Wisconsin Forensics Daily

Bub, really good article, but I don’t agree with you on what you think the Padilla case means. The courts rulings in Padilla and Hamdi don’t make our case irrelevant at all. All those court ruling established was that detainees at Gitmo could challenge their detention without charge. But, the Court also legitimized the executive power to detain without charge. Even though the article you link says that this means Gitmo isn’t a legal black hole, I think it’s wrong. If you think that the right to challenge detention without charge would solve for Nicole and my 1ac and make it useless, then why does the state of exception still exist there? I think our plan text admits that US detainees can challenge their state, because plan text wouldn’t exist without it. Our argument is that we can use Padilla because until the court rules FOR Padilla, there is no break in the legal black hole. The state of exception exists because they aren’t charged. In Padilla the court ruled that the case had come via the wrong jurisdiction, even though it may have legitimize Padilla challenging his detention, it still deferred the case, which is what our Amman evidence says created the state of exception. Ok, I’m done. Sorry if I sounded like a dick. Tell me what you think I’m wrong about, because if Padilla is a crappy test case, we’ll need to change it. Oh, and Nicole didn’t write this, so she might not agree with me. Oh, and the ruling in Padilla legitimized the status of enemy combatants, and also legitimized executive authority on the issue. Just because he has access to counsel, doesn’t mean this solves Gitmo. Both cases are now in lower courts again, having to work their way back up because the court finds excuses to make decisions that make no decisive decisions for the Padilla or Hamdi. Even though your article says, O’Conner has “made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation’s citizens.” It obviously still is because the court is still deferring and being a pansy about it.

By Max Balhorn on Nov 17, 2005

Well, I guess if I’m wrong our 1ac is dead regardless of the test case. But I really don’t think those rulings change anything. Giving them POW status is going to solve the black hole better than just ALLOWING people to challenge their detention without charge.

By Max Balhorn on Nov 17, 2005

First, I wrote the article, not Bubb.

Second, your criticism really misses the point– I was not attacking your specific 1AC. The SPASH 1AC you are referencing talks about how not having a definite charge and how this is a state of exception. This is a bit more sophisticated than the V4 case. The V4 case had a piece of evidence from early 04 that the Padilla case appeal would not be heard by the SCOTUS (NOT TRUE) and that the SCOTUS would never say that a US citizen didn’t have the right to be heard in court (NOT TRUE either). My point is the way this team criticized Padilla’s legal process was irrelevent as these criticisms were resolved by the court and showed a complete lack of research on the topic (in essence they were running a non-inherent aff). What the court does now (now that they said Padilla has a right to be heard in court but have deferred to lower courts on his particular charge) is totally fair game for criticism (as the aff you reference does).

By Andy Nolan on Nov 17, 2005

hahahahaa. I thought Bubb wrote it. Sorry. I thought Bubb was refering to the quarters round at memorial. My bad. Sorry. Now i look stupid.

By Max Balhorn on Nov 17, 2005

My only concern is that Mr. Nolan suggests that Lincoln Douglas is a form of debate that is an alternative to the unique forum of policy debate. In my experience, for a Wisconsin LDer to be as sucessfull (on a national level) as our top policy teams are they must put in at least as much work as the policy debaters do. Their research burden can be nearly equal (absent constant updating) due to the change in topics and writing blocks to prepare is equally essential. The critical thinking aspects become just as important with the shorter rounds to develop the debate and debates that become quick and passionate. In many ways our best LDers are closer to the VSS debaters than many V4 debaters in terms of work and ability.

In response to Max, I presume Mr. Bubb’s concern is that you are using Padilla to do more than that case would allow (if you are using the case to do something with Gitmo), given Padilla’s status as a US citizen, arrested in the US, not actively engaged in conflict against the US military. The citizenship status alone voids a prisoner of war/geneva convention element. As such Padilla isn’t much of a test case for the Gitmo detainees. The US courts can only rule on the facts before them, thus Padilla’s case cannot be legitimately streached beyond its facts. If you want a Gitmo case, the Supreme court has just granted cert on a batch of them– check them out.

By Tim Scheffler on Nov 17, 2005

Andy,

For the most part, I agree that VSS is the better format. But, your arguments on the money issue miss the point. Further, avoiding certain economic realities borders on purposeful obfuscation. The real issue is the money kids need to go to camp, not the cost of overnight tournaments vs. one day tournaments. And that will always produce inequity between the haves and the have nots, a bitter irony given that most debaters argue the importance of equity and the dangers of racial discrimination. You cannot deny that Wisconsin has an absolute paucity of black VSS debaters, and to deny that this is by and large due to economics seems a fools errand. Camps are completely ok with asking for $5,000.00 for the elite camps, placing them beyond the reach of most people automatically. Throw in the fact they want extensive travel on the national circuit, and you’ve got what we seem to be agitating against;a white elite that dominates the activity. Or at best, an economically advantaged elite that dominates the activity.

As stated before, I think a lot of “rep” schools are actually comfortable with this arrangement because it keeps them at the top. What I sense is feared is a truly egalitarian activity, because then natural intelligence and dedication matter the most, not Mom and Dad’s income.

And let’s not mince words, rarely can kids who don’t attend camp compete at a high level. Camps give kids a “season “before the “season” starts.

Joe Klopotek
SPASH Debate coach
soon to be tool of Mr. Olson

By Joe klopotek on Nov 17, 2005

Joe– great comment and I think this advances a great question for the discussion. You make a very valid point about the problems of economics (although understand the point of my article was to give reasons why currently active schools should adopt VSS– rather than addressing why indivduals should adopt VSS or why new schools should adopt VSS).

There is A LOT we can do as a community to encourage VSS debate by the more impoverished and needy — and that is what I where I was trying to guide the discussion in the “PS”. 1) Scholarships– Tom Noonan and the Marquette U Team has begun the process by donating full scholarships to the MUDI, but clearly this is something that needs to be explored more by the WDCA 2) Establishment of a UDL in Milwaukee 3) Sharing of evidence 4) Novice teach ins, etc. THESE SHOULD BE THINGS THE WDCA is CONCERNED WITH (not arguing over whether OPEN CX is legit or not).

As a society, we should be doing a lot more to make people compete in debate succesfully– encouraging economic grown, urban revitalization, increased funding for programs, etc… I’ll leave this discussion for someone more qualified for this discussion.

HOWEVER, the WORST thing we can do as a community is to DUMB down debate by making it slower or less research intensive. Just because its expensive to go to Harvard, doesn’t mean we should shut it down. Rather we should provide a means by which people who are capable of achiving there can attend.

On a side note:
I don’t know if camp is absolutely essential to being successful— talk to Bill Batterman about that (arguably the best judge in the state of Wisconsin and a wildly succesful debater). You just have to work pretty hard to get to that level without camp… and I’d say thats good.

By Andy Nolan on Nov 17, 2005

Yeah. Don’t give me credit for this, it all goes to Andy.

In fact, I take blame for spacing out on remembering to put his name on the spash page. My fault, sorry Andy. I do, however, think that you wrote an excellent piece, Andy, and I don’t want to distract from that.

By Nick Bubb on Nov 17, 2005

Andy,

I agree that VSS should be promoted over four person. And the only reason I believe that is because I think VSS is better for the debaters. If it were just more pleasing to us as coaches, that’d be a sham of a reason for promoting it.

I am thankful for people like Tom that have the foresight to offer full and partial scholarships for camps. Marquette is to be commended for that and we can only hope more camps model Marquette in that regard.

As for Batterman, I agree that he is a great judge, I never got to see him debate, but I bet he was great at that too. But, he might be too much of an exception to prove anything substantial. After all, a quick look at the top 10 teams in the state does not reveal a whole lot of non-campers.

On the speed issue… I’m not so sure. I’m a bit torn. I don’t like ultra slow debates where too much storytelling and irrelevant anecdotes rule the day. But, on the other hand, I’m a big fan of hearing every word clearly. I’d advocate for fast, clear speed but not for “rip 8 off” speed. I’d also prefer a much better knowledge of the cards than I often see in fast rounds.

On the activism issue, I think the WDCA needs to develop a clear mission on promoting Debate and get young, energetic members to go out and agitate. The big camps also need to hear these concerns. As a member of the conservative side of things, the hypocrisies in the system amuse me, but that does little good.

On the “rep” note, I must say that it is refreshing to see teams like Rufus King AA, Shebygan North TV, and SPASH BL swimming in the big pool. Although a lot of obstacles are in our way, Wisconsin debate has great potential to thrive.

Joe Klopotek
SPASH Debate
Still contends that pre-empts are illegitimate

By Joe klopotek on Nov 17, 2005

There is A LOT we can do as a community to encourage VSS debate by the more impoverished and needy — and that is what I where I was trying to guide the discussion in the “PS”. 1) Scholarships– Tom Noonan and the Marquette U Team has begun the process by donating full scholarships to the MUDI, but clearly this is something that needs to be explored more by the WDCA 2) Establishment of a UDL in Milwaukee 3) Sharing of evidence 4) Novice teach ins, etc. THESE SHOULD BE THINGS THE WDCA is CONCERNED WITH (not arguing over whether OPEN CX is legit or not).

1) It’s admirable that MUDI is offering full scholarships, but let’s not kid ourselves, it’s hardly a national-level camp. I’m not quite sure what regulation the WDCA has over debate camps, and whether you’re emploring WDCA scholarships, but only until national level camps start actualizing scholarship programs will we start to see a greater breadth of ethnicities in Wisconsin debate, as well as income levels.
2) It’s a provable fact: VSS is far more expensive on many levels, including time, money, and commitment, than V4. I don’t think promoting VSS to all people is going to solve a lot.

HOWEVER, the WORST thing we can do as a community is to DUMB down debate by making it slower or less research intensive. Just because its expensive to go to Harvard, doesn’t mean we should shut it down. Rather we should provide a means by which people who are capable of achiving there can attend.

1) How exactly is slowing down speech dumbing it down? It’s not.
2) Isn’t your argument the exact opposite of what you are advocating? Just because V4 doesn’t subscribe to some key ideals of VSS, does that really mean we should shut it down?
3) It’s an idealistic argument, but one that is often suppressed by preconceived notions of someone’s income level. Too many times have I seen coaches schedule all the rich kids to go to a national tournament, simply because they don’t want to deal with someone without the means to go.

I like both V4 and VSS, especially in Wisconsin. Wisconsin’s V4 division sometimes turns into a place for desperate VSS’ers to get their state bid, furthering the damage to any sort of meaningful debate. But that does not mean we should destroy either division. A lot of people go to debate, but for different reasons, starting with the top:

1) College applications
2) More college applications
3) To get smarter
4) TO HAVE FUN YAY

Seriously, some people debate to have fun. No, really. The only mention of ‘fun’ in this entire post was when one watches a debate. Why can’t debate be fun. Why do we have to take ourselves so seriously? And you know what, some people hate doing research, doing speed drills, staying up late. And V4 may be perfectly suited for them.

By an anonymous debater on Nov 17, 2005

How about this modest proposal for promoting switch sides debate?

Why don’t we limit the novice topic areas to 2 cases instead of 4?
The argument for this move would be:
1) It cuts the negative research burden in half.
2) WDCA and individual schools could post information so that key arguments were thoroughly debated out every round.
3) The WDCA always picks at least one non topical case area anyway, so this would only reduce the current number by 1.
4) Novice debaters could really hone in on core arguments.

Just a suggestion
Joe K

By Joe klopotek on Nov 17, 2005

To anonymous,

I think that if you are a competitive person, you realize that Debate is just like any Varsity sport… if you call yourself a varsity debater, you should take the activity as seriously as a starting quarterback or linebacker would take football. Would the head football coach keep you on the roster and let you skip weight training and conditioning just because you didn’t think that was fun? I don’t think so, and you should not be allowed to debate in Varsity if you’re not willing to put in time on research, speak drills, and practice rounds.

From what I see, the teams that work their butts off have a lot of fun. They know they can compete every round. The lazy ones who eschew hard work get their heads handed to them by good teams. How much fun can that be?

And, Varsity debaters have a moral obligation to work hard. Debate is very expensive, and to justify spending upwards of $100.00 a tournament on a kid who won’t work is impossible.
In closing, maybe not everyone who debates is up for heated competition, but I think “fun” thinly guided as laziness is a line we should not walk. Expect to work hard if you want the honor of being called a Varsity Debater.

Joe Klopotek
SPASH Debate
Research assistant to Max Balhorn

By Joe klopotek on Nov 17, 2005

A couple of posts I want to respond to:

1) Tim’s post– (Sorry it got lost before). My comment wasn’t so much that LD was not research intensive (or could be research intensive) but rather it emphasized a slightly different skill set- such as slower speaking, making it another form that people who want to work on speaking skills can do.
2) Joe’s comment on narrowing the novice case areas— I agree that the 4 topic areas are quite disappointing (ie the one(if not two) non-topical ones this year, but I’d actually prefer to go the other way and have an open case book and full disclosure and a set of evidence like Iowa. I think this better helps novice debaters become good varsity debaters down the road (I hope thats our end goal with novice debate), while solving the research burden argument by sharing evidence. Clearly the political will to do this just isn’t here in Wisconsin, so maybe narrowing down the case areas is a possibility or getting four more mainstream case areas.

3) “Anonymous debater’s” Post– I debated whether to even respond, cuz I think the original argument answers all these bones of contention…. but what they hey:

(I stepped up the rhetoric a bit here.. .in kind to the post)

He/she says:
1) It’s admirable that MUDI is offering full scholarships, but let’s not kid ourselves, it’s hardly a national-level camp. I’m not quite sure what regulation the WDCA has over debate camps, and whether you’re emploring WDCA scholarships, but only until national level camps start actualizing scholarship programs will we start to see a greater breadth of ethnicities in Wisconsin debate, as well as income levels.

1) I think its insulting to frame MUDI as not being a “national level camp.” A) The faculty are some of the best national coaches in the country (Doug– Quarters of National championships in college debate; Kevin Thom– TOC qualifer, Coached Winners of National Level tournaments; Me- TOC qualifier, Coached Winners of National Level tournaments, Tom Noonan- Coached WInners of National Level tournaments) B) The materials produced there are incredible– the aff produced in my lab this summer was the winning affirmative in a TOC bid round. C) The only thing I can think of why it is not “national level” camp is that a lot of the debaters are from Wisconsin. While this might be true, we’ve had several dozen states attend MUDI in recent years. We’ve also had at least 5-10 MUDI graduates receive national TOC bids. You’re out of your element on this debate
2) There are scholarships for Michigan, Michgan State, Emory for underpriveleged debaters. The problem is that we don’t encourage these debaters to go to camp because of a V4 division that discourages work. Also, there aren;t that many programs left in deeply urban areas.

“2) It’s a provable fact: VSS is far more expensive on many levels, including time, money, and commitment, than V4. I don’t think promoting VSS to all people is going to solve a lot.”

I guess this begs what is a “proven fact.” To me you need FACTS to make something a proven fact. Debate 101: defend your arguments with warrants.
This is all answered above:
1) VSS doesn’t have to be time consuming– it can be done in ONE day. Just cuz you oppose the style, doesn’t mean you have to oppose the form.
2) Expense– this is all discussed above— we should promote ways to reduce the cost, but its very possible to do well in debate without having to shell out thousands– take iniative on your own and work hard. Michelle and Scott from Hortonville is another awesome e.g. (to add to the ones from before) who didn’t go to camp before their senior year and did QUITE well.
3) Committment– YEP, you have to commit yourself in time to do well in debate. If you’re not ready for the committment, then accept that you won’t do well or do some other activity. Debate is hard, thats why its good.

“1) How exactly is slowing down speech dumbing it down? It’s not.”

Again, its called warrants. I back up my arguments, you don’t. Slowing down the speech = less arguments = less research = you get less smart because of it.
Slowing down the speech = you don’t have to think as fast = less critical thinking and listening skill

You admit below: you do debate because its fun– and you don’t want it to be hard. Doesn’t that indicate that you want a less hard (”dumbed down”) debate structure?

“2) Isn’t your argument the exact opposite of what you are advocating? Just because V4 doesn’t subscribe to some key ideals of VSS, does that really mean we should shut it down?”

Nope, that seems to be the exact argument I’m espousing. Lets do the best form of debate we can. To me that means promoting VSS and not promoting V4 cuz it doesn’t subscribe to some crazy ideals like “research” and “critical thinking skills.” This is kinda pointless… I answer all this in the article. Read that, don’t just read my comments.

“3) It’s an idealistic argument, but one that is often suppressed by preconceived notions of someone’s income level. Too many times have I seen coaches schedule all the rich kids to go to a national tournament, simply because they don’t want to deal with someone without the means to go.”

I think this is a pretty strong accusation, and I don’t know who it’s directed to (and is fairly innappropriate for this form). I know of no coach that would discriminate based on income– beleive it or not, the coaches usually reward those who do the most work on national travel schedule.

“Seriously, some people debate to have fun. No, really. The only mention of ‘fun’ in this entire post was when one watches a debate. Why can’t debate be fun. Why do we have to take ourselves so seriously? And you know what, some people hate doing research, doing speed drills, staying up late. And V4 may be perfectly suited for them. ”

This is pretty laughable. I make a pretty clear argument in the article that V4 detracts from VSS. That’s not answered. Why should we reward your desire to not do speed drills, not do research, not stay up late working on debate by hurting a division like VSS where kids do want to do stuff like that?

Believe it or not, a lot of people do like to be challenged and they think thats fun. If you were just doing debate for something to do fun, there’s other debate-lite activities you can do. Stop detracting from VSS debate.

Andy

By Andy Nolan on Nov 17, 2005

Joe’s comments are right about the dedication to debate. I’m having a hard time justifying 1/2 of my tournament fees to glenbrooks this weekend. Largely, Tim and I were willing to dedicate so much time to our debaters last year was because they all worked extremely hard. Brian and I put in at least five hours of one on one coaching a week… And that didn’t include my comments on cases and blocks, and what not. Which most of the time were done at my computer, away from the school. But its that kind of dedication that it takes to succeed on the national circuit, whether in LD or policy. I think Andy, Bill, and Joe would all agree, including their debaters.

By Nick Bubb on Nov 17, 2005

LD is only slow in regional circuits. National Circuit LD is fast, though not as clear as policy, because it doesn’t teach speed drills. Which is something I think LD camps need to start doing if the trend is really going in that direction, but I digress.

Here are some links to some demo rounds for last years TOC (KY) in LD. Their style of speaking may not be a full policy speeed, but its faster than v4.

http://www.victorybriefs.net/webs/daily/archives/2005/05/07/vbd_video_coverage_toc_runoff_round
http://www.victorybriefs.net/webs/daily/archives/2005/05/09/vbd_video_coverage_toc_quarterfinal_round
http://www.victorybriefs.net/webs/daily/archives/2005/05/10/vbd_video_coverage_toc_semifinal_round
http://www.victorybriefs.net/webs/daily/archives/2005/05/11/vbd_video_coverage_toc_final_round

By Nick Bubb on Nov 17, 2005

Andy,

You’re right, the political will to do what Iowa does does not exist here and that’s a shame. I’ve been the victim of this system, because if I want the kids to get the most education and experience, I have to almost immediately send them VSS even if they aren’t ready… and admittedly two of my teams were in over their heads this year. But if the alternative is to stunt their ability to run Kritiks and Counterplans because 4 person judges won’t listen to these types of arguments, than I’d rather have them lose in VSS than win in JV or V4.

Homage needs to be paid to Traas; he is right on about judges that say they won’t vote on Kritiks, CPs, or Topicality. That is a games player paradigm if I’ve ever heard one. Maybe i should file an ethics charge?

And Andy, I know your feelings about pre-empts, but consider this logic and then tell me I’m wrong:

The last thing the 1AC says is “put away your counterplans, only our agent can solve.”

This can only mean:
1) They mistagged the evidence, only a buffoon would suggest that only one branch of the government can address and solve a certain issue. By all logical accounts, each of the three branches of government is involved in every case in either a passive or active sense.
2) The negative team runs an alternative agency CP. The affirmatives then do what? Rely on one card to defeat the whole CP? No, they argue against it line by line. The pre-empt then becomes useless and it is hard to see what purpose it ever served.
3) It is infinitely regressive: If you allow one pre-empt, why not 2? 3? ad on infinitum?
4) If indeed the pre-empt does stop the negs from running a certain attack, it has only served to stunt discourse and thus proves the abuse story.
5) Debate cannot exist in an ideological vacuum. In what other area of argumentation is it acceptable for one side to dictate the terms of the debate to the other side? If the Senate debates environmental issues, is it ok for the leader of the Senate to say “And don’t get up here and talk about the economic impacts of regulation” or “We’re not going to even discuss any agency besides the EPA?”
6) I’ve heard you say that solvency amounts to a pre-empt. How? All a solvency card amounts to is the simple sentence “We think that our plan solves.” It does not say “Our agent is the only one that can solve” or “We’re almighty and you can only run what we say you can run.”
7) Anybody who believes that discourse is important cannot accept the proposition that a practice that would shut down discourse is defensible. Belief in discourse means an inherent value to all discourse, and a believer in discursive implications isn’t going to buy that even attempting this is a good thing.

Looking forward to your line by line. I expect to be defeated, of course, being the humble St. Norbert Grad that I am.

Joe K
SPASH
True believer that one off is better than 4 crappy offs and 2 crappy ons

By Joe klopotek on Nov 17, 2005

Haha… I’m happy to engage in this debate about “preempts” being good or bad…. but I’d prefer to keep this thread about the V4 vs. VSS.

and… .cmon where’s the confidence?

(After this weekend I’ll give you a response to the preempts stuff… but alas updates for Glenbrooks need to be cut).

Andy

By Andy Nolan on Nov 18, 2005

Howdy ho… time for 2 cents from the East/Southeast Appleton camp.

Andy, your article/post was superb. The only constructive criticism I have is, that it is a little belittling to the people in the 4 person world (true but biting). I wish there was more of that camp that would engage in the discussion, but alas, if they frequent this site, they most definitely choose not to respond… probably because the feel like they get ganged up against if they do respond. Understand, no one likes to be called dumb or a dummy, and I am sure that they are insulted to think that the activity that they invest time (no matter how much) in, is degraded. Those of us that invest a great amount of time, energy and resources into being competitive on the national circuit, certainly take offense when we are told that we are the ones destroying the activity of debate. Our first reaction would be a defensive one. So I am hoping to reduce some of that defensiveness and ask those who disagree with comments made here, to not take it personally, but just consider it open discourse. For years, VSS has just existed in its own sphere, and was left alone, and all was good. But unfortunately, over the past 6 to 8 years, those that do not participate in VSS have taken to try to curb or restrict the division from the outside. And for the most part we have sat back and taken it. We have never pressed a notion to eliminate 4 person debate, but the voice for VSS is becoming stronger and I believe that those that do not believe in VSS are feeling threatened. I must mention 3 events that I believe were 4 Person assertions (or at least attempts) to regulate the Wisconsin VSS world. 1) The Reddy rule – A varsity debater must compete in at least 2 tournaments to be eligible for the TOC (if you don’t understand, ask, and I will explain) 2) – “Mr. Lennon, you MUST fill in all of those little boxes with numbers or your ballot isn’t a complete or legal one” The state TOC at Hortonville! Nuf said on that issue. 3) – “every team that tag teams not only should receive the loss, but be disqualified from the tournament and fined” Thank heavens that didn’t pass at that infamous business meeting. For years, I could not get anyone in the camp of “tag teaming bad” to give me a definition of tag teaming. These types of scenarios are what make those of us in the VSS world feel bitter.

I do believe there was a time when there was less separation in quality and competitiveness between VSS and V4… probably pre kritiks and topical counterplans. However their lack of acceptance of new types of arguments into the debate round has really hindered their development in my opinion. I guess I don’t understand why they won’t listen to different types of arguments. Hey, I’m old and fat and traumatic to change, but I try to keep up with the race, because once I fall behind, I will never be able to catch up. I probably can’t fault all the students in V4, as some are there by their own choice and others have no other option than that division. I think those that choose to be there accept the fact that they cannot be competitive in the VSS pool, but can find some success in the V4 pool. (Obviously further placating the separation) But those debaters that participate in a program that only offers or limits their debaters to 4 person, I can’t fault them. In those cases, I would look to the reason that VSS is not an option at that school or in that program.

Coaches have great influence over the students in their program, and very much are responsible for the judges they provide to the activity. I am not a great varsity coach, and never give them nearly enough attention, but they work and progress despite me. The one thing that I do take pride in though is the number of former students that still love the activity, want to get out and judge or even coach, and make superb judges and coaches. So where am I going here… maybe more than anything else we as coaches do, is the hiring and development of judges, and specifically the judges we bring and/or assign to judge divisions. Imagine for a moment if we swapped judging pools for VSS and V4 at the state TOC… Ok, after you all string Tom Noonan and myself up by a short rope, you would all realize that the true style of the division is dictated by those individuals in the back of the room. Thus, VSS gets more and more progressive with just VSS judges, and V4 continues to become more and more lethargic. So, if we combined the two divisions, wouldn’t we be hindering our development for national circuit competition?

I know that strong V4 programs have been making the comments that VSS and V4 are really two different activities, and this is where the real separation begins! They are the same activity!!! If I were a basketball coach, I could have a run and gun style of offense or a slow and deliberate game plan. It does not make it two different games. I believe every VSS team in the state could compete in V4, but why is it that not every V4 can compete in VSS? I will contest that it is because they are not at the same level of competition, skills or development. Now, to me that sounds like the difference in division levels, not stylistic differences.

Sorry, I don’t buy the economics argument! The last two policy teams that I had qualify for Nationals (NFL, we don’t get to play in CNFL) did not go to camp. In fact the team of Colson/Dunsirn NEVER went to a camp, and last year’s team of Schiesser/Markwardt did not go to camp, but they worked hard, and had some amazing coaching by Mr. Batterman, and finished 15th in the nation at that tournament. Each and every year I eat costs of individuals that cannot afford to travel to the national tournament, and we do not get covered by our district. But, if they have the desire to compete, I will find a way to get them there. Money is just an excuse. Where money does make a difference is in squad size. Being able to afford a large squad is an advantage… more individuals to split the burden of work among. Additionally, I will agree though that the pursuit of great amounts of evidence (including camp ev) is the one fact that does make this activity a wealthy man’s sport.

Um… “Anonymous” poster…If you have to hide your identity, how can we respect or extend you any validity? Mr. Nolan is right… your assertions are unwarranted claims. (argumentation lesson #1 – unwarranted claims have no impact, they just turn into juvenile “did so” “did not” rants)

Ah, Mr. Bubb, lets not encourage LDers to speak faster. I think that philosophy arguments are much more difficult to mentally process and analyze and shouldn’t be rushed. Besides, Emily K. already has plenty of ammunition in her fight with me about speed in LD.

Mr. K. how much can we fine those schools that hire them gamesplaying judges? I think we need to add that to the bylaws this spring! I would vote for it!!!

Traas

By Traas on Nov 18, 2005

OK…. I’ll attempt a V4 answer.

Remember, however, that I loved VSS and sponsored one of the first Wisconsin SS touneys. In 1975 I was forced to combine V4 and VSS so VSS could be run. So, I may not be the best V4 advocate. And, I’m not gonna do line by line, but rather hit some highlights.

I will respond to some of Traas’ arguments (I know he won’t take my responses personally.)

The Reddy rule – A varsity debater must compete in at least 2 tournaments to be eligible for the TOC (if you don’t understand, ask, and I will explain)

Have you considered why some schools don’t do VSS? Because VSS schools are elitest. (Before you get angry. . . ) How many VSS touneys in the Southeastern Wisconsin area were cancelled because of lack of entries? While I don’t expect schools that can afford travel to stay home for me, I find it hard to imagine that Wisconsin tournaments don’t deserve support. Why not send those Novice SSers to those local tourneys? In the mean time, My team has debated SS twice (or maybe 3) times all year. And it hurts me. How do those teams on the verge of discovering the values of SS debating learn the “new arguments (However their lack of acceptance of new types of arguments into the debate round has really hindered their development in my opinion. ) It’s hard to accept what you hear only when someone “descends” to my level.

Money is just an excuse. Unfortunately, it’s all about money. Money to attend camps, money to enter tourneys, money for travel and lodging. Why doesn’t my school go to App East? Because we can’t afford it. My “official” school budget is $500. (I am serious!) And with the district facing another $1-2 million dollar cut this year, it’ll get worse before it gets better. At most tounaments I can enter a V4 for $20 but 2 VSS for $50. Why? My judge costs three rounds — in VSS, 6 rounds. (Our program runs because our administration is willing to let me overspeand.) I now that Andy’s intial post says VSS COULD be one day, but if the VSS schools can’t support our existing VSS two day tourneys, why would you support a one day? Hence, I actually agree with your conclusion: Thus, VSS gets more and more progressive with just VSS judges, and V4 continues to become more and more lethargic. So, if we combined the two divisions, wouldn’t we be hindering our development for national circuit competition?

Mr. K. how much can we fine those schools that hire them gamesplaying judges? I think we need to add that to the bylaws this spring! I would vote for it!!! OK… now tell me…. you ask my philosophy and preferences. I tell you, and now I’m a gamesplayer? (Those who know me, know I’m tabs, but come on!) Isn’t it equally legitimate for V4 schools to object to judges that allow tag team CX, and the rest? Seems like this is a “it’s ok for me to complain about you, but you have to adapt to me.”

For years, I could not get anyone in the camp of “tag teaming bad” to give me a definition of tag teaming. Well, it’s when you violate the one person, one speech rule. In the old days (Remember, I’m older than dirt.), everyone did one constructive, 1 rebuttal, 1 CX. Anything else is tag team. If debate is a team activity, it’s made up of two individuals. I had a number of partners that weren’t good. I would have loved to have done their CX (Heck, I’d have loved to do their rebuttals, too!), but they need to learn and defend themselves. I know the “theory” of tag team is that you get the better understanding of the argument and you don’t lose because someone made an innocent mistake. But, (and I know that teams with two good debaters do tag team, too) why do we penalize a Superman debater, but potentially reward one debater and a warm body?

One or two non-Trass comments:

Klopotek says On the speed issue… I’m not so sure. I’m a bit torn. I don’t like ultra slow debates where too much storytelling and irrelevant anecdotes rule the day. But, on the other hand, I’m a big fan of hearing every word clearly. I agree with Joe’s conclusion. Too often, however, as a judge I’m confronted with power tags that probably over claim the evidence read at rates of speed that I can’t follow. The opposition immediately grabs the brief (probably for the tags and not the evidence), and I’m the only one in the room that doesn’t know the evidence. And, I’m prevented, by rule, from looking at the evidence unless the validity is challenged. So, it seems that I, as the judge, am the only one held to the oral nature of debate. Isn’t there a compromise between the bad V4 - go slow cause I’ve got nothing to say - and the VSS - go fast and throw enough crap, something will stick?

Finally, a prempt. (I love them. Klopotek says “Anybody who believes that discourse is important cannot accept the proposition that a practice that would shut down discourse is defensible. Prempts don’t shut it down, they blunt the impact. I think I hear them ALL the time in the political and judicial and business world!) I’ve tried to defend a middle ground. Debate is what is good. I love what the activity does for kids (or I wouldn’t have devoted my career to it). We need to find common ground. Denegrating V4 or VSS hurts us all. We have bigger fish to fry. How do we get MORE participation in debate! (just not in JV!)

If I forgot an argument, sorry. But I wanted at least a little V4 thought here.

By Ken Sajdak on Dec 1, 2005

It really does amaze me that people can not accept that there are huge stylistic differences between VSS and V4. I guess I see why they argue this but the fact is: debate is not basket ball. Basket ball has professional judges who all generally follow the same set of rules. Debate uses common every day people with policy knowledge. The fact is that debate evolves in different directions all the time. Unless every debate person out there is willing to admit that my paradigm is the only paradigm then we will always have variations in debate. The fact is that judges in V4 typically want different things then judges in VSS. Why is this? Because judges in V4 value different things then judges in VSS. Is this the standard? Heck no. The only reason I force my kids into VSS is because they will face judges who love K, off case, line by line, and speed at V4 once and awhile, but 70-80% of the judges in the V4 pool like slower paced speech, analytics, and a few well thought out arguments with real world impacts (now don’t mistake VSS for switching sides, ask my kids how many times they have had to switch this year, they start out aff one day and go neg the next all the time). Ironically, I see VSS people complain about “horrible V4 judges” all the time. You can not have it both ways. You can not argue that they are the same and then acknowledge they are different through the complaint that one side is so much worse. I guess if every VSS judge started judging V4 on a regular basis, you might see VSS and V4 being the same. Given the fact that I have heard VSS judges say that they would rather eat their own brains with a spoon then judge V4, I doubt its going to happen (and never fear VSS, V4 judges generally feel the same way, so you wont see them in VSS very often either, unless their coach desperately convinces to judge in Madison because he is their only hope, sorry Jeremy :-). Anyway, I have argued this issues twice too many times this year I think, so I’ll go back to work tabbing in Greendale now :-).

By Nathan Hanson on Dec 2, 2005

Though I may write on the earlier comments later, I think people who make up the Wisconsin Debate community need to decide on whether or not this activity is about the preferences of coaches and judges or for the educational benefit of the debaters. Although there are variations in judging experience, I don’t understand why ordinary people who have policy knowledge can’t analzye “off case” or “line by line.” Off case like disads are all about impacts (can you really say the terror disad is outside of the perview of policy people?) Line by line debate increases the clarity and organization of the debate by addressing issues point by point. I think Andy is arguing that there is an artificial distinction between VSS and V4 which is grounded in which forum promotes “and a few well thought out arguments with real world impacts.” The truth is that you can find good arguments in both, however, arguing both sides broadens the debater’s perspective and allows debaters to better engage the opposite side. Varsity switch does not need to mean speed, overnights, and lots of money - but the truth is that it usually does. These are the things we should be arguing about, not whether or not the judges prefer a different style of debate.

By Kristin Degeneffe on Dec 10, 2005

Kristin,

I agree that the purported differences between V4 debate and VSS debate are “constructed” institutionally. That is, the coaches are probably the ones that drive the wedge between the two styles. That said, I think the lack of openness by “V4″ schools has been the major culprit. In particular, I’d go so far as to say it is the V4 judges who’ve been the major culprit. You can’t say that you vote on speaking skills in Varsity Debate.. they should all be good speakers if they are VARSITY debaters. You also can’t say you are a stocks judge and then say you don’t vote on T. At least say you are a “4/5 of a stocks judge.” In general, the only legitimate paradigm at the Varsity level is Tabs because at that level, the debaters should control the round, not the judges. ( I do think most policy judges on the VSS circuit are actually TABS but they don’t say it on their preference forms.) We coaches do a lot of talking about “judge adaptation” but in reality, we are the ones who should be adapting to the debaters. You also can’t flow rounds horizontally. These traits are much more common with the judges from schools that identify themselves as “traditional” schools.

As for the VSS folks, Bill’s excellent article on small school sucess notwithstanding, the money issue has gotten to be a real problem. My bottom line is this; You take two kids who are equal in natural abilities and send one to camp and have the other work the summer at a fast food place, the kid who went to camp does all the things the VSS judges want them to do and the fry guy/gal does not. ( At least not as efficiently)
Camps mean money, and in my mind we can’t allow the Debate world to be a world where we argue essentially liberalistic ideals and then say “yeah, but if the elites of our society dominate this activity, that’s ok.” A serious effort to address economics and Debate competitiveness needs to be made. Mike Traas has been good at pointing out exceptions to the rule, but take a look at the final 8 in VSS at TOC. Any non-campers? Anybody willing to place odds on the number of teams in elim. rounds at major national tournaments this year that didn’t attend camp?

Money also becomes a huge issue during the season because schools that can afford to go to numerous tournaments can gain the needed experience to excel while teams with small budgets simply cannot. And overnight tournaments are expensive, TOC cost SPASH about 700.00 and we took six kids!!

So, Kristin, since you are much younger, smarter, and better looking than I am, figure out how we can get V4 judges to be more open minded and figure out how not to let VSS become code for “the $200,000″ a year club and you get some sort of special award next year at TOC.

Joe Klopotek
Loren Balhorn’s personal driver
Matt Olson’s intellectual “peer”
Maggie Brown’s ET advisor

By Joe klopotek on Dec 10, 2005

It is very problematic (and all too prevalent) to blame V4 judges for the division. The problem is that there are many VSS judges that are just as biased and strict in their beliefs as some V4 judges. The next problem is that it does not bring us nearer to productive discussion. I can blame VSS, you can blame V4, but the fact is that they are different, and different because coaches, judges, and debaters want them to be different. My kids and my judges hate what happens in VSS. I have had kids and judges that like VSS, but 98% of them hate VSS. The only people I here complaining about the existence of V4 is VSS. Why does V4 hurt VSS? It doesn’t seem to diminish VSS numbers to the point of non-existence at state tournaments. Playing in both divisions is the only way to take a place in the V4 division at any tournament (since there is much more of a tendency for VSS style judges to bleed into V4 at STOC, but perhaps vice versa at WHSFA).

The fact is that the two styles don’t play well. It’s not line by line and off case that is an issue here. In fact I think 98% of V4 judges have no problem with either. I think 85-90% of V4 judges accept just about any off case as a potential argument and certainly will look at T (though I think the hatred of T as a voter equally crosses the V4/VSS divide). What they don’t like is the prevalence of mutilated speaking skills and the lack of real world argumentation and real world speaking skills that has a tendency to come up in VSS. The fact is that VSS people often times have lost touch with what is a normal rate of speaking in the real world. V4 people have often times lost touch with this as well, but much less so. Kids come back from camp and they talk way too fast for the real world. They think they are talking slow, and by VSS standards they often times are. VSS tends to argue philosophy. While I agree that VSS debates can have an extremely high level of argumentation, I often times believe much of it doesn’t truly apply to the real world ramifications of the plan being debated. We could all share stories of “that stupid judge”. Judges who were high in rounds, judges who were sleeping, judges who were reading, judges who play favorites. The fact that many of these judges are under the age of 25 gives college students a bad name in judging (I started judging when I was 20 and coaching when I was 22, so I am not knocking all young people) . But bad judging has little to do with V4/VSS I think. V4 thinks it’s the best and VSS thinks it’s the best. The divide is such that it is best left alone with judges staying on their side of the fence as much as possible (at state at least). Though like I said on another site, if you are VSS and want to kill V4, play in V4 in big numbers. Eventually those of us who are V4 will have to adapt to win and you will have forced the style issue. What has been great is that there are premier VSS tournaments around the state that draw VSS away from V4 and so we can all play where we want and nurture our own styles. Merrill tries to attend one a VSS or two tournaments year, and then stays to its own. VSS teams go to Madison instead of to Merrill, that rocks! You have fun we have fun.

Could VSS adopt better speaking skills? Are there VSS debaters that use better speaking skills when they have to? Are there VSS debaters that could kick the snot out of just about any V4 debater in a stocks round? Yes. I say so what. What is the warrant of this stance? Will VSS debaters be better college debaters? Maybe. Will they be better philosophy majors? Maybe. Will they be better lawyers, doctors, politicians? Maybe. My belief is that V4 style better prepares you for public speaking, public debate, and real world decisions. VSS believes that debaters will over come any bad speaking skills they pick up and think at a high level. To each their own.

Debate is an awesome activity no matter how you look at it. The irony is that we are arguing over minor details that seem to infuriate us beyond the point of all reckoning sometimes. V4 contains a huge number of highly intelligent, highly talented, very argumentative individuals. So does VSS. Keep on ripping up the world debaters! :-)

By Nathan Hanson on Dec 14, 2005

Warning if you are easily offended by the V4 vs. VSS discussion, you will be. I am utterly frustrated in making this post (to the point of me not wanting to make these arguments anymore because it is so very rare that the V4 side responds to the arguments that we all have made).

You’ll have to excuse me from taking myself from the discussion the last three weeks, as I was coaching my team and doing work for the state tournament and preparing final exams.

While I respect Nathan Hanson’s passion for the activity, I firmly disagree with his “defense” of V4 debate and I think his last post is non responsive and off base.
There are two arguments that Nathan continues to ignore.
1) The format of Varsity-4 sucks. It limits people from debating and makes people worse debaters by artificially limiting them to debating one side of the topic. Please answer me this: WHY IS DEBATING ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE RESOLUTION GOOD and WHY IS HAVING TEAMS OF 4 GOOD? (As opposed to why it’s adequate—e.g. “We switch our teams every weekend.”)

2) My argument in the original article is that policy debate is a unique forum where fast thinking and intense research is required to win. Dumbing divisions down by slowing the speed of discussion or artificially limiting the arguments made does the debaters a disservice. There are other activities where speaking skills are revered. Those are all mentioned in the article. Please answer me this: WHY DO WE NEED V4 debate IN LIGHT OF ALL THESE OTHER ACTIVITIES?

Nathan writes:

>>”It is very problematic (and all too prevalent) to blame V4 judges for the division. The problem is that there are many VSS judges that are just as biased and strict in their beliefs as some V4 judges. The next problem is that it does not bring us nearer to productive discussion. I can blame VSS, you can blame V4, but the fact is that they are different, and different because coaches, judges, and debaters want them to be different. ”

This misses the point completely. I am “impact turning” your argument—V4 style and format are BAD. My argument is that judges that intervene, insist on less research, and slowed down speeches are HURTING debaters. They belong in other activities. Writing a justification that “the plan just doesn’t work,” as was the case with my four person team at the STOC, helps NO ONE advance as debaters. Regardless, I will agree that the judging is not central to the problem. It is the coaches and the division itself that are the problem—both in format and in style. That’s all explained in the original article (and not responded to).

>>”My kids and my judges hate what happens in VSS. I have had kids and judges that like VSS, but 98% of them hate VSS. The only people I here complaining about the existence of V4 is VSS. Why does V4 hurt VSS? It doesn’t seem to diminish VSS numbers to the point of non-existence at state tournaments. Playing in both divisions is the only way to take a place in the V4 division at any tournament (since there is much more of a tendency for VSS style judges to bleed into V4 at STOC, but perhaps vice versa at WHSFA). ”

Is this what we are reduced to for arguments that V4 is a good division; that it “doesn’t diminish the VSS” division too much? This is preposterous. There are ZERO warrants for why we NEED a four person division. The article lists off several reasons why V4 waters down the number of debaters overall in the state (namely there is a limited pool for debates to begin with in WI and that the numbers make it harder to get 4 people together to debate instead of 2). If you don’t believe me, reference the lively discussion between Adam and Bill from back in October, where both voiced concerns about the diminished VSS pool at the expense of the V4 (http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1156166&postcount=24). We have a choice as a state: we can either accept two small divisions where winning is easier because of the low numbers, or we can have one larger division where it is a real accomplishment to win in that division. My argument in the article was that debate is good because it is hard. Making it easier makes it less worthwhile of an activity. Given that, the choice should be for the tougher division.

>>”The fact is that the two styles don’t play well. It’s not line by line and off case that is an issue here.”

I agree that the two styles don’t “play well” together (whatever that really means). One style is inferior educationally, one style is better educationally. (This is all justified with some credible case studies in the article). You need to justify why we need a V4 division.

>> In fact I think 98% of V4 judges have no problem with either. I think 85-90% of V4 judges accept just about any off case as a potential argument and certainly will look at T (though I think the hatred of T as a voter equally crosses the V4/VSS divide).

This is hilarious. Nathan even concedes that the V4 judges will intervene on Topicality quite frequently, although I don’t know where the basis for “hatred of T as a voter equally crosses the V4/VSS divide” is established. A world without topicality seems a little scary—that would be a world in which the affirmative could run poorly thought out affirmative cases, that have tangentially to do with the resolution (best case scenario) and the negatives would give up on doing research, and instead resort to plan flaw and funding arguments. That’s a world abhorred by the VSS community, and sadly is the reality of V4 debate.

This argument about judges “not liking a certain off case argument” misses the boat. The problem is a matter of our willingness to accept judge intervention. All judges have preferences. What Joe, Kristin, Mike all have said is acting on those preferences regardless of the arguments in the debate is bad. Intervention is the death of debate because it ignores the role of the debater, and nullifies the reason to do research or the reason to compete. Intervention is widely accept in V4 debate; it’s rejected by VSS (another good argument for the style of VSS debate…).

Let’s take the physical challenge. Look at the judge philosophy book for this year. Do 85-90% of V4 judges “accept just about any off case as a potential voter”? I paged through the judge philosophy packet for the WDCA STOC.

Some of my favorite quotes from the judging booklet included “All Kritik alternatives must be presented in the 1NR.” (I suppose plan’s should be given in the 1AR) OR “No CPs or Critiques, please” (At least they said please…) OR “CP’s must be non-topical” (or else what?) OR my personal favorite take on the English language “Debate should and is not about who is faster, who has better theory, who has the most arguments.”

Gems like these where judges necessarily preclude certain arguments regardless of what the other teams says is called intervention. Based solely on the numbers of whether they preferred CPs or T or based on their comments, (and I think I did this quite liberally—granting that they accepted arguments when it was ambiguous), only 7 of the 28 regular V4 judges, I would say “accept most arguments.” That would be 25% of the field that “accepts just about any off case as a potential voter.”

>>”What they don’t like is the prevalence of mutilated speaking skills and the lack of real world argumentation and real world speaking skills that has a tendency to come up in VSS.”

Mutilated speaking skills? Real world speaking skills?
I think you are criticizing the speed of debates here; I put the challenge in the article, and I hope next year this will actually occur: STICK AROUND to watch VSS finals next year. We had a few parents and other outsiders watch the final round. They didn’t think that Gaurav or Carly’s speaking was mutilated, rather I heard it described as “cool” and “amazing that they can speak and think that fast.” I answer all the reasons why speaking fast is good in my article. Why is V4 needed, when we have so many other activities that teach high schoolers how to speak pretty? After 10 years in the activity, I am shocked at the close mindedness.

Real world arguments? I’m not sure if you’re being serious here. Is your claim that we fabricate arguments in the VSS division? Believe it or not, policy discussions in Congress do not revolve around generic terms like “workability” or “funding.” In the article, I described the correlation between research and the VSS division. If the V4 division discourages research (which is conceded from the article), doesn’t that make its arguments divorced from reality?

>>”The fact is that VSS people often times have lost touch with what is a normal rate of speaking in the real world. V4 people have often times lost touch with this as well, but much less so. Kids come back from camp and they talk way too fast for the real world. They think they are talking slow, and by VSS standards they often times are.”

What Nathan is criticizing is the worst forms of VSS debate. A few responses:

1) Even if I grant you that debaters who talk fast are disserved by not advancing their speaking skills, there are other benefits speaking fast than just the speaking. People only listen at a limited rate of what they can listen at (in the article). Speaking fast forces people to THINK fast and allows more arguments. Fast thought processes make someone a smarter person, as they can process information at better and more accurate rate. More research is good because a debater gets to learn about more topics. These are pretty sweet skills for high schoolers to learn. There are other activities where they can learn to talk nice and unlearn all those nasty VSS habits.
2) The only evidence I can see for the claim that VSS produces bad speaking skills is purely anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence is weak, as it draws conclusions from very few examples. Expert evidence or case studies are obviously preferable (see the article for the links to some studies). Here’s another great article if you’re curious. http://web.archive.org/web/20030612142126/hsdebate.com/archives/theory/old/Korcok–Speak_Fast.html I’d love to see the studies of linguistics that say otherwise.
3) This really underestimates the intelligence of VSS debaters. The argument seems to be that because you learn to speak fast, you can never slow down again, and therefore, the day after the debate tournament, when giving an oral presentation in class, the VSS debater will speak at a rapid rate. This claim is unfounded and really makes it sound like debaters are idiots. The argument that is not answered is that if you are able to speak persuasively at a rapid speed, slowing down a speech’s pace—as is the case with the example of the class presentation—is much easier. It’s difficult to speak fast and persuasively. Slowing down for a lay listener is that much easier. There is ZERO evidence for the claim that debaters are not smart enough to stop themselves from speaking fast. The only time this tough transition occurs is if the debater is extremely lazy or doesn’t care and prefers to speak fast. If this is the case, the skills of VSS debate are not the heart of the problem.

>>Nathan continues:
“VSS tends to argue philosophy. While I agree that VSS debates can have an extremely high level of argumentation, I often times believe much of it doesn’t truly apply to the real world ramifications of the plan being debated.”

I don’t know what this means. Philosophy literally means the love of wisdom. Philosophy’s goal, according to Hegel, is to seek truth about reality. I’ll take this as a compliment to the VSS division.

Reality, as I’ve learned from my great philosophical discussions in VSS rounds, is pretty subjective. The real world involves a wide range of arguments beyond “funding” and “workability.” Believe it or not, not all debaters will be policy makers, but all debaters will be part of the real world that involves a wide range of issues that relate to policy making. Closing off arguments artificially seems to limit the utility of four-person debate to help people train for this so-called real world.

>>” We could all share stories of “that stupid judge”. Judges who were high in rounds, judges who were sleeping, judges who were reading, judges who play favorites. The fact that many of these judges are under the age of 25 gives college students a bad name in judging (I started judging when I was 20 and coaching when I was 22, so I am not knocking all young people) . But bad judging has little to do with V4/VSS I think. V4 thinks it’s the best and VSS thinks it’s the best. The divide is such that it is best left alone with judges staying on their side of the fence as much as possible (at state at least). ”

I agree that “bad” judging will occur in any division. Regardless, none of the above is a reason to keep V4 debate around.

>>Though like I said on another site, if you are VSS and want to kill V4, play in V4 in big numbers. Eventually those of us who are V4 will have to adapt to win and you will have forced the style issue.

While this is true, this is also irrelevant. VSS teams do VSS because the format of the debating styles is more educational and more difficult. Believe it or not, our goal of as a debate team is not to win the style war between V4 and VSS. The problem is that V4 detracts from and interferes with VSS debate. Here are a few examples:
1) There are no lower level switch side divisions. Teams that go VSS, have to send their novices in a poor forum for training them to be varsity debaters.
2) There are rules imposed by the V4 community on the VSS community. See Mike’s post for a great explanation of this.
3) There are a limited number of debaters in Wisconsin. Dividing it up into two divisions makes the experience less worthwhile.
Much more is articulated in the article.

>>”What has been great is that there are premier VSS tournaments around the state that draw VSS away from V4 and so we can all play where we want and nurture our own styles. Merrill tries to attend one a VSS or two tournaments year, and then stays to its own. VSS teams go to Madison instead of to Merrill, that rocks! You have fun we have fun.”

See above. You having fun, means we have less fun. V4 detracts from VSS.

>>”Could VSS adopt better speaking skills? Are there VSS debaters that use better speaking skills when they have to? Are there VSS debaters that could kick the snot out of just about any V4 debater in a stocks round? Yes. I say so what. What is the warrant of this stance? Will VSS debaters be better college debaters? Maybe. Will they be better philosophy majors? Maybe. Will they be better lawyers, doctors, politicians? Maybe. My belief is that V4 style better prepares you for public speaking, public debate, and real world decisions.”

Is there any basis for this belief? Does doing less research make you better prepared for public debate? Does debating only one side of an issue make you better for make true real world decisions? Slowing down speeches, insisting on less research, insisting on less argumentation dumbs down the activity and makes is less worthwhile.

>>VSS believes that debaters will over come any bad speaking skills they pick up and think at a high level. To each their own.

>>”Debate is an awesome activity no matter how you look at it. The irony is that we are arguing over minor details that seem to infuriate us beyond the point of all reckoning sometimes. V4 contains a huge number of highly intelligent, highly talented, very argumentative individuals. So does VSS. Keep on ripping up the world debaters!”

Yep debate is good. And yes, I am certain that the V4 for division contains really smart people. You are doing a disservice to them by having them debate in a division which requires less work, less preparation, far less listening skills, etc. Debate is good because its hard. Making is less hard makes it less good.

Best

Andy

PS Apologies if my comments are deamed as being “biting.”

By Andy Nolan on Dec 21, 2005

Just a couple of thoughts…

First, I absolutely agree with Andy… speak faster, think faster; it’s difficult to dispute the logic and the research behind that claim. Alternatively, speak faster, research more. When I debated V4 my sophomore year, I had enough time during the 2AC and cross-ex to put together extensions for the deep eco kritik, and so I had little incentive to write them before showing up at the tournament. This resulted in some really bad 2NC extensions on my part. When I moved up to VSS junior and senior years, I faced a bunch of 2ACs who would spread me out, and I was too busy flowing to pull extensions; I was forced to do work at home to avoid sucking up all the prep time or embarassing myself in the 2NC. Not only did I think about my blocks more when I wrote them before the tournament; they also got exponentially better (not to say that they were good, but compared to my V4 arguments…) because I had time to think about them and edit them. Granted, there are V4 debaters who do write blocks and think fast, and there are VSS debaters who don’t do work and don’t think up very good answers on the spot, but adding speed to the debate does force lazy procrastinators like me to do a little work on, say, Thursday night.

Second, a few people have said that VSS debaters end up losing real-world communication and argumentation skills, but I’m not sure that that’s true.

With respect to communication: I admit to being a fast talker outside of rounds, but it’s my own fault. Moreover, I’m not exactly incomprehensible to the people around me; talking faster than George Bush does not automatically put you in the upper echelons of academia. (Besides, you can talk to me about something like implicit differentiation at the speed of dirt, and I’ll still be hopelessly lost. I think communication is more about content, and to a small extent the listener, than it is about medium or method.) I compete a lot in Congress, which considers itself a fairly real-world event, and I do okay speaking - even at Glenbrooks, where I have to slow myself down in the middle of the policy season. Debating VSS does not make you into a speed-talking machine for the rest of your life; it’s perfectly possible to slow down, and I think most debaters I know do that perfectly well.

And with respect to argumentation, I realize that a lot of stuff argued in VSS rounds (Nayer who?!) isn’t exactly amenable to CSPAN or your average stump speech, but VSS arguments in general are certainly not alien to the ‘real world,’ whatever that may be. We argue topicality; courts do that all the time. We argue disads; those are nothing but real-world impacts.

Moreover, even when our arguments themselves (particularly the kritik, which has drawn a lot of fire here) wouldn’t play well in the real world, the skills required to make them certainly are important outside of the policy-debate world. Criticicism - generically defined, the practice of challenging the assumptions behind arguments - has immeasurable value in public policy debates: the war on terror assumes that American lives are more valuable than ‘Taliban’ lives; marriage laws assume that the gender binary as we know it is valid. Maybe that’s a stretch, but I still contend that the vast majority of Americans, including those who make the laws, aren’t particularly inclined to challenge the assumptions that underlie major policy proposals. Besides, even if the practice of critique doesn’t always apply, it takes tremendous research and comprehension skills to have the slightest clue what Butler or Foucault write, much less to argue about it. I refer again to Congress: it’s perfectly possible to place consistently at national tournaments by knowing a little American history, a little constitutional law, a little Joseph Nye, and a little bit about the actual topic. I tend to read a lot more on individual topics than most other people I compete with, and believe me, it’s a tremendous help to do the research before getting into real-world debates.

So, in sum: VSS doesn’t kill your ability to connect with people in the real world, it doesn’t mean you’re constantly accusing people you dislike of being a part of the oppressive imperialist capitalist white supremacist heterosexist patriarchy, and it may actually make you smarter, both as a policy debater and as an informed person. Given those reasons, and Andy’s thorough explanation of how VSS is exponentially better for education, I’m not sure why V4 should be pushed at the expense of switch-sides debate.

By Eva on Dec 21, 2005

i apologize if my comments are repetetive, by i had some ideas halfway through reading all of these posts, and my arm started falling asleep before i could finish reading all of them, so i will just post my thoughts.

i think it is not just a stylistic difference between v4 and vss. i think that v4 has all too often become an outlet for those debaters who want to be “varsity debaters” but want to do so without the work. dont worry, i do have empirical examples to back this up.

at appleton east this year, we sent a team of two novii at vss. both of these individuals had done a lot of work with both organization and research into their aff and neg. they went 3-3 (3-0 on the neg) that particular weekend. however at toc where they went neg v4, they had a record of 2-4, mostly because their judges didn’t like things like d/a’s, kritiks, agent cp’s, or topicality args. this severely limited their ability to argue the affs that they hit. however when they hit real tabs judges, they blew the aff teams away. similarly, another team we sent to app east (a team who has only gone aff this year, and is not prepared to debate neg) went 0-6 at appleton. at v4 toc they went 5-1.

these instances show me that at vss debaters are rewarded by making good arguments, and having done the research to be able to defeat the opposing team. and at v4, debaters are rewarded by being well prepared to debate only one side of the topic, and are rewarded if they can speak well enough to impress the judges, and not necessarily be a better debater than the other team. and although speaking skills are good, i beloieve the research, organization, and quick thinking that is necessary to compete at v4 are far more important life skills.

the other problem i have with v4 is that there are far too many judges who will just not listen to certain arguments. this is a problem that we encounter in our everyday lives, and i am sure that we all complain about. when someone who disagrees with you is confronted by a good argument refuting their position, and that person just sticks their fingers in their ears. I dont like to complain about judges, and you should be able to adapt to them, but it is harmful to the educational process if the judge only allows the certain arguments that they like. Far too many times there are great neg arguments that can kill an affirmative case, but aren’t allowed to be run because the judge doesn’t want to hear them. for a debate to be educational i believe that those who judge them should be able to understand all arguments that can be argued, and allow them to be run. this is the only fair thing for both sides. and for those who want to judge but dont understand the lingo of policy debate, then pf could be the thing for you.

again i apologize if any of this is repeated elsewhere in the other posts, but i am home sick and felt the need to rant about something.

By mark morgan on Dec 21, 2005

Judge Adapt! Not everything needs to be read fast and not everything has to be read slowly. In my judging experiences this year, the best rounds I heard were at a slower pace. Even in faster paced rounds, the 2N would get up and make 20 responses to 10 responses that the 2A made not going any faster than conversational speed. I prefer a slower paced round, I think of debate more as a persuasive communication game, but I also recognize the strategy behind faster debate and the educational value behind it. The main divide in my eyes between V4 and VSS is the judge adaptation and the styles that the debaters in their respective divisions choose to use.

To me, a fast debater would know better than to speed read evidence and make arguments that he or she may know that judge won’t be able to follow. Instead a debater would adapt to preferences of the judge and make an attempt to persuade. A slower debater may have a harder time meeting the standards of a judge who likes a faster paced round and a team that is ready to speed-read. But the point of policy debate is not necessarily the team that gets most on the flow wins, it is about discussing a resolution and a plan to solve it. Even if you are in a faster paced round, you could still win by going slowly. I know from experience, back when I did policy, I was going against Nicolet VW (Victor/Wang), my partner and I ran a Coercion Kritik on a plan of oil drilling regulations. Interestingly enough, we might have won the round, if we were ready for the responses made by Nicolet; essentially the arguments were just generic answers to our kritik. By the way, Nicolet was going pretty fast for me to even flow majority of their case. But the round was a great learning experience. If my partner and I were better prepared and had answers, going slow may not have deterred us from winning the round.

But of course my example only provides one situation in which a slower debater can beat a faster debater. The arguments about fast vs. slow really don’t play a big role with me. Debaters should judge adapt when possible, and if going fast is not something a debater is comfortable doing then he or she should not do it. Debate is a learning tool and provides individuals with great opportunities and a vast array of knowledge about the world around us. There are different strategies to employ and I think they are all valid, but the question remains why can’t we just have one division?

To answer the question simply, there is no reason not too. It is by far easier to have 1 team of 2 than it is to have 1 team of 4. In another forum, one coach made a response to that argument by saying that teams that lack the numbers can do Public Forum. Then, a further response was that individuals that want to debate can go to tournaments and join another half of a team if it is available and if you really want to switch side debate you can find ways to make it happen. First of all, by having schools drop out of policy debate then there is little growth that can happen in an already dying policy division. Second, joining another half does not qualify you to the STOC if that team wins the tournament. Plus, who says there will be another half to debate with. Third, not every school has the resources necessary to travel to switch side tournaments constantly, so by “making it happen” then you might have debaters spending a lot of money out of pocket, which is not productive to growth of the activity.

By having a 2 person format there are more teams, less dependency on others for tournaments, and overall greater competition, styles, speaking skills, which all lead to greater education, more strategic and critical thinking and adaptable communication skills. By adopting a 2 person format, tournaments do not have to always be 2 day events. Instead they can be just on Saturday, do four rounds and qualify to the STOC from there. New London used to do that when it hosted tournaments a few years back. The WACFL, the debate league for the Washington D.C. metro area does that too. There kids know how to adapt to judges and do quite comparable at a national level.

People who support V4 in my opinion have nothing to lose, and I honestly believe that there is much to gain in a 2 person division. V4 debaters currently would be better off developing new lines of argumentation that are seen in VSS. VSS debaters would be better off learning how to slow down sometimes and persuade a judge. Policy debate is just that policy debate, neither division in terms of style are better, but VSS is by far the most inclusive as a community, allows for more individuals to compete, and provides the greatest forum of adaptable debate. Nothing about style has to change in Wisconsin, but what does need to change is the inclusiveness of the event and how debate is perceived as whole on a state level.

Debate is dying, building a stronger community and unifying divisions and forcing education through adaptation is key. Many teams do not travel out of state or even go to the NCFL or NFL National Tournaments, but those who do would probably agree, policy debate judges from across the country all have different opinions on debate and adaptation is key. I think if Wisconsin ever does decide to reform the divisions of debate, the only thing that needs to be remembered is what is the best way to provide a competitive educational activity for students. And in my opinion, that is having a 2 person division. This would be the correct first step in the future of Wisconsin debate, not only would it help to keep the status quo of the number of debate teams, but in the long run provide opportunities for new schools to join. Most importantly, a 2 person division would provide for a stronger policy community. Happy Holidays!

By David Gates on Dec 21, 2005

OK only have time to respond to Andy:

+++Andy Says: The format of Varsity-4 sucks. It limits people from debating and makes people worse debaters by artificially limiting them to debating one side of the topic. Please answer me this: WHY IS DEBATING ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE RESOLUTION GOOD and WHY IS HAVING TEAMS OF 4 GOOD? (As opposed to why it’s adequate—e.g. “We switch our teams every weekend.”)
My kids debate both sides of the resolution all year long, what’s your warrant? Is it that kids can’t debate both sides in V4? If so, you are utterly wrong. The format of V4 is less expensive. I completely conceed that the break format of VSS determines a champion much better the “debate 3 rounds and pick the best record”. But who cares? If the activity is about education, which so much of Andy’s opinion seems to adhere to, then we should pick the most viable, cheapest, and easiest format to deliver this education.
+++2) My argument in the original article is that policy debate is a unique forum where fast thinking and intense research is required to win. Dumbing divisions down by slowing the speed of discussion or artificially limiting the arguments made does the debaters a disservice. There are other activities where speaking skills are revered. Those are all mentioned in the article. Please answer me this: WHY DO WE NEED V4 debate IN LIGHT OF ALL THESE OTHER ACTIVITIES?
Again, where is the warrant? Who cares if you think V4 is less educational. I don’t. Much of the state doesn’t. That’s why we have V4. Speed doesn’t make you smarter or better. It just means you can talk fast. Maybe it even means you think fast. That doesn’t make you smarter, and its arrogant to think it does.
+++This misses the point completely. I am “impact turning” your argument—V4 style and format are BAD. My argument is that judges that intervene, insist on less research, and slowed down speeches are HURTING debaters. They belong in other activities. Writing a justification that “the plan just doesn’t work,” as was the case with my four person team at the STOC, helps NO ONE advance as debaters. Regardless, I will agree that the judging is not central to the problem. It is the coaches and the division itself that are the problem—both in format and in style. That’s all explained in the original article (and not responded to).
The assumption that “more research” always means better debate is horrifically false. It is sad that so many people believe that spewing out a bunch of BS arguments with 7 cards each is good debate. 1 Argument can win a debate in the real world. Is it judge intervention to vote this way? Maybe, but welcome back to reality. Besides, the idea that V4 debaters do less research is utterly false. My varsity kids always need carts to haul around their evidence. One year I had a pair who had 11 boxes between them. Does VSS top this on average? I also love how it s assumed that judges in V4 intervene more the VSS.
First and foremost: “the plan just doesn’t work” sounds like a pretty poor decision (at least when taken out of context), but I’m not sure how that is judge intervention. Poor judging, maybe. I see comments like that one in VSS all the time. I do see PLENTY of real judge intervention in VSS, in fact I believe it happens more in VSS tournaments I attend. On the ballot, in the round, in the halls. Judges intervene everywhere. Don’t get me wrong, it happens in V4 too, I just see it more in VSS.
If you haven’t figured it out, coaches and the division are just fine with me, and thus the point doesn’t really warrant any response. I am sure many more would argue here, if they didn’t have homes, children, and vastly busy lives to live. Why am I sure of this? Discussions in lounges and the very fact that V4 still exists in numbers greater then or at least equal to VSS. Anyway there a dozen points within Andy’s counter, so let me know if I miss one as we go along here.
+++Is this what we are reduced to for arguments that V4 is a good division; that it “doesn’t diminish the VSS” division too much? This is preposterous. There are ZERO warrants for why we NEED a four person division. The article lists off several reasons why V4 waters down the number of debaters overall in the state (namely there is a limited pool for debates to begin with in WI and that the numbers make it harder to get 4 people together to debate instead of 2). If you don’t believe me, reference the lively discussion between Adam and Bill from back in October, where both voiced concerns about the diminished VSS pool at the expense of the V4 (http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1156166&postcount=24). We have a choice as a state: we can either accept two small divisions where winning is easier because of the low numbers, or we can have one larger division where it is a real accomplishment to win in that division. My argument in the article was that debate is good because it is hard. Making it easier makes it less worthwhile of an activity. Given that, the choice should be for the tougher division.
So you are saying that VSS at STOC is not as legitimate as it would be with V4 schools in the mix? I haven’t heard that one before. Maybe. I doubt it though. I’m not entirely sure why anyone thinks this is a legitimate point. Larger means better? Maybe. I guess that assumes there are a significant number of V4 debaters who are equal in ability, skill, and education to VSS debaters. That’s great. I agree with that. How did they become that way? Having debated in such an un-educational activity as V4, you would think they would diminish the VSS pool. Maybe we all just need to think like Andy. If we all thought like Andy we would have perfect competition that simply tested natural ability I suppose. But wait, if we all thought like me we would have perfect competition and would only be testing natural ability too. Thankfully we have differences. In fact there are differences so vast that they don’t even fit on the same spectrum. Differences in budget, style, goals, lifestyle. Thus the reason we need to different divisions. If you combine the two it would become a contest of who preferenced their judges the best, who hired the judges, and who is doing the pairings in the tabroom. So turn: combining the two divisions leads to less competitiveness, more frustration, greater reliance on luck, and less of a chance that the real champion in either division will surface at the top (which I guess I could really care less about anyway, but what the heck).
+++I agree that the two styles don’t “play well” together (whatever that really means). One style is inferior educationally, one style is better educationally. (This is all justified with some credible case studies in the article). You need to justify why we need a V4 division.
I have done this, over and over again. Here is one point: we need V4 because there is a demand for V4. Basic economics. Kill V4 by not participating in V4. We will not need V4 when it ceases to exist. Beyond that I’ll express some of the other reasons. We need V4 because it is cheaper. We need V4 because many believe the style with in it is vastly better. Why do we need VSS? Long days/weekends, better competition? If it’s all about education, who cares about the competition. So let’s get rid of the more expensive, vastly more time consuming, and equally educational activity called switch side. Or lets just co-exist because I could care less what goes on in VSS and most VSS could careless about what happens in V4.
+++“>> In fact I think 98% of V4 judges have no problem with either. I think 85-90% of V4 judges accept just about any off case as a potential argument and certainly will look at T (though I think the hatred of T as a voter equally crosses the V4/VSS divide)”
+++This is hilarious. Nathan even concedes that the V4 judges will intervene on Topicality quite frequently, although I don’t know where the basis for “hatred of T as a voter equally crosses the V4/VSS divide” is established. A world without topicality seems a little scary—that would be a world in which the affirmative could run poorly thought out affirmative cases, that have tangentially to do with the resolution (best case scenario) and the negatives would give up on doing research, and instead resort to plan flaw and funding arguments. That’s a world abhorred by the VSS community, and sadly is the reality of V4 debate.
+++This argument about judges “not liking a certain off case argument” misses the boat. The problem is a matter of our willingness to accept judge intervention. All judges have preferences. What Joe, Kristin, Mike all have said is acting on those preferences regardless of the arguments in the debate is bad. Intervention is the death of debate because it ignores the role of the debater, and nullifies the reason to do research or the reason to compete. Intervention is widely accept in V4 debate; it’s rejected by VSS (another good argument for the style of VSS debate…).
+++Let’s take the physical challenge. Look at the judge philosophy book for this year. Do 85-90% of V4 judges “accept just about any off case as a potential voter”? I paged through the judge philosophy packet for the WDCA STOC.
+++Some of my favorite quotes from the judging booklet included “All Kritik alternatives must be presented in the 1NR.” (I suppose plan’s should be given in the 1AR) OR “No CPs or Critiques, please” (At least they said please…) OR “CP’s must be non-topical” (or else what?) OR my personal favorite take on the English language “Debate should and is not about who is faster, who has better theory, who has the most arguments.”
+++Gems like these where judges necessarily preclude certain arguments regardless of what the other teams says is called intervention. Based solely on the numbers of whether they preferred CPs or T or based on their comments, (and I think I did this quite liberally—granting that they accepted arguments when it was ambiguous), only 7 of the 28 regular V4 judges, I would say “accept most arguments.” That would be 25% of the field that “accepts just about any off case as a potential voter.”
Interesting Interp. I’m not entirely sure how Andy got this from what I said, but I have conceded “again” that V4 judges intervene. Just for the simple: I also admitted it in this post that I think VSS judges intervene. I can promise you that every judge intervenes. Ultimately by making a decision the judge has intervened. The idea of judge intervention being bad is the stupidest thing I have ever seen advocated in debate. Some arguments are just stupid. Some arguments start out as nearly dead from the first words leaving somebody’s mouth. I promise this happens in VSS. It happens in real life, it happens in kindergarten, it happens. Debaters play on this. They run plans that put negs in a position where they have to advocate racist ideas. They run K and tell the judge that a ballot for the affs is a ballot against feminism. The idea of T being bad. T is over run. Like it or not. Its also so structured that people run the same crap debate after debate. Its called running T on the resolution and printing generic standards and voters off the net. Judges get sick of it. Judges get predisposed against it. In Madison this year my kids faced judges that said “don’t bother with T”. Evil judges, bad evil judges. We should fire them all for being such interventionalists. We also then need to fire the judges that vote against “T” because T was run with out a voter. That happens too. Does “T” need a voter? If the opposing side says nothing about the voter, does that automatically mean T wins? What about a judge who gives a win on T to a team that never addressed a voter? It happens. Guess what. Debate doesn’t have rules in regards to rules or really even on what judges are supposed to judge. I’ll go back to what has been so supremely argued in the past when issues over tagteaming and open cross-ex, as well as prep time violations and others. The WDCA has guidelines for judges, not rules. Even so: if the guidelines were rules pure speaking paradigm and pure stock paradigm are allowed. While I might agree that strictly adhering to one of these paradigms is a little bogus, I would say the same for pure tabs and policy tend to be just as bogus. Tabs means blank slate? Does that mean anything goes? How do you weight anything goes? Is it like some many poor judges I have seen that instead of using their brains they count arguments and cards? If you judge that all arguments are equal, you are not judging debate, you are judging a race. Good for you. That paradigm is allowed, its just crap in my opinion. But hey, Andy has admitted, in fact promoted, judge intervention in his point. Great job! The abhorred funding attack and plan flaw. Your right Andy, VSS judge intervene on these arguments all the time. This points out and in fact backs up my point that judge intervention is 100% common and that there are stylistic differences