Just back from the Standford National Invitational.
The campus was beautiful. At most every college campus debate you have to run from one building to another, usually, on opposite sides of the campus, thus, one sees a lot of that campus. I have to get me a pedometer so I can accurately keep track of the miles I walked. The best part of Standford was the campus is flat, no hills or steep steps.
I may be one of the few parents that really enjoys judging. If I have to attend tournaments, keeping busy is one way of passing time. If I didn't judge, I'd be sitting in the library for 12 hours doing not much of anything. Even after 3 years I still get nervous after a round. I don't mind disclosing but giving my RFD (reason for decision) makes my stomach turn. Literally, butterflies fluttering, nauseous OMG feeling. Even in final rounds when there are 3 or 5 judges disclosing with a 3/0 or 5/0 ballot, I dread my turn to speak. This time, however, not so. I rocked my disclosure.
Finals round, a panel of 5 judges, I sat next to a PhD candidate in Political Science. She must have enjoyed this months topic (constitutionality) because her RFD's rocked. She gave her knowledge on the topic with her RFD. When giving my RFD I simply stated, "I agree with her (pointing to my neighbor) but in lay persons language." Everyone laughed and we finished the round with a 5/0 decision.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Overheard in Round
Sometimes the best part of debate tournaments is what the coaches and kids say.
Whitman College 2013-Do you know when the NSA was created? "Yes, it was created after 9/11 due to 9/11. "
Central Valley 2014-Wasn't Jesus born in America?
Said one mom to another as they were watching their children debate, "the girls are boggled."
Eastside Catholic 2012-Lady GaGa and Eminem are not the epitomy of democracy.
Standford College Invitational 2014-These kids are nothing more than nerds that want to be football players.
Whitman College 2013-Do you know when the NSA was created? "Yes, it was created after 9/11 due to 9/11. "
Central Valley 2014-Wasn't Jesus born in America?
Said one mom to another as they were watching their children debate, "the girls are boggled."
Eastside Catholic 2012-Lady GaGa and Eminem are not the epitomy of democracy.
Standford College Invitational 2014-These kids are nothing more than nerds that want to be football players.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Judging your first public forum debate
Chances are, if your child is participating in public forum debate you will be called to judge. I'm going to pull a few quotes from my favorite debate book and between Edwards, Richard E, PhD, Competitive Debate, The Official Guide and myself you will be anxiety free while judging Public Forum debate.
In Public Forum debate a team of 2 will prepare a case for and against the resolution. For example, this month's resolution is The continuation of current US drug policies in Latin America will do more harm than good. The team will need to prepare a Pro side and a Con side.
The first speaker of the team will have a 4 minute speech. In this speech they will restate the resolution and then provide reasons why they support or oppose it. Just as we were taught to outline our writing in school, the speech will come to you in sort of outline form. For example team a wins the coin flip and takes the affirmation (pro) side of the above resolution. Their speech may look like this:
For the last 20 years the US has spent billions of dollars fighting the war on drugs and we are no closer winning this war than we were when we started, for this reason we affirm, the continuation of current US drug policies in Latin America will do more harm than good.
Contention 1: (Our first reason) The war on drugs is ineffective .
Subpoint A: According to ABC we have not seen a reduction of drugs entering the US
Subpoint B: According to XYZ, the number of coca farms in central America is growing with the US being their main destination.
Contention 2: (our second reason) Our policy of pesticide spraying in Peru is detrimental to the environment.
Subpoint A: The pesticides spray indiscriminately
For these reasons we urge a pro ballot.
The first speaker for the opposing team will now rise and give their 4 minute speech to the opposite side, they will negate and lay out their reasoning.
When the second speaker is done, both speakers will stand for crossfire. Think of crossfire as question and answer. It's a time to ask questions and have them answered. Direct and to the point. It is not a time to re-read evidence. This is where you are able to make points of contentions for your speech. It is a time to start poking holes in your opponents case and to clear up points of interest. It is a 3 minute round and the last speaker is the one who should ask the first question.
At this point a judge will have an outline of each case. I take notes in 2 different colors as it is easier to read back on and know which side said what.
After crossfire the second speaker on the first team will give his 4 minute speech. This time is usually spent attacking each of the oppositions contentions. If time allows, the speaker will quickly run through his case. Then, the second speaker on the opposing team gets his 4 minutes to attack what the previous speaker just said about his case. If time permits the speaker should then state again his contentions and why they are stronger.
Another 3 minute crossfire with the second speakers.
In Public Forum debate a team of 2 will prepare a case for and against the resolution. For example, this month's resolution is The continuation of current US drug policies in Latin America will do more harm than good. The team will need to prepare a Pro side and a Con side.
The first speaker of the team will have a 4 minute speech. In this speech they will restate the resolution and then provide reasons why they support or oppose it. Just as we were taught to outline our writing in school, the speech will come to you in sort of outline form. For example team a wins the coin flip and takes the affirmation (pro) side of the above resolution. Their speech may look like this:
For the last 20 years the US has spent billions of dollars fighting the war on drugs and we are no closer winning this war than we were when we started, for this reason we affirm, the continuation of current US drug policies in Latin America will do more harm than good.
Contention 1: (Our first reason) The war on drugs is ineffective .
Subpoint A: According to ABC we have not seen a reduction of drugs entering the US
Subpoint B: According to XYZ, the number of coca farms in central America is growing with the US being their main destination.
Contention 2: (our second reason) Our policy of pesticide spraying in Peru is detrimental to the environment.
Subpoint A: The pesticides spray indiscriminately
For these reasons we urge a pro ballot.
The first speaker for the opposing team will now rise and give their 4 minute speech to the opposite side, they will negate and lay out their reasoning.
When the second speaker is done, both speakers will stand for crossfire. Think of crossfire as question and answer. It's a time to ask questions and have them answered. Direct and to the point. It is not a time to re-read evidence. This is where you are able to make points of contentions for your speech. It is a time to start poking holes in your opponents case and to clear up points of interest. It is a 3 minute round and the last speaker is the one who should ask the first question.
At this point a judge will have an outline of each case. I take notes in 2 different colors as it is easier to read back on and know which side said what.
After crossfire the second speaker on the first team will give his 4 minute speech. This time is usually spent attacking each of the oppositions contentions. If time allows, the speaker will quickly run through his case. Then, the second speaker on the opposing team gets his 4 minutes to attack what the previous speaker just said about his case. If time permits the speaker should then state again his contentions and why they are stronger.
Another 3 minute crossfire with the second speakers.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Judging, something to think about
As I was reading today, I came across a paragraph that, just about, fits the quality of judges in some debate tournaments. I'm not singling out public forum debate as I've heard some whopper RFD's for just about all speech and debate events.
Basically, an FBI agent had worked hard for his career and lands his dream job at the FBI. "...all of it had been training for the Bureau, and now that he was here, he hated like hell to think it could all go away at the hands of a boss who clearly disliked him...Funny how that works. You get assigned to work for a man who doesn't know his ass from a whole in the ground, and then it's the incompetent one who gets to write the performance evaluation." Gilstrap, John. Even Steven.
The kids will tell you, "You work your butt off, and then it's the incompetent judge that gets to do the judging."
Unfortunately, it's very true. Every ballot we judges fill out, we have to give a RFD, reason for decision. When you have judges that have no idea what they are suppose to be judging you find the strangest RFD's. Some might make some sense, "the pro team had a better argument", some will leave you stumped, "I liked the pro better" and some will just tick you off, "if you are going to list you contentions then you should alphabetize the sub points". This is a debate! This is not LA class.
What hurts the kids the most is the cost of losing a debate on a non issue. There is no right or wrong way to list sub points. You don't really even need sub points. So, to lose with the RFD being a lack of correct sup point listing, it's a terrible thing.
I started this blog to write about my time on the public forum debate circuit (for lack of a better word) and the biggest complaint I hear and see is the judging quality. I decided to spend the next few days informing future judges what exactly public forum debate is and how to judge it.
Basically, an FBI agent had worked hard for his career and lands his dream job at the FBI. "...all of it had been training for the Bureau, and now that he was here, he hated like hell to think it could all go away at the hands of a boss who clearly disliked him...Funny how that works. You get assigned to work for a man who doesn't know his ass from a whole in the ground, and then it's the incompetent one who gets to write the performance evaluation." Gilstrap, John. Even Steven.
The kids will tell you, "You work your butt off, and then it's the incompetent judge that gets to do the judging."
Unfortunately, it's very true. Every ballot we judges fill out, we have to give a RFD, reason for decision. When you have judges that have no idea what they are suppose to be judging you find the strangest RFD's. Some might make some sense, "the pro team had a better argument", some will leave you stumped, "I liked the pro better" and some will just tick you off, "if you are going to list you contentions then you should alphabetize the sub points". This is a debate! This is not LA class.
What hurts the kids the most is the cost of losing a debate on a non issue. There is no right or wrong way to list sub points. You don't really even need sub points. So, to lose with the RFD being a lack of correct sup point listing, it's a terrible thing.
I started this blog to write about my time on the public forum debate circuit (for lack of a better word) and the biggest complaint I hear and see is the judging quality. I decided to spend the next few days informing future judges what exactly public forum debate is and how to judge it.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
TOC bound
Just when I thought it was safe to put away my "judge" hat, we are off to the Tournament of Champions in Kentucky later this month. My totally awesome children received 1 of the 7 at large bids.
We have a topic to debate that I feel is very one sided: The continuation of the US drug policy in Latin America will do more harm than good. Hmm, that's a thinker. We'll see how this one turns out.
We have 3 weeks to prepare and no teams to run a prep. debate on. But, I think positive and I know my guys can do this.
Until April 28th I'll be offline. I also have to prepare for the upcoming TOC.
We have a topic to debate that I feel is very one sided: The continuation of the US drug policy in Latin America will do more harm than good. Hmm, that's a thinker. We'll see how this one turns out.
We have 3 weeks to prepare and no teams to run a prep. debate on. But, I think positive and I know my guys can do this.
Until April 28th I'll be offline. I also have to prepare for the upcoming TOC.
Monday, April 1, 2013
A few of my favorite public forum debate topics
With our debate season at an end, I thought I'd take a few moments to recall some of my favorite PF topics. As a judge, you have to put aside your preconceived notions and listen to the debaters. Let the teams sway you with their contentions, evidence and, logic.
My favorite topic ever, resolved, the cost of a college education outweighs the benefits. The ironic thing regarding this topic was that most of the high school debaters are on the fast track to college. You don't need to push these kids to college, it's where their next step will lead them. However, I have always felt that college is not for everyone (myself included, even though I did go and achieved my BS with honors) there are other options not everyone is college bound. Take into account the financial aid industry and it was a timely and informative topic. I loved this topic.
On balance, the rise of China is beneficial to the interest of the United States. Judging this topic was very interesting to me. I learned more about an emerging China than I ever thought I'd need to know. The most important fact I took away from this topic, there is more to the world than just the United States. There is a whole world out there, and every decision that is made by one part will affect another part at some point in time. Thousands of miles apart is not a whole lot. Not anyone. Not in the global economy, global world we live in today. The Keystone pipeline-guess who is a major player in that one? China. Oil, think China. Military, think China. Cyber "anything", think China.
Prior to, on balance, the United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election committee harms the election process, I didn't even know what Citizens United was. Perhaps, I need to watch more tv news. I got educated quickly on Super PACS. In this case, I went into judging with a totally open mind. I let logic play a major part in the outcome of the debate. I was sure to let the debaters know evidence and logic would play a part in my decision.
Due to the scarcity of judges, especially as the tournament winds down and teams go home, I had the honor of judging a finals Lincoln Douglas round. Being from Texas, I really enjoyed listening to the students debate, whether it is morally permissible to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. While I went into the round thinking, yeah, kill em, I left the round thinking, hmmmm, let him rot in jail.
It's been fun.
My favorite topic ever, resolved, the cost of a college education outweighs the benefits. The ironic thing regarding this topic was that most of the high school debaters are on the fast track to college. You don't need to push these kids to college, it's where their next step will lead them. However, I have always felt that college is not for everyone (myself included, even though I did go and achieved my BS with honors) there are other options not everyone is college bound. Take into account the financial aid industry and it was a timely and informative topic. I loved this topic.
On balance, the rise of China is beneficial to the interest of the United States. Judging this topic was very interesting to me. I learned more about an emerging China than I ever thought I'd need to know. The most important fact I took away from this topic, there is more to the world than just the United States. There is a whole world out there, and every decision that is made by one part will affect another part at some point in time. Thousands of miles apart is not a whole lot. Not anyone. Not in the global economy, global world we live in today. The Keystone pipeline-guess who is a major player in that one? China. Oil, think China. Military, think China. Cyber "anything", think China.
Prior to, on balance, the United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election committee harms the election process, I didn't even know what Citizens United was. Perhaps, I need to watch more tv news. I got educated quickly on Super PACS. In this case, I went into judging with a totally open mind. I let logic play a major part in the outcome of the debate. I was sure to let the debaters know evidence and logic would play a part in my decision.
Due to the scarcity of judges, especially as the tournament winds down and teams go home, I had the honor of judging a finals Lincoln Douglas round. Being from Texas, I really enjoyed listening to the students debate, whether it is morally permissible to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. While I went into the round thinking, yeah, kill em, I left the round thinking, hmmmm, let him rot in jail.
It's been fun.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Just what is a Public Forum debate
In the world of debate, Public Forum is a newcomer with its first national competition occurring in 2002. Public forum debate is based on a crossfire type of debate made famous by Ted Turner and CNN. With Ted Turner being on of the first sponsors.
One of the biggest obstacles public forum debate has to overcome is, the common thought of it being "the ordinary man's debate". Debate books, debate coaches and many debate professionals will tell you that it is any one's debate. "You can literally pick anyone off the street and have a well judged debate". I stand in firm negation of this quote. Public forum topics are considered "hot" and "ripped from the headlines" current and highly debated/debatable. With seasoned debaters, you are almost guaranteed an exciting and well informed debate round. I do enjoy judging public forum debate and would like to see more judges understanding this type of debate.
There are numerous things to keep in mind when judging public forum. My biggest contention is that NOT anyone can judge this debate. There is order, there are rules and there is a symmetry that must be followed. I'm not saying you must be an expert in the field, I'm not stating you have to know anything about the topic. I am saying you must know some (and I use this term loosely) debate jargon.
Public forum debate consists of 2 teams of 2 speakers. A coin flip begins with the winner of the flip deciding if they wish to speak first or second and/or take the affirmation or negative side of the debate. Seasoned debaters will chose wisely based on the topic at hand. The second speaker will also be the last speaker in the round. They can take their final focus speech and the last words the judges hear is theirs. There is something to be said for having the last word. However, topic wise, some teams will take the pro (affirmation) or the neg (negate) for their specific reasons. Some topics lend themselves to being easier to argue for or against. See, there is logic in public forum debate.
One of the biggest obstacles public forum debate has to overcome is, the common thought of it being "the ordinary man's debate". Debate books, debate coaches and many debate professionals will tell you that it is any one's debate. "You can literally pick anyone off the street and have a well judged debate". I stand in firm negation of this quote. Public forum topics are considered "hot" and "ripped from the headlines" current and highly debated/debatable. With seasoned debaters, you are almost guaranteed an exciting and well informed debate round. I do enjoy judging public forum debate and would like to see more judges understanding this type of debate.
There are numerous things to keep in mind when judging public forum. My biggest contention is that NOT anyone can judge this debate. There is order, there are rules and there is a symmetry that must be followed. I'm not saying you must be an expert in the field, I'm not stating you have to know anything about the topic. I am saying you must know some (and I use this term loosely) debate jargon.
Public forum debate consists of 2 teams of 2 speakers. A coin flip begins with the winner of the flip deciding if they wish to speak first or second and/or take the affirmation or negative side of the debate. Seasoned debaters will chose wisely based on the topic at hand. The second speaker will also be the last speaker in the round. They can take their final focus speech and the last words the judges hear is theirs. There is something to be said for having the last word. However, topic wise, some teams will take the pro (affirmation) or the neg (negate) for their specific reasons. Some topics lend themselves to being easier to argue for or against. See, there is logic in public forum debate.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)