Thursday Thing to Read: V4 important for communication skills
November 10, 2005 – 12:01 am by: Nick BubbThe Supreme Court of Wisconsin Forensics and Debate discussion (Wisconsin Foreniscs Daily) has granted certiorari to the on going case Varsity Switch Sides et al v. Varsity Four Person et al. [In case you have not noticed, there is a long and exhaustive debate between VSS and V4 people as to which is the superior form of debate.]
Instead of approaching this subject from the typical irresolvable rants, I’ve instructed our columnists on this topic to write about the paradigmatic differences. Focusing on a specific aspect of the VSS v. V4 debate will not resolve the debate, but it will make that discussion productive. Our representation of this on going debate will focus on two positions. First, V4 Debate is stylistical better because it supports communication and the development of speaking skills. Second, VSS Debate is stylistically better because it supports argumentation rather than communication.
Today we only start with the first position. John Knetzger of Cedarburg, writes today’s Thursday Thing to Read on why V4 promotes a specific style with unique educational benefits.
V4: Important for Communication Skills
by John Knetzger
Debate. One word, one activity, yet filled with a myriad of philosophies, styles and genres. Ultimately a challenge to fully grasp, much less define this topic that we all love and devote our weekends to each fall. Thankfully, my purpose here is to focus on one style, V-4, and what specific benefits it’s provides our students.
Historically, the style of V-4 has focused on a persuasive style of speech, in depth analysis of policy options, and rounds that feel like the real world. Judging paradigms also seem to run more traditional, with stocks and policy as the most prevalent. It is also important to acknowledge that evolution continues to take place in this division. Since my days as a debater in the early 1990’s, the kritik and conditional counterplans are new while a focus on case arguments has waned.
Speech style seems to be a huge area of contention between genres of policy debate. Varsity-4 speaker debate often seems to prefer a slower pace speaking. I contrast this with reading cards where a tempo faster than conversational is generally accepted. Using this construct, fewer arguments do appear in the opening speeches of a round. But more of these are still viable positions at the end of the round. Additionally, the arguments that are presented are refuted, rebutted and argued with a unique level of depth. Every bit of educational research I was forced to read in college points to the realization that depth is preferable to breadth.
The style speaking gives great benefit to its practitioners. Being able to offer an argument with conviction and confidence is a life skill second to none. I’m hard pressed to find a professional career path that doesn’t involve this ability, on one level or another. It continues to serve former debaters as teachers, doctors, lawyers, politicians, businessmen and women and the like. As coaches and judges I hope we’re trying to inspire our students to make career choices like these. In virtually every interview I’ve had for a teaching position, I’ve had a question I wasn’t completely prepared to answer. Being able to analyze the situation and provide a response with poise and confidence has helped far more often than not.
Additionally, all the research on nonverbal communication is clear that at least 50% of what we communicate isn’t said out loud. Some studies have put the actual message at around 7%. If 93% of communication is encapsulated by things like rate, pitch, inflection and body language, teaching debaters to stand up straight and really communicate with the judge is imperative. What’s the impact? How debaters say what they say has an effect on the judge, conscious or not. Our constant drive to maximize the educational value of debate should demand that we impart this knowledge upon our students. Our competitive juices should force us to utilize this key strategy.
I want to be clear that I’m a proponent of VSS and V-4. I enjoyed doing both as a debater and I enjoy judging and coaching both now. Each as a specific skill set. Each has benefits to the debaters. I don’t find a reason why both can’t be viable styles for our students to explore. Diversity does make us richer. But I do believe that V-4 debate, the way it could be, provides unique and exceptional opportunities for most students to maximize not only their education in debate but their success as well. So what now? Wisconsin is one of the few states that still offer this traditional, locked sides format. That alone isn’t a reason to continue or abandon it. Lots of former Wisconsin V-4 debaters have gone on to achieve great things. After reading what’s been posted on various websites, talking w/ debaters and their coaches, I honestly don’t have a single solution that I’m ready to advocate. What I know is that I want more schools to join/rejoin the debate community and I want to provide as many opportunities for policy debate as humanly possible.
The conversation about VSS and V-4 has been going on since I started debating in 1990 and will likely continue well after this crop of novices leaves our ranks for college. Defining the scope of this issue is a huge challenge. Finding a mutually agreeable solution may prove a Herculean endeavor. But, as long as we’re making decisions the benefit our students first, we’ll always be headed in the right direction.
8 Responses to “Thursday Thing to Read: V4 important for communication skills”
I think this is the best case for the V4/traditional style i’ve read.
By means of disclosure, I say this as a coach who has solely pushed students to be VSS debaters and yet only debated in the V4 division for policy myself. I know without a doubt that with less than a year in policy debate I was able to win V4 rounds at the STOC, yet would not have had a chance in hell of winning a VSS round against our freshmen who were in VSS that year. I know the reason I won those V4 rounds was that I was a good, or at least competent, extemper, not because I posessed a good understanding of how to do policy debate.
While John focuses on the need to learn communication skills (and I would say in a school without a forensics team, you lose Congress or extemp as an outlet to develop those skills) and the service V4 provides to deliver those skills, I do not believe depth is an inherent result of being required to speak in a communicatively persuasive fashion. Instead it is a strategy that will more often than not pay off because you cannot cover up the lack of depth with volume.
This is not to say that depth cannot occurr in a VSS round. Many VSS debaters would insist that depth can occur on the same level, they will go equally deep on 5 issues instead of 3. This is largely true, as it is the debaters in the round who can choose to go deep or not going deep, and instead favor a spread that relys more heavily on drops. Thus in VSS going deep is far less of an essential strategy or burden.
Personally, I feel V4 promotes a much higher burden on issue selection. There is no “throw it out there and see if it sticks”. The Aff must choose a smaller number of big advantages, and the neg must be confident in its positions. As an attorney, I am often faced with the opportunity to throw in every possible cause of action. By doing so, while all might offer some possibility of victory, I also look less confident in my story, and jeopardize getting attorney’s fees on those issues I do win. Monetary issues aside, this is the same sort of issue selection V4 teams are forced to do to be persuasive in their positions.
A real travesty, however, is that a real attention to depth and issue selection, as well as story telling (in a non-hideous perfomance meaning) as an element of persuasion have rarely popped up in the V4 rounds I’ve judged over the last seven years. I’m not sure if this is a function of some debaters not switching sides from tournament to tournament to better understand how to win, or a fuction of many of our best and brightest debaters gravitating to the high speed chess match format of VSS, watering down the pool of talent between divisions. Often I beleive this is a function of the random pairing format that can match an excellent pair of debaters against three mediocre ones, hampering the ability of the excellent pair to shine. I am very interested in seeing a 5-0 vs. 5-0 pair at the STOC during round 6 to see how an ideal V4 round should look to be properly contrasted in my mind with a semi or final round of VSS.
The failure to regularly see a shining V4 round, other than by random chance, or at a single tournament per season, causes, I think, much of the perception of V4 being a lesser event, because VSS rounds, via power pairing and elim rounds, tend to match debaters of closer skill, particularly the best meeting the best. Not only does this bias the viewer, ie the average debater watching rounds, into thinking V4 is a weaker form of debater, but good debate produces more good debate. With V4 debaters not being pushed to their limit each round, and limiting the ability of younger debaters to watch good V4 teams in action and emulate those performances, V4 lacks some of the means to see persuasion and careful issue selection be more widely accepted by both sides of this controversy as an equally superior format for debate.
By Tim Scheffler on Nov 10, 2005
Because Tim raised this point, I’ll offer more evidence to support this from our article’s author, John Knetzger. This paragraph was omitted in the editing process:
“V-4 is everyman place for competition. Attending a 4,5 or 6 week summer institute isn’t a prerequisite for success. Being able to read casebooks, hit the library and the net to compile cases and neg blocks is the kind of lifeblood that is key to survival. You don’t need expando upon expando to have a great discourse of the various policies available under the resolution. Being accessible to basically anybody who wants to debate is the kind of inclusiveness that we all need to embrace. “
By Nick Bubb on Nov 10, 2005
I think that John Knetzger makes some pertinent analysis, and his opinions seem quite timely given that the recent Rostrum had an article talking about the problems of policy debate in general these days. In that article, the author called for an end to judge strikes (to force adaptation), better qualified coaches, and one other thing I can’t recall off hand.
Generally, I find myself more frustrated with Varsity 4 judges and coaches than I find myself frustrated with V-4 debaters. Typically, a V4 judge will give little indication as to what they want, and when they do, they limit negative strategies to defensive arguments like inherency (the deathbed of debate), harms, and solvency. Ironically, most V4 judges who say they are stock issues judges don’t like topicality. Throw in that they don’t like Kritiks and generic DAs, and it seems like V4 judges would rather that negatives just not talk. Now, I know that not all V4 judges are that way, but enough are to make the above statement generally accurate. ( And I’d be willing to bet that V4 decisions skew affirmative more than VSS)
I know this will seem acerbic, but too many V4 style coaches simply do not know basic debate strategy or theory. They teach their kids to run a speed Kritk and then run new in the 2NC, thereby forcing the 1AR to go fast; all the while being oblivious to the irony of it all. V4 coaches tend to view policy debate as a nuanced form of extemp speech and ignore the importance of really researching big positions. Further, V4 coaches are much more likely to encourage or allow their teams to run “squirrel” Affirmative cases that rely on their opponents lack of evidence, not their own persuasion, to win rounds. Again the irony is striking, V4 coaches talk of the importance of analysis and persuasion and then encourage cases which make neither possible.
Not to be presumptuous, but I’d bet that most VSS style coaches knew a lot more about Debate in general before they took over their school’s coaching position than V4 coaches did.
That said, VSS has some problems. VSS is becoming the realm of the economic elite. This is occurring on two fronts. First, camp expenses are out of control and speak to the hypocrisy of a leftist oriented elite that wants to win rounds on racism but ignores the fact that most poor minorities could not afford a $3500.00 camp. Second, the time it takes to go to camp in the summer prohibits most of the lower classes from going to camp because they work jobs all summer because unlike their wealthy suburban counterparts, these kids have folks who refuse to fund their every whim.
And, VSS judges are often in the habit of taking some inexplicable pride in being a “flow” judge, telling kids to go as fast as they want. Well, could someone tell me what would really be wrong with a judge insisting that they hear every word clearly? From what I’ve seen, at least 1/2 the arguments run by fast negatives sucked from the start and continued sucking throughout the entire round. Their suckiness was not helped along by fast rate of delivery.
And, VSS judging often favors reputation, an issue addressed in the Rostrum article. Some schools get picked up by certain judges even when they’ve clearly lost the round. Throw in the fact that most such schools who get the breaks come from monied districts, and you make the elite problem worse.
What seems to be needed is a healthy convergence of the two styles, but that doesn’t come until we face some of the harsh facts before us.
Joe Klopotek
SPASH Debate coach
soon to be Mr. Olson’s assistant
By Joe klopotek on Nov 10, 2005
While it’s been argued by John and others that V-4 debate fosters communictation skills much better than VSS, I must admit that this alone must not be our litmus test for the success of debate. Personally, I love V-4 debate. After a few VSS tourneys last year (Appleton East and Blake), I decided that the atmosphere was not for me. While John and Joe assert that VSS favors breadth and not depth of argument, I feel that this strategy is good in that it forces people to develope critical thinking skills that take longer to develope in the realm of V-4 debate. How? If one analyzes a VSS round they lost and truly looks at the flow, they will begin to see which arguments were completely ridiculous and which arguments truly needed to be addressed seriously. And this doesn’t just happen on the affirmative or negative - a person can evaluate both of their strategies simultaneously and become a better debater in both realms. Contrast this with V-4, where most people remain on one side for the entire year. This produces very good affirmatives and negatives, but indiviually it hurts these debaters.
Throughout my novice, JV, and V-4 career, I have remained a negative debater. However this year, when I started to go affirmative, I was better able to analyze and build my case, and at the same time, I could envision and block out the negative strategies that would be used against my case. Thus, I used a practice inherent in VSS to better myself in V-4.
I agree with previous posts that we should not adopt one type of debate over the other - there is an alternative. When I attended Blake last year, and from what I’ve heard from individuals on my team who have attended out-of-state tournaments this year, I discovered that out-of-state VSS is actually much like V-4 in terms of the types of arguments presented and their analysis. My interpretation of this is that in states where only VSS is available, individuals who normally would excel in V-4 are included the activity, forcing judge and debater adaptation. Thus, a hybrid of V-4 and VSS is created. It would be interesting to attempt something like this in Wisconsin; however, I doubt the pragmaatism of such an attempt. Given the strong passions on both sides of this issue, I am (sadly) doubtful that this hybrid will ever be created.
Brian Campbell
Senior, Cedarburg High School
Varsity-Four Person
By Brian Campbell on Nov 10, 2005
Brian,
I think you write a thoughtful piece on the ups and downs of both divisions. The sad truth, though, is that it is the bullheadedness of coaches, not debaters, that has brought us to where we are.
I suppose that I’m a tad guilty on that count, too. But, what I’ve learned in 5 years as a VSS coach is that too many V4 decisions come down to random and arbitrary judge idiosyncracies. Too many of my debaters come back saying things like “Well, they didn’t respond to the kritik but the judge said they don’t vote on Kritiks.” ( This on the ballot and not before the round.) I also deplore the “run out of the room” judge paradigm where critique and disclosure are forbidden. Truth be told, too many V4 judges aren’t flowing well enough to accurately gauge what happened in the round; and you could speak as slow as molasses and they’d still not flow properly. Most likely, they prefer not to disclose because they just don’t want to be held accountable for what they write on a ballot. (That said, any VSS debater seeing this who wants to argue me out of my decision is engaging in a futile exercise.)
Too many VSS coaches have a vested interest in the established order of things to compromise. Once your school has the rep it takes to win the “coin toss” rounds, the last thing you want is change. SPASH has yet to become one of those teams; maybe I’ll feel differenty about this if we ever get there.
And the money issue is no joke.. I’d urge parents in all districts to advocate for Debate classes so that the problem can at least start to be alleviated. But the camps have to look at themselves in the mirror. Can they really justify serving best those who have the most to start with?
And to Brian and John; Cedarburg should be proud that they can more than hold their own in both VSS and V4. Somehow, you guys have figured out something the rest of us have not.
Joe klopotek
SPASH Debate
By Joe klopotek on Nov 11, 2005
Just my two cents…
The differences in philosophy, coaching and style that exist between VSS and V4 in Wisconsin, exist everywhere else. But virtually every other state or region only has one division. I believe there are a handful that still have two or multiple varsity divisions. But even in states that don’t have multiple divisions, there is the same stylistic discrepancies that we face. They, however, exist in a single division, and force a greater deal of adaptation. (Go to a non-national circuit tournament in Illinois or Iowa or Texas… it will feel very much like you are at any local tournament). In this scenario, you will see selection of tournaments that a school attends as the defining style of that program. I believe that variety is the spice of life, but when the pool gets small, it can also be the final nail in the coffin.
I truly believe that the time is coming that we as an association will need to collapse to just 1 varsity division. Numbers are progressively shrinking… for a number of reasons, and I believe it is not because of the differences between VSS and V4. (My assumption of shrinking numbers is – economics, lack of coaches, lack of administration support, and reduced dedication of students. And I will pontificate on each of these later). While our numbers are strong and high (as they were in the 70’s and early 80’s) the multiple divisions have plenty of participation and flourish, but as our number shrink, we face the inevitable fate of needing to collapse divisions to remain strong. While rewards and success from competing in a field of 6 to 10 teams is an attractive notion some times, it is not the best formula for developing quality debaters or debate skills. The deeper and more competitive the pool, the better it is for all who compete in that pool. Thus we need to ask ourselves, what is our goal… participation and success on a nominal level for absolutely as many as possible? Or an activity that develops all of the skills intrinsic to any style of debate, with less chance of nominal success. Folks, remember… success is relative! It is up to us as coaches to make sure that students realize their success! 2-4 in a good tournament can be a tremendous success. I have this speech with students quite often… “you can never judge success in a speech activity on a win/loss record, you must relate success to a personal goal, and striving for that goal!”
Actually, I don’t see a problem with combining our varsity divisions… it will really force much more adaptation… which is good. The real question will be, how do we decide where to place this one division. If you ask most V4 coaches, they indicate that their varsity students are capable and do debate both sides of the resolution, so if the move became a singular varsity policy debate division that had debaters debating both sides of the resolution, nothing would be lost to either style of debate. But if the singular style of varsity policy were to allow debaters to only debate one side of the resolution, we would be taking away the ability of teams that aspire to compete at national tournaments like the TOC or NFL or NCFL to prepare for that type of debate. Thus the conflict we face!
I need to comment on Mr. Klopotek’s comments for a moment. I very much agree with his assessment of the judging in V4… What would happen if a VSS judge went into a V4 round and said, I will only vote on critical arguments or generic positions? There would be a number of V4 coaches that would be in the tabroom awfully quick. And they could justifiably say that those judges are adapting a “gamesplaying” paradigm, and they would be right. (gamesplaying is a forbidden paradigm in WDCA) So my question is, why do we not call gamesplaying on V4 judges that dictate that they will decide the round only on a couple specific issues? Because to me, that sounds like gamesplaying.
Ok, on to my reasons that I believe debate numbers are shrinking. First, does anyone out there not believe that the activity is shrinking? If so, I will try to provide support to that assumption, otherwise I will consider that a given. So why are we losing numbers, teams, and programs?
First – Economics. Debate is an expensive activity, on two levels. 1 – it is expensive for students who wish to excel, by going to camps and acquiring great amounts of evidence. 2 – it is expensive to pay for judges at a rate of 1 for every 4 students. (Just compare to athletic activities, and their need for officials). And of course transportation. The transportation factor increase exponentially with the reduction of debaters and tournament opportunities.
Second – Lack of coaches. Why are there less and less individuals out there that want to coach this activity? Could it be paralleled with the fact that there is a shortage of quality educators? (Really need to talk about education reform sometime)
Third – Lack of administration support. This, in my opinion is the biggest factor. I believe there are students and parents that want debate programs out there, but just can’t convince schools to take a proactive stance on developing a program. The administration just can’t find coaches for the activity thus, do not offer it. But how are they really looking for coaches… they post the position and wait to see if any teacher in the district is interested, if no one steps forward, they just drop it. I believe this scenario occures far too often. I don’t think it is a malicious attempt to destroy the activity, but more so just lacking a true understanding or appreciation of the activity. What a glorious place this world would be if administrative teams took as much care in hiring a head debate coach as they do in hiring a head football or basketball coach! But part of the reason they don’t is because they cannot open a local newspaper any given day and read about their debate team like they can about their basketball or football team. So you ask the local paper if they will cover the local debate and speech tournaments and they say no… and why, because they claim that it is not wanted or desired by their readers. So does that make the event less valuable? It is a vicious cycle! This is also the greatest fear of my wife and myself. As we begin to think about the big “R” word… (Retirement). Our biggest concern is not for our drama program, cause that has a little more face in the community than forensics. But we really worry about the fact that when we leave, that first, all that we have worked for in developing a program to get as many students involved as possible in public speaking, will simply fade away… and no one will notice, and even worse, no one will care. It kind of makes us feel like our life passion has been for naught. (It is also an extremely depressing notion). Then we wonder why we fight with administration, argue with students, sooth concerned parents, just to put ourselves in financial, emotional, and sometimes legal risk, every time we venture out with students to a tournament. (Sorry for my short vent, but I am old, so I should be allowed a vent every now and then)
Finally – Reduced dedication of students. It is not that debate student’s lack dedication, it is just that there is a much smaller number that are dedicated. I don’t mean to knock on teenagers, but a majority of teens today would rather just give up or quit when faced with some adversity, as opposed to even just 10 years ago, and even more so 25 years ago. More options, opportunities, or excuses… however you want to coin it, true dedication is vanquishing.
So back to VSS vs V4… whatever the differences… we really need to span the gap and work together to protect the activity.
Michael Traas
Appleton East Debate, Foresnics and Drama
By Traas on Nov 11, 2005
Michael,
While you may be seeing a decrease in the number of debaters you have seen participating in the activity, I have observed the exact opposite in our team. If you have seen our team at a regular tournament this year, you’d have to agree. At our Novice introductory meeting, we had 45 interested freshmen, which translated into about 20 dedicated novices. Thsi growth is mirrored in our other divisions as well. Over the past few years, our team has really grown, and the only explanation I can give is our methodology in partnering. Unlike many teams that “power pair” their best debaters for an entire year, our team is constantly rotating. This year alone, I have had 4 different partners. While this can be frustrating, it really helps everyone on the team improve and it makes everyone feel involved in the activity. In schools where there are the haves and have-nots of debate, the have-nots do not garner the same coach attention and resources as the haves. Therefore, they are relegated to forever being stuck with poor resources and little to no opportunities for advancement. Our team has found a way to get debate to work, and to keep students involved in the program. Maybe other teams shoudl try this too- it may help to reinvigorate the activity whose demise some of you fear.
Brian Campbell
Senior, Cedarburg High School
Varsity-Four Person
By Brian Campbell on Nov 11, 2005
Brian,
That is terrific growth for the Cedarburg program, but the activity statewide and nationally is definitely decreasing. WDCA alone, had over 80 active member schools in the very early 90’s, and over 120 active programs in the early to mid 80’s. If there are 40 active programs now, I would be surprised. Unfortunately, that trend is not unique to Wisconsin.
Additionally, while the partner rotation concept may work for your team’s program, it may not have the same effect with other programs. Personally, it seems a gamble to not have stable partners once debaters move beyond the novice level. Expectation, work ethic, and stability are intrinsic to constant partnerships. I also feel strongly about partners being forced to work through conflicts as opposed to just switching partners… But just a personal preference.
By Traas on Nov 11, 2005