon File for debate. Like a wiki or something that a non-debater could read and understand this silly thing we call debate.
One more thing on the to do list :)
I'm pretty big on names for things. I really love a good name - something that is witty, maybe helps in understanding some concept. I think everyone does. But when something has a bad name, a name that obscures meaning or is just plain silly, most people tend to ignore it. I mean sure, we don't have racist names for disads anymore, but with all the talk about how to make debate a more accessible place to the outside world, why is there no discussion about making our jargon a little more user-friendly?
Let me get to some examples:
"Intrinsicness perm" - this one is a straight up relic. It comes (as I understand) from an era in which disadvantages needed to be "intrinsic" to plan. If the affirmative could think up something else that a policy maker could do to avoid the disadvantage - an "intrinsicness answer" - the disad would not be considered a reason to reject the plan. If plan causes a drop in business confidence but is otherwise a good idea, well then we'll do plan and then do something about the business confidence. Frankly, I have no idea how a negative team ever won a round in that world.
Anyway, the kernel of this concept - an addition of something else to plan - carried over into the world of counterplan theory, and the name has stuck around today. This sucks. If someone asks me what an intrinsicness perm is, I can simply explain what it is - a perm that includes some action neither in plan nor counterplan - but then that person has to manually connect the word "intrinsicness" (which isn't even a word) to that concept to be able to use it in a round. Really nasty. Why don't we just call them "addition perms" or "add-on perms" or "rider perms" or "staple perms" or something?
"Double Bind" - This one is just silly. The idea is that you set up a system of arguments that puts your opponents between the ol' rock and a hard place - the more they link-out of one argument the more they link into the other. Running a topicality violation on the word "public" along with a marxist kritik of the public/private dichotomy, for instance. This is generally a pretty good strategic move, so it deserves a good name. A hell of a lot better name than "double bind." There's nothing "double" about it. It's just a bind! They are in a bind between one argument or another. The word "double" is there just to make it sound harder to get out of. You'd be just as well off calling it a "XXTREME Bind" or something. silly.
I'll probably have a bunch more as time goes on and I get reminded of them, that's why I'm using a label just for silly debate words.
Really I think it'd be awesome if we made something like the Jargon File for debate. Like a wiki or something that a non-debater could read and understand this silly thing we call debate.
One more thing on the to do list :)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
