Wisconsin Forensics Daily

Congratulations Ivie and Osahon– you guys definitely deserved this.

By Val McIntosh on Dec 10, 2006

It was my pleasure to adjudicate the final round of Varsity Switch-Sides Policy Debate at the first-ever Wisconsin State Debate Tournament. Neenah and Rufus King are incredibly talented teams that represent everything that is so wonderful about our activity. I have had the pleasure of watching Ivie, Osahan, Amjad, and Asad develop over the course of their careers and want to publicly congratulate them for their outstanding accomplishments in reaching the final round. It was awesome to see so many younger debaters in attendance to watch a fantastic debate between these four talented, respectful, and passionate students.

For the benefit of the debaters and for those that were there to watch the round, I am sharing my “ballot” from the round here on WFD. I have always found the published ballots from the final round of the NDT incredibly interesting and so I thought it would be cool to share this artifact from our Wisconsin “NDT”.

Congratulations!

~Bill

Rufus King (Amjad Asad & Asad Asad) vs. Neenah OO (Ivie Okundaye & Osahan Okundaye)

I began my evaluation of the debate by resolving the discussion of framework.

Rufus King is consistently defending a very specific framework - the affirmative should win if the plan is better than the status quo or a competitive policy option. Neenah’s articulation of their framework is less consistent. Given this, I conclude that “the most liberatory option” is not mutually exclusive with the affirmative’s defense of plan-focused, role-playing political debate advocated by their Joyner and Muir evidence.

Neenah extends their Mitchell evidence as a reason that the affirmative’s framework harms civic engagement. The warrant for this argument is not explained in the 1NR or the 2NR; instead, Neenah makes an appeal to the authoritativeness of this evidence. My reading of this evidence is perhaps different from Neenah’s: it seems to me that this evidence advocates that policy debaters use their research and argumentation skills and engage in *public debate and advocacy*. This is separate from contest round debating, which seems inconsistent with Neenah’s participation in the contest round. Indeed, it seems to me that this is precisely Mitchell’s argument: student debaters can engage in *both* contest round debating *and* public advocacy.

“The skills honed during preparation for and participation in academic debate can be utilized as powerful tools in this regard. Using sophisticated research, critical thinking, and concise argument presentation, argumentation scholars can become formidable actors in the public realm, advocating on behalf of a particular issue, agenda, or viewpoint. For competitive academic debaters, this sort of advocacy can become an important extension of a long research project culminating in a strong personal judgment regarding a given policy issue and a concrete plan to intervene politically in pursuit of those beliefs.”

Rufus King’s Joyner evidence is compatible with this reading of Mitchell. It indicates that debaters that engage in role-playing as public policymakers learn valuable skills that can make them more effective policy analysts, political critics, and legal defenders. The affirmative’s Muir evidence is also helpful in this regard. While this cutting of the Muir article is not exceptional and this evidence is by no means great, it *does* defend the utility of contest round debating.

Moreover, Rufus King’s Keller/Whittacker/Burke evidence is excellent in isolating an external impact to this kind of contest round role-playing: critical thinking. Neenah does not have a persuasive answer to this claim… the 2NR’s assertion that their framework is “better for education” lacks depth and even if granted full weight is not preclusive of the 2AR’s extension of their critical thinking argument. In other words, both frameworks could provide “education” but Rufus King’s internal link to critical thinking and their impact to critical thinking (it means students become better activists and therefore can actually change the world) are much stronger than Neenah’s link and impact to liberatory education in the abstract.

Neenah extends a piece of Tickner evidence that argues that “language shapes reality” or “discourse shapes reality” and this evidence does indeed make this claim. However, I think the 2NR does an ineffective job of leveraging this argument against the affirmative’s framework. I think the 2AR is fundamentally correct that the fact that discourse shapes reality does not preclude consideration of the plan. In fact, I think Rufus King is winning their “ethics” argument and that this is just as important in shaping our reality as their legitimation/defense of capitalism. By viewing the world from another’s perspective and universalizing our personal politics, we can better evaluate the desirability of our own judgments. This argument is an offensive reason to reject Neenah’s “the personal is the political” arguments.

Neenah also makes the “racist language” argument but the 2NR does not respond to the 1AR’s “don’t vote on potential abuse” cross-application. This could have (and indeed should have) become a more important argument because the 1AR is not good on this issue, but Neenah does not take advantage of Rufus King’s under-coverage. *Impacting* the “their framework allows racist language” argument and comparing this impact with the affirmative’s framework impacts would have likely swung the framework debate in Neenah’s favor.

In the end, I think that the affirmative’s framework provides a superior fundamental structure for debate. As a result, the winner of the debate should be the affirmative if the plan is superior to the status quo or a competitive policy option. In order to determine whether this is the case, we should imagine a counterfactual world in which the plan is adopted and compare it with the status quo or the counterfactual world in which the competitive policy option is adopted.

Given this, I think that the affirmative is way ahead for a few reasons.

First, the 2NR spends minimal time on the alternative to the critique. Even if my resolution of the framework was different, I would likely have still voted affirmative because the alternative is neither well-explained nor likely to “solve” the case impacts. Rufus King’s Blank evidence is particularly good on this point and is not ever addressed by Neenah: given a world of capitalism/development, we should focus on finding ways to lessen its impact and navigate its terrain rather than wishing it away and ignoring its victims. The Rorty evidence about the utopian idealism of the Peace Corps is also quite good in articulating the desirability of Peace Corps expansion within the confines of global capitalism.

In short, Neenah is very good on the “capitalism bad” part of the debate but very bad (and I don’t mean that in an offensive way… they are obviously awesome debaters) on the “aff’s use of capitalism outweighs good things aff does” debate. I think the 2NR banked on winning the framework debate in order to moot the 1AC and when I resolved that debate differently, Neenah is in a lot of trouble.

Second, Neenah is never responsive to Rufus King’s soft power advantage. The affirmative extends two extinction impact claims in the 2AC, 1AR, and 2AR: the plan prevents the imminent collapse of U.S. hegemony and secures necessary commitments from other countries to win the war on terrorism. Neenah’s capitalism arguments are an impact turn to Rufus King’s social capital advantage but they are not responsive to these soft power scenarios (or if they are, these applications are never made by the negative). By spotting Rufus King these extinction claims, Neenah puts themselves behind the eight ball - it will be almost impossible to “outweigh” these advantages without playing any defense against them.

Ultimately, I think that the plan solves two scenarios for extinction. While Neenah is winning a risk of their “capitalism bad” DA, Rufus King is playing a little bit of defense (their Blank and Rorty evidence discussed above) while Neenah is playing no defense against King’s soft power advantage. Whether or not Neenah is able to advocate their alternative (imaging a world without capitalism or that capitalism goes away), the plan is necessary to prevent extinction and neither the status quo nor the alternative “do” the plan.

In short, the impact to the case outweighs the impact to the critique. I vote affirmative for Rufus King.

By Bill Batterman on Dec 10, 2006

VBD has a thread about WI:

http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2006/12/10/noah-trilling-neenah-and-waupaca-make-wisconsin-history/

By Nick Bubb on Dec 10, 2006

Thanks for posting that Bill. It is very interesting to read for all of us that were not in the round and I am sure even more so for those that were.

By Candace on Dec 10, 2006

First of all 2 things. I think both of these teams are fantastic and have had excellent careers and out of state. They represent their schools and their state well and as a coach that makes me proud of WI debate. Secondly, I respect Mr. Batterman and his opinion but will of course disagree with him at a few points. I believe he is one of WI best debate minds and has certainly put his time in on the circuit. That is the beauty of debate is there is both a persuasive and intellectually challenging yet variable element to the activity. Overall of course this round is very good, however, in all rounds there are differing degrees of good and less good and this round like many comes down to that.

My other caveat is I don’t have my flow in front of me at this exact time.

Framework – I believe the round all starts here. My advice to teams based on this round is an excellent testament to the growing importance of this debate and why competing interpretations are important. I would also propose that students should consider adding more of a fiat/pre-fiat bent to their argumentation. I am unconvinced that Affs or Negs should be going for the argument that all of the impacts should fall into the same pot. I think perhaps more persuasive and clean debate would stem from a defense of impacts within pre and post fiat realms.

I read the joyner and the Mitchell evidence differently perhaps then Bill. I think that these cards are applied differently then their authors entail and as such as judges when we are forced to reconcile cards after the round I try to look at them from the perspective of the debate rather then my own reading of the evidence or how I would have applied it in this situation. My goal is to do as little work as possible that is why most of my decisions come relatively quickly after debates. Perhaps this is important information to those who would have me judge them in the future. I digress, I read the Joyner evidence in the light of the compelling argument from Neenah that is merely informative about debate and not comparative in light of their Mitchell evidence which criticizes how capitalism coops social spaces. The argument from the Negative team in the 2NR is that their framework allows their K to function and the brunt of the argument I am getting back from Rufus is that their aff can operate in that world as well. I think that begs the question of the Kritik link and impact, which is not being as well covered by either team as one might like but is not something the Aff wants me to do. The aff is not doing enough here or especially in the 1AR to convince me that they can really win a word of just their framework or one that is inclusive of the Neg’s interpretation. In fact I don’t find that “even if” anywhere on my flow. I see the Aff as more or less allowing the Neg criticism to apply to them even if I buy all of their arguments.

Then we have the floating Tickner evidence. I believe that this is underdeveloped in the round but do not recall having the application made by the affirmative that this means their discourse can be allowed in competitive debate. That seems to me to be non-sensical since their language would be tainted by capitalism meaning even if the aff argument is true the masking arguments and impacts which are essentially conceded by the aff would take this out (I believe it is those masking arguments which made the other 2 judges vote Neg as well). Here I believe the 2AR is all to much like the 1AR and is merely extensions rather then comparative analysis which makes the Neg position more persuasive on this issue.

The only other issue to address then on that flow is the cheap shot on the theory debate. Again, in my paradigm I indicate that cheap shots must be al 5 min and offensive and rarely will 15 sec of new extrapolation catch my attention. In addition when looking at my flow I don’t find much of this now more developing debate in the 1AR. My only job as a judicator is to intercede against new 2AR args. Now, could the 2NR predict this and should they have, yes. But, alas, I think that prediction of argumentation is one of the last steps that comes in becoming a part of that upper echelon of debate and as such is difficult in complex rounds.

The 2NR could have applied the racist language argument better as well in their speech to help clear up this debate. I believe the Neg is going for the masking argument primarily in hopes that will get them the round but I think effective use of time here could have helped because the 1AR is very lacking on this debate and not even providing the extension of something offensive.

So to the kritik. I think that the really unfortunate part of this debate is that we are lacking excellent discussion of the Link or Alternative. This coupled with a lack of offense going into the 2AR made the round difficult for the AFF. We don’t even have a PERM do both, in fact we have no perms in the 2AR. We have no offense to capitalism good, good in some instances, anything of that nature on the flow. So again we are faced with blip extensions of cards with out weighed and warranted implications explained. The Aff is hoping I give them all of case and ignoring the fact that the judges may buy the masking arguments. This is very troublesome. The Neg now is being more comparative in round since they assume worlds in which the aff may be right. The Aff is not making this level of analysis and instead is being what I felt was too flow oriented in the 2AR. I think with no offense on the link which the aff agrees they must concede (from the vagueness debate where they concede all links to all things (is that strategic?)) and conceded impacts. I don’t know how much alternative evidence explanation I need. I am getting consistently that it is try or die against capitalism and that even if there are appealing looking things those must be disregarded because capitalism is so bad that we must act then. I ultimately find this persuasive and not handled well in the 2AR, instead they chose to ignore the fact that I might be believing the Neg and try to go back to case and weigh in SP. There are 2 problems with this for me. First of all they have the opportunity to take this position in the 1AR but do not. I think these arguments are tainted by being newish to the debate. Also, if I believe that Capitalism will prevent solvency of plan action then SP goes away. Also, if I believe the try or die argument this can all be true but still wouldn’t matter. I think that the lack of offense against the kritik is ultimately the problem here for the Affirmative, not only are they perceptually behind on the flow on the K through the round I think a real lack of evidence going into and extended in the 2AR well enough is the problem.

Again I think both teams are excellent and I think Bill and my ballots server to the fact this debate could have been collapsed MUCH MORE in the 2AR or 2NR. I think we are really debating maybe 6 main arguments. Not the 300 throughout the round, more depth on those 6 would have been better then trying to get through many more. I believe that students often think they need quantity of argumentation to provide the judge with many options to vote for them and end up having too many under explained options versus a well collapsed debate where 1 or 2 world views of the meta-debate can be used to PERSUADE the judges.

Very enjoyable round and good luck to these and all WI teams on the Spring season. I know Bill was talking to Rufus as I was talking to Neenah and hitting the road if Rufus would like to contact me about a 2AC to this argument or any questions they should feel free.

Peace

Paul

By Paul Hager on Dec 11, 2006

Thanks to Paul for posting that… if Justin, Ryan, or Erik are reading this and want to take a few minutes to share their RFDs/”ballots,” too, that would be awesome. If not, I’m really glad Paul posted… hopefully this will give everyone a great opportunity to compare different judging methods and an example of how two judges can come to different conclusions about a very competitive round. I wish we could have recorded the debate and shared it on the internet, but I didn’t have any technology with me that would have allowed that. Maybe next year.

Congratulations again to Neenah and King!

~Bill

By Bill Batterman on Dec 11, 2006

Thats a great idea Bill. That would for sure be the coolest addition to WFD EVER.

By Noah Trilling on Dec 11, 2006

I agree with Bill. I think we should record future WSDT finals. I know I could provide the technology. All under 18 would have to sign waivers and rights to use but I think a round like this would have been very educational for debaters of the future.

I have such great respect for coaches like Bill who love this activity enough to put aside competition and post things like this which are educational and benefit everyone. I am amazed at what Bill has already given to this activity over the years. I consider it an honor to be on panels with coaches like him for tournaments as good as the WSDT.

Debaters - please also respect judge’s decisions to disclose and not disclose their decisions to such a length. I know it would seem that those should always be able to write long explanations of why we do or don’t vote for your #3 but keep in mind that sometimes judges vote on things like perception, persuasion and other intangibles. We can argue (and will, we are debaters) about the validity of these things sometimes but each round teaches a lesson. Debaters should chose to learn the lesson each round and grow rather then take it out on judges. The more you learn in life the better we can become as people. We cannot chose sometimes the draw we get but we can chose how we will ether grow from an experience or not.

Thank you to all of those who participated this last weekend, this is why I love this activity.

Paul

By Paul Hager on Dec 11, 2006

I will attempt to get my ‘ballot’ posted within the next few days. Sorry for the delay, but it is finals week here and hence I have quite a bit to do and not so much time to do it. I echo what other people have said already - it was a great debate, I want to congratulate both the Asads and the Okundayes, and I just generally had a blast this weekend. I look forward to seeing some of you at Blake and quals and wish everyone luck.
Erik

By Erik on Dec 11, 2006

Wil there be a results packet posted soon?

By WDCA on Dec 12, 2006

Regarding the results packet, we’re waiting on a PDF of the varsity divisions from the tournament operations staff.

By Adam Jacobi on Dec 12, 2006

Thank you to both judges for posting their decisions. I think this reaffirms one of my beliefs about judging. Two excellent judges can make two equally excellent decisions within their own judging paradigm/preferences. I’m also convinced that familiarity with certain arguments definitely does shape evaluations of a debate round–be it good or bad depending on which side of a decision you are on. On that note, I’d like to familiarize myself with the Joyner and Muir evidence. So, does anyone have cites for those articles…or better yet, could you e-mail the articles to me at cpuuri@jjkeller.com? I tried Adam Jacobi but have not heard back from him.

Thank you!

By cpuuri on Dec 14, 2006

The Joyner article is on lexis:

Christopher C. Joyner, Prof of Int’l Law at Georgetown University, 1999, “Teaching International Law: Views
From An International Relations Political Scientist,” ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, Vol.
5, Lexis

The Muir article is not in any online databases:

Star A. Muir. “A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 26 (1993): 277-95.

~Bill

By Bill Batterman on Dec 14, 2006

I now have the cites. Thank you Asad!

By cpuuri on Dec 14, 2006

Did anybody else notice that the packet contained very little info about the V-4 division? 1 page.

By John Knetzger on Dec 14, 2006

You’re welcome!

By Asad on Dec 14, 2006

We’re working on that, John. That’s why there isn’t an official post announcing the packet here.

By Adam Jacobi on Dec 14, 2006

Cool. Thanks Adam.

By John Knetzger on Dec 14, 2006