Wisconsin Forensics Daily

Hey guys if anyone is looking for judges i’d love to help. I have that weekend off of work and would really be happy to be there! Please feel free to email me at nliak480@uwsp.edu for this tournament and any future tournaments!

By Nicole on Nov 28, 2007

The Brookfield Central teams in varsity will be:
Brookfield Central FS (Val McIntosh and Justin Feng)
Brookfield Central BW (Maanasa Bandla and Tess Wartman)

By Val McIntosh on Nov 28, 2007

The judge list is found by clicking the judge tab above, Nicole.

By Nick Bubb on Nov 28, 2007

the Winneconne LDer is WinneconneBA (Brent Arnoldussen)

By Kyle Felker on Nov 29, 2007

How’s Spain, Kyle?

By Nick Bubb on Nov 29, 2007

Marquette Lincoln-Douglas, unite!

By Jacob Swan on Nov 29, 2007

watch for us in our brand new army-surplus gear
Lets have a Marquette Close-Out!

By Samuel N. Hope IV on Nov 29, 2007

If Appleton West KR (Nathan Ruffolo and Colton Karoses) are listed as qualifying for State at the VSS level, why are they registered for Appleton East at the JV level?

By Neal Krokosky on Nov 30, 2007

that’s a good question. what the hell gargo!

By Nick Bubb on Nov 30, 2007

Spain is good..miss debate though…thats why I check up on this site

¿por ke no se puede participar in el torneo de España?

By Kyle Felker on Nov 30, 2007

Any results?

By Amjad on Dec 1, 2007

Just got the news that Marquette BF defeated SPASH IW 4-1 in the finals round. They previously defeated SPASH LM on a 3-2 in the sems round. What I gathered from this tournament is that the top 5 or 6 teams in this state can all beat each other and are all evenly matched. I want to first congratulate Marquette for a great team performance and BF for winning. Also kudos to SPASH LM for going 6-0 in prelims with a brutal schedule and SPASH IW for making it to finals. Great tourney Traas, and as for your promise of no bad weather………

Joe K
SPASH

By joe klopotek on Dec 1, 2007

Down at the Greendale/Hale Christmas Extravaganza….

Homestead NZ (Adam Neatols & Yunhao Zhu) affirmed in the final against Waukesha South KT (Kevin Keadle & Sam Tang). Homestead picked up on a 3-0 decision with a panel of Henning, Coe and Asad Asad.

Homestead SS (Kripa Shankar & Rahul Subramanian) and Rufus King MR (Willina McCoy & Miloran Robinson) were semifinalists.

Congrats to everybody!

By John Knetzger on Dec 2, 2007

Although I speak to this frequently, I will attempt to minimize the amount of times that I post this comment:

When will the State of Wisconsin debate community finally realize the value of having ONE (1) tournament in this State per weekend? For the first time this year – and yes, it took until late November and early December – I saw several debates that were reasonably good on both sides. Maybe the reason for the good debate was because the teams were fresh from their Glenbrooks experiences – or, perhaps the field was better because more than eight (8) – ten (10) teams showed up…Regardless, in my opinion the debates that I saw were markedly better than the *final* rounds I have judged at other tournaments this year…

Based upon my understanding, the debate tournaments currently hosted in this State generally do not make money – thus, there does not seem to be an economic incentive for schools to host a tournament at this juncture. Perhaps, if there was only one tournament per weekend more teams would attend the same tournament and money might actually be made.

Several debators from my generation (I graduated in 2001) would have loved to see the debate season extended longer as opposed to not having any real competitive option aside from participating in forensics. Thus, I think that you (the coaches who have foolishly perpetuated this ridiculousness) would see support from the policy debate community (particularly the good debators, those debators striving to be good and their affiliated coaching staff) to extend the season longer. Most schools have separate debate/forensics coaches (or at least several coaches) that would make it feasible for schools to go to two different locations.

Of course, I am aware that school budgets are tight and coaches want to minimize the financial burdens on their students and their schools. When I debated, the tournament host regularly offered up at least some – even if a limited amount of – free housing for the teams attending their tournament. I do not understand why this is not still an option…

I think that this issue can be addressed separately from other reform proposals. In addition to increasing the potential benefits to schools/teams, I think that additional benefits would appear: better judging, better debate -> better education and preparation and being able to see people you normally do not otherwise get to see…

I am glad Appleton East went well. It sounds like Greendale went well, too. In four years of debate, I don’t think I ever had the opportunity to debate a team from Homestead or Rufus King until State – and I don’t think I even debated a team at State either. There is absolutely no reason in my mind – save lack of creativity and drive on behalf of some coaches – that this should have been the case. Let’s eliminate the two tournaments per weekend…it is a reform that is long overdue. In fact, if there was better debate in this State then perhaps some of the teams that otherwise travel might stick around for an extra weekend or two – at least when nothing on the circuit is nearby…

By Neal Krokosky on Dec 2, 2007

I think the bigger question is how many times did you see the teams in out-rounds debate in state this year? Marquette seems to send more varsity policy teams out of state than it keeps in state. SPASH increased their travel schedule, but kept more teams in state than went out of state. Osahon debated 3 times in state for us and 5 total times this year.

Of course, this isn’t a new concern. I think most teams end up learning at state why it is important to debate in state. I’ve seen more quality circuit teams leave the tournament a round or two before they thought they should to judges they weren’t used to debating in front of.

I would not be surprised to see SPASH IW have another fine showing at state given their experience debating in front of the local judges. They deserve it.

In any case, congrats to both teams in finals at Appleton East! That is a tough tourney and it takes a quality run to make it to that round!!!

By Cory Puuri on Dec 2, 2007

Cory,

You put your finger on a real problem here. What does Osahon have to gain from winning his umpteenth in state tournament with 12 or so teams in the pool? I know that many people get the sense that out of state travel is a snub to local tournaments, but I do not think it is really that way. It is a matter of competition. It is hard to justify spending 600.00 to go to a tournament where you might only see 4-5 other good VSS teams. Neal is right, but because there is still a huge divide between VSS teams and 4 person oriented teams, I think that we are a long way off from any resolution of the problem. BTW Cory, SPASH IW may not be glitzy, but they don’t just lie down either. Out of state they are only 2 rounds down to LM.

By joe klopotek on Dec 2, 2007

Neal, while I appreciate your zeal for the activity, your proposition falls in logistically in two vital areas: time and money. Moreover, your entire line of thinking seems premised on the notion that debate is first and foremost about competition. I contend that it is first about education, but I can already hear the devil’s advocate comments about the use of “speed-talking,” so I will modify that last thought to say that on balance, debate is an educational activity that lures participants in with competition — of which there can be varying levels,without forcing such a drastic measure as one tournament per weekend.

Time: my observation is that with increased extra-curricular and job commitments, students have been scaling back from further participation. By increasing the commitment of time vis-a-vis travel, we’re going to see numbers drop more. In order to engender more growth in this activity, we need to localize debate more than we are. There are entire areas of the state where debate is dead… are we more concerned about not seeing a few of the longtime teas until State, or should we really try to help build teams in areas of the state where debate is weak? I just read a message from Merrill coach Kari Strebig, who didn’t get home from Greendale until about 1 p.m. today, 22 hours after the tournament ended (due to snow and staying overnight). As a full time teacher, I can attest to the amount of time needed for grading papers and prepping lessons in addition to running a debate program. We are seeing fewer and fewer young coach-teachers, since having a family on top of debate is quite a challenge. Many leave after having their first child.

Money: School district budgets continue to shrink under the pervasive “taxpayer rights” battle cry across our state. It would cost our district $800 to charter a bus to Appleton for an overnight as opposed to $200 for West Allis Hale. Plus, my students would have to fundraise and pay for their own share of a room, plus shares of the bus driver’s, coaches’ and judges’ rooms. Everything costs money.

Competition vs. Growth: So, why did I hear positive comments from coaches, students and judges alike at Nathan Hale this weekend? The meet ran fast (since it was smaller), there lacked a vicious competitive feeling in the air, and teams that had not yet qualified to State earned their bid. Does the absence of powerhouse teams make them less worthy to participate in the WSDT next weekend? Well, be careful how you answer, because you may be feeding the fuel of the fire of those that are tired of the who elitist mentality that seems to pervade debate.

Remember, given the status quo of our split debate and speech seasons, tournament structure and varying leagues, Wisconsin squads still have earned success outside the state — without necessarily traveling all the time. The program I run at Rufus King has students who have no desire to commit more to the activity than going to local Friday evening meets — that still allows them to do something else on Saturdays and means an additional student is exposed to debate who otherwise would not have been. I also have zealous students who adore the activity and spend as much time participating as they can. For them, we offer a few additional opportunities out of state.

In conclusion, I remind readers here that imposing a particular framework of competition has not worked in the past. A group of people should not abolish four-person debate, simply because they disagree with it. Let the market be the arbiter of that. Because if debate continues shrinking like it is, there will be only enough squads left to warrant a single meet a weekend. Perhaps the elitists would be fine with that, but I’m waiting to hear people make more substantive proposals for saving the activity, rather than trying to fix what is not broken.

By Adam Jacobi on Dec 2, 2007

Adam,

I will concede the following explicit arguments that you make:
1) debate is an educational activity, and
2) there can be varying levels of debate.

I will concede the following implicit argument that you make:
1) debate takes time,
2) debate time trades off with other time,
3) teachers are busy,
4) weather can impact travel plans,
5) different debators have different levels of committment, and
6) Wisconsin teams still have success outside of the state.

Now, let’s observe your lack of responsiveness to my comments:

1) of the four final rounds that I have judged this year, 3 of them were poor,
2) in the status quo, few, if any, tournaments make money,
3) most schools have separate coaches,
4) the importance of bringing back free housing,
5) better debate -> more education, and
6) there are likely other benefits associated with my suggestion.

Without needlessly re-stating those conceded propositions I shall respond to your remaining comments:

1) Elitism

I am not going to respond to your ad hominem elitist comments. You use the word pejoratively without defining a) what you mean by it, or b) who you are calling elitist. Who are the elitists? I would like you to name the elitists in Wisconsin. Obviously, you think that there are some – so who are they?

2) Teams Deserve to Qualify for State

You implicitly concede that there were no real powerhouse competitors as Nathan Hale. I am in no position to comment on that since I do not know who participated. That humorous observation aside my short answer to your question is “yes.” I do not think that teams should qualify for state – essentially – “just because.” I argued this out with Kristi Plamann at Hortonville earlier this year. If memory serves me correctly, there were 8 VSS teams at her tournament. 8. What did the tournament break to? Hidden semis. Why? So that more teams would qualify for state. Certainly, you could argue that the state tournament structure could work this out…But, have you ever heard of something called judge intervention? Provide me with an example of where your implicit suggestion otherwise occurs? Most sports use a dissimilar “playoff” system – however, back up one step and there might be a fair analogy: to get into the playoffs you have to earn it. Winning a tournament certainly should qualify you for state. I will even concede that breaking – at least at some level – should qualify you for state. What is the purpose of the state tournament in your mind? To make people feel good? Or, to determine who the best debators are – and – as a prerquisite require them to do something to deserve to be there? Maybe there is a simple solution that would pacify both of us: amend the WDCA rules. How? If there are X number of teams, the break is to Y. Then, have all the teams that cleared earn a bid to state. Perhaps, if you require a greater X to earn a greater Y you would better understand, and more importantly, appreciate, my suggestion that tournaments need more teams.

3) Costs of Chartering a Bus

Rent a van? Ask Jim Sauer…I am pretty certain that he has the beat on how to keep costs low. I greaty respect and his admire his continued devotion to debate. Ask Bill Batterman. Ask Joe Klopotek. How far is Rufus King from Marquette? Nicolet? Brookfield? Cedarburg? Slinger? Sheboygan? Have you thought about the possibility – crazy as it may seem – of pooling resources via ride sharing? Yes, I understand the complexities that this might entail; however, it seems to respond to your cost-related comments. Oh yeah…remember my suggestion to bring back host housing, too.

4) Positive Comments at Nathan Hale

I do not know why you received positive comments about Nathan Hale. I was not there. Instead, I was at Appleton East until 11:00 p.m. on both Friday and Saturday night. Although I certainly do not grade papers I do go through the motions of being a second year law student on a daily basis.

By Neal Krokosky on Dec 2, 2007

Adam,

Some well thoght out comments. But I find it hard to believe that somehow, we cannot at least get one big tournament in the mode of an Appleton East for at least the 4 fall months of the season. WDCA would have to work as an organization to pressure hotels for lower rates, consolidate travel for smaller schools, and other such things. As for elitism, there is an air of that, but who cares? The way to deal with elitism is to go out and put your nose to the grindstone and beat the elite teams, not just say that “all they do is speed read.” That is simply not true. I voted for Marquette this weekend on Resolutional Justification for goodness sake. That argumjent could be written on notebook paper. And, I know we’ve has these discussions before, but the same judges who say they are traditional will not vote on T or theory, and those are the great equalizers when it comes to socioeconomic conditions. No matter where you come from, you can get a T book and argue it line by line. It does not take even a camp to master!!!
BTW, because the State TOC is almost always an anomaly unto itself, I do think that the Appleton East tournament is the de facto VSS state tourney. Hopefully, Mike made some money…

By joe klopotek on Dec 2, 2007

Neal, can’t we have a mature discussion here without treating it like a line-by-line debate with conceded arguments and such? There’s a difference between the interpersonal dynamic of debate and the small group dynamic of problem solving. Since this blog serves as an open forum, I will continue to treat it like the latter, rather than the former. In the spirit of discourse, I have framed many of the issues with rhetorical questions to consider.

The denotative meaning of elite is those who are admired because of power, talent or wealth. Certainly, talent is just cause for admiration. However, is it possible to be one of the best VSS teams in the state without extensive time and money spent on a summer institute? How about being part of a “signature program” that has enjoyed so much success that teams merely quiver when they see they are debating that school, without even knowing the individual debaters? Indeed, Joe, fighting elitism by beating it is one way of addressing that, but it’s difficult, particularly when money makes that divide. Some of my students can’t even get to school on a Saturday morning because they don’t have a ride and the bus doesn’t run early enough to get them there. Some of my students don’t know what home they’ll be sleeping in from night to night. These are the realities my debaters face.

In such a litigious society, how many schools/districts will be okay with two different schools/districts sharing rides? What are the insurance ramifications? I’m sure this is the same reason housing is sketchy. So many districts now require so many extra forms to be completed; there’s even one where an administrator searches every student’s luggage before they leave.

Tournaments can make money — on the speech side of things, WFCA coaches have talked about the out-of-control “trophy envy” that plagued tournament hosts, so they reigned it in, and the trophies are more cost-conscious. As long as a tournament host is smart about expenses and watches how it plans food, etc., they don’t have to be huge money-losers. One of the biggest problems for cost I noticed this year was schools not bringing the required number of judges they were committed to for meets.

Regarding quality of competition and worthiness for State, this is an important discussion we’ve been having for years in coach meetings. The WHSFA paradigm was for each school to put up its best team in district competition for a chance to make it to State. That fulfills more of your playoff scenario. The WDCA paradigm was more inconclusive: first, the tying the winning record rule, next the 10/15 rule; now the .500 rule. As long as we are inconclusive with that, we must be consistent across the board. If three of the four final rounds were bad, isn’t that more of an indication that debate in a particular region needs strengthening? If you put both tournaments together, would either of those final round teams have advanced (so, do those debaters learn anything)? Would they have even been at the combined tournament, given the extra time commitment for travel, money ,etc.? There are too many variables to make a definitive link between a combined tournament equivocating to higher quality and more learning.

If we are to be a state that values forensics collectively (which includes debate and speech), we cannot overlap those seasons. While most schools have separate coaches (and bear in mind that there are more than 400 schools that do speech in this state, but less than 50 that do debate), the strongest programs overall have coaches involved in both: Appleton East, Marquette, Cedarburg, Madison Memorial, Brookfield East, Rufus King, Hortonville, Bradley Tech, Sheboygan South, Appleton West, Harold Vincent, Milwaukee High School of the Arts. Wow… that’s quite a list, and I’m sure I’ve omitted some.

I agree that tournaments could benefit from more teams, but the suggestion to offer one tournament is a temporary fix amidst a trend of shrinking debate. As I stated earlier, there are FAR fewer schools who offer debate than those who offer speech. The growth of this activity has traditionally come from schools who already offer speech (yet another reason to keep the seasons separate), and we must guide those programs into debate. Let’s get to the root of the problem, instead of spinning our wheels.

I’m not sure what to make of your comment #4 above, other than to say my debaters had an educational two days of debate, yet were in their parents’ custody at a reasonable time, without any additional financial burden to their families.

Joe — I always appreciate your reasonable rationale and perspective. Perhaps I was too hasty in making that old “knee-jerk” comment about speed!

By Adam Jacobi on Dec 2, 2007

if you want to guide ’speech schools’ into debate then it seems the best way to do it would be by overlapping the tournaments so students in speech would be exposed to debate. Also, from a debater’s perspective i know i would enjoy more tournaments all year, if people are busy then having a longer season gives them more opportunities to debate. Also, being an LD debater earlier in the season the Marquette tourney had 14 competitors (2 of whom were from out of state), then the Nicolet tournament had about 6 competitors and was a 3 round tournament. then Rufus King had a similar number in my division and was 3 rounds, Friday and Saturday. 3 rounds of competition is nowhere near as fun as 6 or 7 rounds. If there had not been so many tourneys going on at the time (i am assuming other tournaments occurred) those should have been much stronger fields (number wise). The Appleton tournament ended up having 22 competitors in LD… it would be much funner to see all these people at every tournament, it also increases the educational value of the tournament to have more competitors becuase it opens the field to a variety of new arguments. I do recognize the troubles coaches go through managing programs but i am just giving my point of view which i may incorrectly assume is that of many others… to me and some of my teammates, debate is one of the things we do… we get drawn into it and it becomes on of our most memorable and enjoyable high school experiences but are left thinking how much greater it could be if there were more tourneys and more competition at them. People want competition and if it is not being provided in WI on some weekends, then we will go where it can be found.

By Samuel N. Hope IV on Dec 2, 2007

I’m not going to make a terribly long post, nor do I have the time to do a line by line answer or keep up with other people’s answers— but I wanted to say a few things (although I can assure you that the reason I don’t answer line by line is not because its “immature—that’s really an ad hom attack by Adam on Neal, and is really above you, Adam)

This debate over the level of support for debate has all been had before, and is pretty one sided. I direct everyone to look at a post from Bill Batterman, in 05′ http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1157359#post1157359
Debate can be done cheaply and efficiently. (Also, for a less articulate, but nonetheless worthy piece on how debate can be successful in Wisconsin, see http://wiforensics.com/2005/12/15/vssstratgame/) :)

There’s a reason why there’s a “shrinking” debate field—its b/c we don’t support it and we put insane obstacles that no other state puts up, such as dividing the debating crop between two tournaments and cutting its season artificially off. Debate is a great activity (and frankly a lot more challenging than any other extra curricular activity in high school, at least intellectually); in part its great because its so demanding. Just because debate is demanding doesn’t mean we shouldn’t support it; just the opposite (See the Wisconsin Forensics Article – link for a more developed version of the argument)

I think when it comes down to it, some coaches are afraid that if speech and debate are offered at the same time, people will do debate instead. While that may be true, its pretty obnoxious to prefer a coaches’ preference toward speech over a student’s choice.

One last note: having been a teacher/director of a big debate team (and knowing what grading, other time pressures entail) and having been a 2d year law student, I can assure you that being a 2L is a whole lot more time consuming. The fact that Neal can travel and judge and coach in varsity puts to shame any argument that debate is THAT time consuming that it should be phased out or minimized.

By Andy Nolan on Dec 2, 2007

As a new coach of a brand new program, I’d like to offer my perspective.

By way of background, I debated in the later part of the 1970’s, and judged my way through college in the early 80’s. I am not entirely new to debate. I don’t know most of the parties in the previous exchange and I really don‘t want to offend anyone, but Yikes! There is some angry and contentious writing here. Frankly, it makes me wonder what I may be getting myself into.

Mr. Krokosky’s reply (post 18) to Adam Jacobi’s views were written very much like a debate speech. His assumption that Adam, while focusing on time and money, conceded his other points is just so… forgive me…high-school-debater-ish. In the end, Mr. Krokosky seemed to blow off Adam’s concerns about time and money. In the real world, time and money do matter.

Time: Having been, a law student in a previous chapter of my life and a teacher in the current chapter of my life, I can tell you that teacher trumps law student anytime. Especially when you combine it with raising a family, owning a home, tending aging parents, continuing education, etc.. As it is, spending an entire day at a debate meet – even if it is with my daughters – is a big time commitment. While the occasional weekend away at a tournament can be a treat, I would not be able to afford the time if I had to travel even every other weekend across the state to attend a meet. And the students at the school where I coach , like many students, are involved in a variety of activities or have family commitments that would preclude weekly travel. For some students, working is not an option but a necessity. To deny these students the opportunity to participate just so that “more good teams” get to a meet could be interpreted as elitist.

Money: I can only speak for my team. We are a new program that was only made possible by the support of the Milwaukee Debate League. We have no money. While we are fortunate to have a district office that reimburses our school for registration fees, we have ZERO money for travel at this point. I don’t get paid to coach (though I can get some payment to judge at some meets.) We are trying to schedule some kind of fundraiser to make a little money just to buy debate letters, pins, or honor cords. If we had to travel to participate – our team would have to disband. If you are truly interested in in getting more schools to form debate teams, you have to be sensitive to this. In our own case, I’m hoping that we will get more funding support once we have proven ourselves. So far so good.

To say “hey, share a bus or get free lodging” is an oversimplification. Just buying lunch at a tournament can be a stretch for some of our City of Milwaukee students. Unless room/board was covered every time we had to travel, we couldn’t do it. So then we would only be able to attend a few meets a year. And then it would be hard to maintain student interest And then it would be hard to maintain administrative support. And that would be the end of our team. (For what it is worth, we have shared a bus with Rufus King for forensic meets more times than I can count.)

In regards to the State meet. I don’t know Mr. Krokosky, and I truly respect his strong feelings, but I was honestly somewhat offended by his comments about the purpose of the State Tournament. Is it so wrong to want to give more students the opportunity to participate? Even the Olympic Games claim loftier goals than just to see who is best. My own best memories and learning experiences from state and national tournaments of my youth are not about the actual rounds of the competition, but are about the friends I made. Hokey, but true. And frankly, I learned far more at the competitions where I was a little out of my league than at the ones where I was successful. I’m certainly not suggesting that rules regarding qualifications be eliminated. Rather, be careful what you wish for. If there was only one tournament a weekend, and start up programs like mine or other small programs collapsed under the time and money strain, and fewer teams were competing, and even fewer qualified for State… What kind of State tournament would that be?

I know that my own (novice) students are really psyched about having qualified for State in our first year with a debate program. It’s that kind of excitement that will help our team to continue to grow.

That’s my twenty cents worth.

Nancy Wisniewski
Milw. HS of the Arts

By Nancy Wisniewski on Dec 3, 2007

Andy Nolan…. long time no see where are you these days?

By Samuel N. Hope IV on Dec 3, 2007

I don’t think Neal is being critical of inclusiveness. I think he is being critical of having 2 tournaments on the same weekend that have barely enough students in certain divisions to make it.

Frankly, I am a bit disappointed in people who have criticized his structure. Didn’t we as coaches and judges teach him to do that because it makes it easier to follow, group and comprehend? Being critical of the form and tone of his posts seems to run counter to the goal of inclusiveness as it be-littles him rather than responds to the substance of his concerns.

I don’t see why all of this couldn’t be fixed by Andy’s suggestion. Lets pick 1 weekend per month in September, October, November and December. Put one tournament on those weekends and have a go at it. Since Challenges are so popular with the students, lets make it a switch sides challenge tournament. If that doesn’t fix things, then we’ll fine tune the “Reddy” rule to stick it to the kids that still don’t debate in state.

Incidentally, if my earlier post seemed to call a few people out for not sticking around, it served its purpose. I feel like a parent when I say this, but we miss having you kids around. While I very much appreciated the opportunity to get home from Waupaca and Hortonville early, it was sad to not have the hordes of Marquette, SPASH, Cedarburg, etc. kids around to provide the much needed entertainment that I am missing by not being home with my family. Noah Charles reminds me so much of my 4 year old daughter (turned 4, today!). I haven’t found an appropriate surrogate for my destructive little 2 year old daughter, but chances are, if I spent more time with the Marquette boys or the SPASH girls, it wouldn’t take too long. For the kids, you know I am being sarcastic. For the adults, this last paragraph was intended to be on the lighter side, so please don’t line-by-line it…because you’ll of course lose.

By Cory Puuri on Dec 3, 2007

I think a lot of these issues might be solved by a reasonable compromise. Like Neal, Andy, and Cory – I love big Wisconsin debate tournaments. In fact – those are the only one’s this season that I have attended.

The “old schedule” (just go with this for now, because “old” depends on your relative experience and how WI debate used to be practiced) de facto had four weekends of large competition for most Wisconsin VSS kids: Marquette, Pius, Appleton East, State. Pius hasn’t held their tournament for years, and the years where Madison picked up the challenge weren’t nearly as successful as the years where it was at Pius. Last year we only had two of those tournaments due to unfortunate scheduling: App East and State.

I propose that we develop a “new schedule” that allows for a single large tournament once a month. A single large tournament in September, a single large tournament in October, a single large tournament in November, a single large tournament in December, and a state tournament.

As I’ve advocated for before – moving the state tournament back to January would add a whole lot to Wisconsin debate. And I’m still not convinced that debate in January (or even as late as February) would hurt forensics that much. It seems to me that most kids in forensics are burnt out by the beginning of March if you did every weekend in the WFCA…. And that leaves like five tournaments before state.

In the past at Madison Memorial, Scheffler and I offered to host policy rounds. We did so one year and many people enjoyed it. Others did not attend (but that was alright, we didn’t have a whole lot of room anyway). – during forensics, that is.

WFD will have an article about travel in debate after the state tournament, because I think that’s an issue that we need to explore further. But the arguments against travel seem to be self serving to those who want to limit travel. I’ll talk more about this later, but I would like some data from tournament directors. If you operated a tournament can you send me a list of the schools that attended your tournament?

By Nick Bubb on Dec 3, 2007

speaker awards?

By Joe Packer on Dec 3, 2007

I try to stay out of these debates on WFD because I think they turn into being more about the coaches than the students. I appreciate Sam’s post and I wish we had more student input on these decisions. Frankly, I feel like students are afraid to post their thoughts because they see their adult leaders in the community belittle and argue incessantly with one another. It’s hard for me criticize the students I see for engaging in pithy debates when most of us are guilty of the same. We should all ask ourselves if we are actually being good role models on a regular basis.
With that said, I would love to offer a few suggestions from my own debate experience. I debated in Idaho where we had the entire academic season for both debate and speech. While we had both events at our tournaments and most students participated in both, I am not sure this is necessarily the best solution since from what I have heard it seems like people in WI would never agree to this. Instead, I feel we should extend the debate season for a few reasons.
First, when I was a debater in Idaho, we had only two local tournaments a month. It was much easier to participate in other activities and it was easier to manage academically because I still had two weekends a month to work on larger projects and study. I feel like many of our students have a difficult time keeping up with homework and missed school because they must take off every Friday afternoon fall semester.
Secondly, the extended schedule meant that we all had more time for our families and friends. As a coach, I found it extremely difficult to leave every weekend since I am in college and I assume many others feel the same. This would give Cory more time to be with his two daughters and he wouldn’t have to look for a replacement in Noah Charles. It would mean Adam has more time to grade papers and it would mean I would be less annoyed when I have to miss every single Badger football game.
I also feel like the extended schedule increases education. Since I debated year round, I could not rely on the same strategy for three months. I really had to be constantly thinking about ways to tackle affs. It also means that there is more depth on a topic because of more advanced strategies. With fewer tournaments a month, students also have more time to do debate research. I often hear complaints from my debaters that they don’t have enough time to cut updates every week or write new strategies since they are busy catching up on their homework and making up exams.
Additionally, a longer schedule with fewer tournaments each month means that schools that have the resources to travel nationally can still do so without feeling guilty about not attending local tournaments. Since there are so many great TOC tournaments in the fall, it is hard for nationally competitive WI schools to sacrifice the great competition at these. This is especially true since most TOC tournaments in the Midwest occur in the fall.
Lastly, the extended season would save schools money. If we use Cory’s idea proposed above and have one large tournament a month, schools can save money by traveling to fewer tournaments. With one tournament a month, students can also still attend forensics tournaments on the off weekends if they so desire.

These are just a few of my thoughts. I would love to hear what student’s think about an extended season or any of the other proposals.

By Candace Kissinger on Dec 3, 2007

WOW! I didn’t think posting results could set off this kind of firestorm. But I guess us debate folk are prone to disagree about many, many things. I’m not even going to enter the fray because I believe that we will never have consensus on this topic.

My other ardent belief is that we absolutely need to set it aside and work together to rebuild programs and continue to increase the number of schools with viable programs. If we keep fighting among ourselves at every turn, we’ll never make it there. If debate dies, no one gets what they want. Period.

By John Knetzger on Dec 3, 2007

I used to be adamant in my desire to expand debate in WI to a full-year activity, but at this point I’d just like to see a few opportunities created in both the fall and the spring that give students additional choices.

1. In the fall, I’d love to see one or two speech tournaments that give students a chance to compete in those events — one in November and one in December would be great and would give students whose focus is a speech event a chance to get additional rounds in.

2. In the spring, two or three debate tournaments would be fantastic — even if they are just one-day events (either combined with a forensics tournament or separate), they would give debaters a chance to keep competing. Even if the students in question aren’t traveling nationally or attending NFL/CFL, those rounds in the second semester can be invaluable for the following season.

I’m going to do my part by attempting to organize some scrimmage-style tournaments (or maybe something more if interest dictates) during the second semester that don’t conflict with forensics competitions. I know Tim Scheffler is thinking about hosting LD and PF on the Friday night of his tournament (along with Congress) and that might be a nice model to pursue — students will still have many opportunities to compete in Congress but would also have a few opportunities to debate. I’d also like to try to organize some tournaments where novice policy debate can “make” — those students would benefit a lot from a few more rounds and hopefully we can make that happen.

The elitism claims frustrate me; whenever these discussions start, it seems like Marquette is criticized and targeted (either explicitly or implicitly) as responsible for the decline of debate in Wisconsin. Given the fact that we host a tournament (and I’ll again take this opportunity to mention that our tournament provided Wisconsin teams with a chance to “travel” without actually traveling outside of Wisconsin), there were eight weekends on which we could have traveled our varsity policy debaters to a tournament in WI. Two of those weekends weren’t really feasible: Glenbrooks and the teachers’ convention weekend (we will attend Mukwonago in PF and LD in the future but this year we got the details too late to make that happen; I don’t envision that tournament becoming a VSS tournament, though). That leaves six weekends — out of our six varsity debaters, four went to three tournaments and two went to two. That doesn’t seem unreasonable — our students need weekends off to avoid burnout and to keep up with their academics and we value the opportunities that our students receive at regional and national tournaments. The balance is a difficult one, but it seems ridiculous to think that adding a WI tournament or two to our Varsity Policy schedule would make any difference to the survival of other programs.

More importantly, my goal is to build a program that will travel a lot of students to a WI tournament every weekend and we’re well on our way to doing that. Our novice policy squad has about 18 students who will probably be back next year. If we can maintain a varsity squad with 15 students instead of six, obviously those students will be competing at more tournaments. Even if our top senior teams only travel to two or three tournaments before State, we will still be supporting as many tournaments as we can with quality teams.

I went to West Bend East HS — I am very sensitive to the socioeconomic factors involved in high school debate and with the inequalities between programs’ resources. If other coaches think that the way I am running my program is harmful to debate in our state, I wish they would talk with me directly instead of dropping barbs about elitism on WFD. If that’s not the intention behind these comments, then I guess that’s my point: that kind of comment is intentionally unclear and it poisons the exchange of ideas (no one is sure who you are talking about so everyone thinks it could be them).

~Bill

By Bill Batterman on Dec 3, 2007

Bill,

Part of being successful like you guys are is knowing that others will always assume it is all about money. To think otherwise is to give you full credit for a job well done. Marquette does have some advantages, but how to explain that a wealthy community like East DePere doesn’t even have a program at all???

I will say though, that the national circuit looks like one big collection of upper middle class/upper class kids who do not have to work jobs and can drop 4-5 grand into a camp without a blink… I know there are exceptions, but should that be the rule? As an aside, I also feel like the kids on the national circuit are hopelessly anti-social snots that have obviously internalized the notion that they are important because of how much money their parents make.

When I feel like MQ is contributing to any elitism, I’ll let you know. Right now, I just feel like you are a great team that we have to work like dogs to beat… but the challenge, that’s half the game.

Joe K

By joe klopotek on Dec 3, 2007

Well i love the idea of 1 big tournament a month. It would be wonderful to debate a variety of schools instead of just the same 6 or 7 that ususally show at the tournaments. It is usually the same teams that make it to break rounds and not to be mean but you can ususally predict who those are. I think the solution that Mr. Bubb offered was a good one in which the coaches should pick a weekend where there could be one big tourney. Also another idea would be to have debate camps where more people could afford it. Even a week-long one would benefit a lot of people.

By Navneeth Iyengar on Dec 3, 2007

Preferably one that is somewhere where a lot of people would be able to attend. And a way to save money for the host would be to hire debaters that have recently grduated and also some judges for a relativly low cost. I’m sure this would both improve the quality and quantity of debaters in wisconsin.

By Navneeth Iyengar on Dec 3, 2007

Although I am not sure that I actually have anything substantive or new to add to this discussion, I feel compelled to give my two cents worth.

I think that having a much larger state wide tournament once a month would be a great idea, and would solve a lot of the issues discussed here. With one statewide tournament the competition would be far larger and far more competitive, and therefore more educational. Beyond that I think that the longer break between tournaments would allow debaters the ability to better change strategies, and maybe even switch up affirmative cases between tournaments, as opposed to inevitably experiencing functionally the same rounds weekend after weekend. And hopefully, with only one tournament a month, the travel costs would become far more manageable for the smaller upstart teams.

As for the elitism discussion, I have to agree that it has really become nebulous at best. First of all, no amount of money will ever make a debate team competitive or talented. Marquette’s debate program is successful because of the time and dedication not only of its coaching staff, but also the dedication of its students, and that is clear to see. Second of all, although I do agree that allowing all programs that ability to compete is important, saying that the state tournament should be equally inclusive of all debate squads regardless of experience or success seems counter-intuitive to me. The state tournament exists, at least in my mind, as a final honor and reward at the end of the season for those debate squads that proved through competition that they are some of the best in the state. Not to say that smaller or new programs should be excluded, simply that they should test their squads against the rest of the state to show that they deserve the qualification to the state tournament. This is the same test that high school athletics have adopted, and I believe the same principle should hold true for competitive academic activities as well. If the state tournament were to simply open up to any and all teams, regardless of achievement, I think that cheapens the idea behind an end of the year state debate tournament.

I also think the idea of having more locally hosted debate camps would be a great idea, and would definitely be a viable and educational alternative to the more expensive national camps. And although I do believe that camps are an extremely valuable experience for those debaters who choose to attend, I think that it is also possible to become a good debater who is competitive at the highest levels of debate without necessarily attending these national camps.

Finally, I feel that Neal’s style of posting was exceedingly effective in conveying his points, and made his post easy to follow. Whether or not the language he used seemed too “debatey”, the ideas he conveyed were nonetheless true, and I think it would be more effective to rebut his arguments than the way in which he made them. Many of his original points were disregarded, and I think it was fair of him to point that out.

The one problem I did have though Neal is that I am a little disappointed that you did not put the overview on a separate post :)

By Mark Morgan on Dec 3, 2007

As a debater, I figured I’d add a little something here, I don’t want to get too in depth but here are a few of my thoughts:

Is it wrong for teams to want to compete nationally as well as in state? We are constantly faced with the decision of going to a tournament in-state as opposed to an out-of-state bid tournament. Because the Wisconsin debate season takes place entirely in the fall, in-state tournaments almost always conflict with the Midwest(ish) bid tournaments such as the Mid-America Cup at Valley, New Trier, EGR & Iowa Caucus, UMich, the Glenbrooks, and Ohio Valley, among others.

It is also a disadvantage to us debaters that there are so few “large” in-state tournaments and so many “small” ones. When I debated at Nicolet in September, there were hardly any teams in the VSS pool compared to debating at Appleton East last weekend. We end up debating the same teams over and over again, which, considering the fact that we don’t really get much time to cut evidence and come up with new strategies during the 6 days between tournaments that we’re doing homework and other things like that, we end up having a lot of the same debates over and over.

The way that the Wisconsin debate season is structured actually forces us to spend far more money in order to compete nationally or to not compete in state at all. Even schools which many might deem “wealthier” cannot afford to send their teams to bid tournaments second semester because there are very few (I can only think of one off the top of my head) bid tournaments in the Midwest then.

If the Wisconsin debate season were to be extended, with a far less condensed tournament schedule, it would allow teams to compete in both circuits, without having to sacrifice one for the other.

Some will probably respond to my post and say that it’s unfair because some schools can’t afford to debate on the national circuit at all, but the number of teams in Wisconsin that competes, at least to a degree, on the national circuit has increased in the past years.

National circuit debate is not as evil as everyone makes it out to be. It is challenging — but that’s what is so great about it. Giving schools the opportunity to debate both nationally and in the state allows students a wide variety of venues in which to hone their skills. I love debating both in-state and on the national circuit because they provide different ways in which they are challenging.

I am also very very involved in my school. I can’t count on both hands how many extra-curricular activities I’m involved in, not to mention a heavy courseload of honors and AP classes. When I had to take a few weeks off from debate because I played flute in the pit orchestra of our school’s musical, I missed a TON of tournaments. Because they are scheduled every single week throughout the fall, it is impossible for any team to go to as many tournaments as they would like to. With hours upon hours of homework every night, it’s nearly impossible to improve upon mistakes made at one tournament to the next week because there simply isn’t time to get work done before the next tournament. Not only that, but missing school so often in a condensed period of time is detrimental to our ability as students to make up tests and get our homework done on time.

That’s just my two cents (well, maybe a little more than two) on the issue.

By Val McIntosh on Dec 3, 2007

Last November, I found my long-time girlfriend (more than) rhetorically asking me: “if I say mean things to you, will you leave?” The same answer that I told her then applies now: No. However, I will conclude my thoughts here as I did throughout that relationship: by adding new insight and pointing out the logical extension of her otherwise short-sighted arguments.

I started this thread simply: with the idea that Wisconsin needs to host more competitive debate tournaments. In response to that idea, I was attacked via ad hominem by Adam Jacobi (implicity as both immature and elitist) and by Candace Kissinger(explicitly as being high school debate-ish). Although there is not a great diversity of perspectives on this thread (measured by number of different commentors), it seems that both the debaters, coaches, former coaches and other interested parties agree: more competitive debate tournaments are needed in Wisconsin.

For both Adam and Candace’s sake, I will not provide line-by-line analysis. I also apologize to Mark Morgan for not providing a succinct overview in a different post. (BTW Mark: When we win the Super Bowl – or some equally important award – can we go to Somaliland?) However, I will point out that I think that many of the arguments forwarded by the proponents of creating more competitive debate in Wisconsin go unresponded to…Of particular note, my undisputed understanding that *currently* high school debate tournaments hosted in Wisconsin (save maybe Marquette) make little to no money…

Without re-iterating my previous posts, particularly because I believe that everyone else except for Adam and Candace have echoed my sentiments, I have some closing thoughts.

1) Jim Sauer. In my 10 years of involvement with academic policy debate, I have found that Jim Sauer is one of the best role models and advocates of this activity. What would Jim Sauer say and do in this situation?

2) Adam Jacobi and Candace Kissinger. Based upon your comments, which center on time and money, let me propose this: Do not travel your debate teams – anywhere. Host completely inter-squad debates. The beauty of inter-squad debate is that it seems to allay both of your concerns. You can schedule inter-squad debate when you want to and for how long you want to and there are essentially no expenses.

2A) Adam Jacobi and Candace Kissinger: As a necessary corrolary of number 2, do not hold up WDCA approval of Joe Klopotek and Nick Bubb’s “one big tournament per month for at least four months” idea. My understanding of their suggestion is that at least once per month there is only ONE TOURNAMENT SCHEDULED in the State of Wisconsin for that weekend. I support this idea. I do NOT support having only one tournament per month in the State of Wisconsin. If you choose not to travel to that tournament you can host inter-squad debates or take the weekend off. Alternatively, travel to *fewer* tournaments per year. Logically, I think that either alternative saves money.

2B) Adam Jacobi and Candace Kissinger. Obviously, I doubt that you or your debators will only want to participate in inter-squad debates. Likely, you see some educational value (if nothing else) to having your teams debate other teams. Fine. However, where do you draw the line at how *many* teams should be at a tournament to achieve those benefits? Additionally, you can CHOOSE not to participate in the proposed one big tournament per month concept.

Joe Klopotek and Nick Bubb: Thank you for your idea. I like it as a starting point.

Before someone goes down a tangent complaining about my style of presentation or my singling people out – ask yourself: did Neal attack any individual in his or her personal capacity?

Although I have never been to a WDCA meeting, my understanding is that approval of the calendar goes to majority vote. Obviously, it would take someone to determine what weekends are the least conflictual with national circuit tournaments…but I think that person is easy enough to find. It is readily apparent that teams that do travel have coaches who do their best to balance the needs and desires of their teams between Wisconsin and elsewhere.

All I ask of those coaches who vote at the WDCA are two things:
1) Consider this proposal when drafting the schedule for next year, and
2) Keep in mind that you and your teams have options other than just saying no to the one big tournament per month proposal, particularly considering that the remaining weekends can continue the North/South split. Whereas you can CHOOSE not to participate because every coach acts independently I think that it is unfair of you to essentially VETO something because it may negatively impact you. Of course, you can act independently to minimize any potential impact as described above.

I leave you with how I began: What would Jim Sauer do? I am pretty certain that I know the answer.

By Neal Krokosky on Dec 4, 2007

My apologies. After posting, I realized that I made a typographical error. Please insert *Nancy Wisniewski* in place of all references to *Candace Kissinger.* Sorry Candace.

By Neal Krokosky on Dec 4, 2007

Mr. Krokosky,

Let’s look at exactly how you started this discussion. This is a direct cut and paste: When will the State of Wisconsin debate community finally realize the value of having ONE (1) tournament in this State per weekend?

The thread does not start with a suggestion of a single tournament once per month. That is a reasonable suggestion/compromise that was posted later. My comments were addressed to the idea of one tournament per weekend. In fact, when I started my response, there was only one post after your line-by-by line. I didn’t immediately finish it and posted it later. I was surprised later that there had been so much activity on the thread.

I apologize if you took serious offense to my comment of high-school-debater-ish. I apologized in my response before I wrote the words as an indication that it was meant to be somewhat tongue in cheek. It just seemed to be that what started out as a good discussion of ideas reverted to a – Well you dropped my argument so I win – scenario.

I guess I viewed discussions on this website as an open forum to share ideas. (And some great ideas were shared.) I didn’t think I needed to flow them and treat it as a contest where ideas that aren’t immediately responded to are inadvertently conceded and someone “wins.” How sad that some are treating this discussion as a win-loss matter.

I ‘m trying to not read too much into your: “Do not travel your debate teams – anywhere.” comment. There seems to be a lot of subtext in the “anywhere.” How unfortunate. Please reread my post. I never said, and don’t think I implied, that travel is bad. I raised the concern to your first suggestion that having only one tournament in the state per weekend – which would probably put us out of town 3 weekends per month – would likely preclude our participation. As a new coach trying to build a team, I saw that suggestion as a death sentence. I guess I had hoped that maybe someone was interested in the perspective of a new coach since the real problem boils down to a lack of teams and small tournaments. Apparently I was wrong. Your 2A assumption that I (not Candace) would “hold up WDCA approval of Joe Klopotek and Nick Bubb’s “one big tournament per month for at least four months” idea” is really an unfair assumption to draw and just plain silly.

Last weekend, you seemed to have had a satisfying experience in Appleton. That tournament was not an option for us, but we had a really satisfying experience at Nathan Hale/Greendale. Two tournaments. One weekend. All I was asking in my post was that people try to keep options open for the small teams that can’t afford to travel. I didn’t and don’t think that was unreasonable.

By Nancy Wisniewski on Dec 4, 2007

One additional thought. Some people are apparently aghast that I said Mr. Krokosky’s contribution to the discussion read like a high school debate speech, but no one seems to mind Mr. Korkosky’s comments about the poor quality of debate he has seen this year, even in final rounds. I wonder how those students who are following this feel? It’s okay for him to dismiss the efforts and abilities of these KIDS, but it’s not okay when someone comments on the tone of his writing.

By Nancy Wisniewski on Dec 4, 2007

I’m not entirely sure I agree with Neal’s method of posting; the aggressive nature of the responses combined with the “debater style” might be easy for CERTAIN folks to follow, but isn’t necessary conducive to an overall discussion.

That aside, I think Neal et al are correct; the reasonable and intelligent compromise to the accurate problems that have been identified is one “large” tournament every month. As Nick indicated above, such a solution isn’t unreasonable; in fact, when I began debating as a freshman, the advocated arrangement was the status quo. September’s “big meet” was the Hilltopper Classic; the Pius Challenge claimed late October/Early November; December contained (on consecutive weeks) the Appleton East Challenge and the State Tournament.

The aforementioned schedule isn’t QUITE one “big” tournament per month, but it’s definitely close enough given the difficulty of arranging Wisconsin’s local schedule with respect to some of the larger National tournaments that are held in the Midwest. The Mid-America Cup, New Trier, East Grand Rapids, Iowa Caucus, University of Michigan, and the Glenbrooks are ALL held in the Midwest during Wisconsin’s debate season. Without trying to sound elitist or approach this discussion from a “national-tournament-first” perspective, I can objectively say that these national tournaments offer to students an education that realistically cannot be achieved through exclusively local debate. This isn’t a knock against WI debate–but the national circuit allows students to experience a more complex arsenal of arguments, larger pools of competition, different judge to offer advice and refine strategies, and the opportunity to debate against some of the Nation’s most talented speakers (it’s objectively true that good debaters exist outside of WI).

I’m ENTIRELY sympathetic to financial concerns. My team (Sheboygan North) cannot afford to attend every national tournament mentioned above. Despite the fact that many of them are held in relatively close proximity to Sheboygan, we’ve only been able to attend four of them–the MOST our school has attended since 1991.

There are, however, ways around the financial burdens that “traveling” teams are forced to endure. Teams can carpool, share hotels, borrow judging commitments, and contact tournament directors ahead of time to locate alternative housing since hotel costs are generally quite high. I think Joe makes a wonderful point in identifying the “wealthy” nature of the national circuit; public schools like Sheboygan North, SPASH, Nicolet, Appleton East, and Brookfield Central would have an amazingly difficult time trying to out-fund some of the nation’s most wealthy schools. But the logical solution to such an economic gap is NOT a withdrawal to in-state isolation. Some of the nation’s best debaters, most cohesive teams, and most knowledgeable coaches reign from public schools. Moreover, almost all of the “wealthy” national teams are MORE than willing to fill cite requests and disclose their strategies–access to pre-tournament intelligence has empirically allowed small schools to close the apparent gap.

The REAL debate at hand, though, is NOT the validity of national debate; I think that, despite a few dissenting votes, the majority of our community agrees that national circuit competition serves an educational purpose. Every month September through December (or even January), at least ONE weekend exists during which Wisconsin debate could hold a “large” tournament. While I understand that such an arrangement would force certain schools to re-schedule/give up their tournaments, I think that the alternative is worse.

I fanatically agree with Neal’s analysis of the current state of Wisconsin debate–something must be done. While his remarks may have been harsh, I fail to understand why being upfront and honest is necessarily a bad thing. Similar to Neal, I had not seen a “national” level debate involving two Wisconsin teams until this weekend in Appleton. This might be partly as a result of my team’s absence from a few Wisconsin tournaments, but I highly doubt that I’m alone in my opinion that the general quality of WI debate has declined. In fact, I’m sure that at least ten others share my sentiments.

There’s little doubt that genuinely difficult competition facilitates improvement faster than any alternative. When I was still debating, I know that I learned the most NOT in the rounds that I rolled the competition (not that there were many of those anyway) but in the rounds in which I was handily defeated. When debaters compete against more experienced, more proficient, and more innovative adversaries, they themselves are forced to improve their own skills in order to compete at a reasonable level.

Ultimately, sacrifices need to be made. Every school LOVES having their own tournament, but the impact to this cycle of selfishness and separatism is the education–the intellectual value of in-state debate is directly related to the frequency with which the entire state is able to come together for intense competitions. One “large” tournament each month is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, feasible. I’m sure that when the coaches push such a proposal at the spring meeting, we’ll face extremely difficult opposition. But while we all understand that every school wants to host its own tournament, the community MUST realize that concessions will need to be made if we, as a state, are to re-establish some sort of cohesion. The alternative to bringing the state back together seems to be further separation; and as we’ve already seen, that’s something that none of us want.

By Jon Voss on Dec 4, 2007

For about thirty seconds, I was utterly confused and pissed… :-)

It’s good to hear from Nancy about the struggles she is experiencing with her new program.

I think that Jon’s post about saving costs is very good. If we had one larger tournament a month, I think it would be easy to coordinate and save costs. When I was with Brookfield Central, we often had empty spots in hotel rooms or in our van that could have been shared with another Milwaukee area school. I am sure that students would be just as excited to save costs as coaches since it costs the debaters more when they have to front $100/night for a double room with only two people in it. As a female coach in the community, I also had my own room often because there was no one else I could stay with. Coordination between rooms for coaches might also be a possibility.

When I debated in Idaho, all of the Boise schools would rent a bus together and go to the larger tournament together. This helped dramatically drop costs and it was a great way to meet other debaters in the Boise area. I am not sure why the Milwaukee area couldn’t do this? I also think that most host schools could provide some free housing with their debaters as Jon said. I frankly think all of this just requires a bit more coordination.

Also, I thought with the creation of the Milwaukee UDL that more local Milwaukee tournaments would be created. Did this happen? This is not to say that I don’t think Milwaukee UDL schools should be at other tournaments, but I was just curious.

Best,

Candace

By Candace Kissinger on Dec 4, 2007

Correction on my last line, so I don’t sound like an asshole.

I love UDL and want them at every tournament in WI.

By Candace Kissinger on Dec 4, 2007

Emily, I think some sort of poll for students or way for them to give feedback would be a great idea.

By Candace Kissinger on Dec 4, 2007

I agree that having a large tournament per month would be good. As a suggestion maybe have each large tournament in different regions of Wisconsin. So in September we have Marquette (or some other school in the Milwaukee Area), then maybe one in Madison, one in Appleton, and one in Sheboygan. or what ever other combination.

But I would like to address Emily’s D point. I totally agree that going against better competition is good. But to say that teams purposefully avoid tournaments to stay away from the better debaters is quite wrong for you to say. My school (Bradley Tech) qualified in switch at Mukwanago because there were not enough entries for V4. We were going to go to Mukwanago anyway because of its close proximity, which your statement fails to take into consideration. If there is a tournament in the south that we can go to, we go to it regardless of who’s there. For speech in the spring, we have often gone up north to Berlin, Hortonville and New London because there was nothing offered in to south. So again just be careful when you make generalizations like that. It doesn’t apply to everyone.

By Steve Finch on Dec 4, 2007

Thank you. I just wanted a little clarification.

I have one other question for the individuals who thought of the one big tournament a month idea. Is this something that you are suggesting for VSS only or for both 4-person (as long as we continue to have it) and VSS?

By Steve Finch on Dec 4, 2007

That’s a really good point, Steve; none of the arguments made above are exclusive to VSS, or even *just* policy debate. I think a monthly “large” tournament would be beneficial for all debaters in all divisions.

By Jon Voss on Dec 4, 2007

the Poll function on WFD is broke and is beyond repair.

I don’t want our non-action on this topic to seem like a rejection of the idea.

By Nick Bubb on Dec 4, 2007

I created the following survey. Please feel free to offer suggestions/ways to improve the length/questionaire style/quality of the survey. If you feel that distributing the survey at the state tournament is a constructive and useful idea in gaining insight to debaters’ opinions please let me know. What method of distribution do you feel would be most effective at the state tournament? (the format for question two is a bit odd because of the way posting online formatted it- but it’s more understandable in a word document).

Please circle the answer you feel is most appropriate. There is additional space at the bottom of the survey for additional comments/suggestions that you may have. Your responses to this survey are very important to your coaches and to the members of WDCA. It is important for the WDCA to hear high school debaters’ ideas about the debate season and what can be done to improve it.

1. If there was only one in-state tournament per weekend, I feel that the quantity of teams/participants in each division would increase.

A. Agree
B. Disagree

2. One in-state tournament per weekend would increase the level of competition at each tournament.

A. Agree
1. If you answered A, do you think that increased competition would

a. Deter the participation of new debate programs

b. Encourage the participation of new debate programs

c. Do nothing

d. Other: ___________________

B. Disagree

3. I would enjoy more competition at in-state tournaments.

A. Agree
B. Disagree

4. I think that the status quo (two smaller, more local tournaments) is more enjoyable.

A. Agree
B. Disagree

5. I would prefer…

A. One large(r) in-state tournament per weekend
B. Two small(er) in-state tournaments per weekend

6. Please read descriptions 1-5 then select the appropriate letter answer below the numbers to reflect your idea of the ideal debate tournament

1. Many teams
2. Few teams
3. Varying degrees of skill amongst competitors (a mix of both high caliber teams and inexperienced teams)
4. low level of competition only
5. high level of competition only

your answer:

A. numbers 1 and 3
B. numbers 1 and 4
C. numbers 1 and 5
D. numbers 2 and 3
E. numbers 2 and 4
F. numbers 2 and 5

7. My ideal debate tournament (as answered above) would be best served by:

A. Two smaller, local in-state tournaments per weekend

B. One larger, in-state tournament per weekend

Just some general information about your debate background:

8. Please choose the description which best describes the school your team is from:

A. A large, public school
B. A small, public school
C. A large, private school
D. A small, private school

9. I would consider the funding for the debate program at my school to be…

A. Plentiful
B. Sufficient
C. Insufficient
D. Almost non-existent
E. I’m not sure

*please provide a brief explanation why you feel this way

10. My team travels to approximately _____ national-circuit tournaments- such as Wake Forest, Glenbrooks, and Blake (excluding nationals) between the months of August through December.

A. None
B. 1-2
C. 3-4
D. 5+

11. The out-of-state tournaments my team attends is primarily constrained by:

A. Money

B. My coaches’ ability/desire

C. Transportation

D. I’m not sure

E. Other _______________

12. This is my _____ year debating in the state of Wisconsin
A. First
B. Second
C. Third
D. Fourth
E. I am a coach/judge

Thank You for taking the time to complete the survey.

If you had any additional comments or suggestions about debate tournaments in Wisconsin or ways to improve and encourage debate in Wisconsin please express those ideas here:

Comments/suggestions:

By Emily Kapszukiewicz on Dec 4, 2007

I’m trying to figure out how I have become such a pariah in the WI debate community that my name is thrown around with all sorts of inaccuracies attached to it. Was it the 3 word phrase hereafter known as HSD that I dare not repeat? Or was it that my concerns that a debate schedule dependent on travel would hurt my team? My first impulse was to not respond any further to the posts, but I am really bothered that so many views have been attributed to me that are incorrect.

I’ll start with one observation that I feel I need to repeat.
When Neal writes of the poor debate,- insulting the efforts of children – he is just calling it as he sees it. Yet, when I say his response is HSD, I am crossing some kind of line and deserve to be strung up. It does amuse me in small part however, that so many people have decided that HSD is a the most terrible of insults. As I mentioned in my second post, it was meant to be tongue – in – cheek (hence the “forgive me” that preceded it in the post.) And I apologized to Mr. Krokosky in my second post, saying that I didn’t intend to seriously offend him. And here we are, numerous posts later, and some people can’t let it go. That seems to be the only thing that was gleaned from my posts. Aren’t we all – at least in part – high school debaters at heart? Didn’t I, in the first paragraph of my first post identify myself as a former high school debater? Have we no sense of humor here? I can tell when I go into HSD mode, and when I do, I know that content is sometime sacrificed over form, technicalities, and speed. My brother used to call me on it all the time. Here, I was bothered that some serious concerns were raised, but lost in claims of conceded arguments and oversimplifications. So one final time – and I promise to let it go.

1. Please let me clarify a point both Neal and Emily seemed to have missed. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE ONE BIG TOURNAMENT A MONTH IDEA. I am tempted to retype that for emphasis. I indicate this in both the 2nd and 5th paragraphs of my response. In the second paragraph I call it a reasonable compromise. In the 5th paragraph I say it is silly and unreasonable for Neal to assume that I would somehow block the idea. I will repeat, my comments were written to address the one tournament a weekend idea, not the one big tournament per month idea. For all of the numbered and sub-pointed responses that were suppose to add clarity, many people seemed to have missed that.

2. It is also unreasonable and truly unfair to assume that I am somehow wanting to avoid good competition for my team. (Post 43 2D) I reread my posts, and I’m still not seeing from where that conclusion came. A few of you who know me know that when my daughter was her entire forensic team in 2006, I worked hard to support her and help her while she rebuilt the team. Due mostly to her efforts, we fielded a small team and attended most of the big forensic meets last Spring (and I personally paid the expenses the few times we had 2 or 3 students stay from Friday into Saturday). We sought out good competition and have had some good success. We are now trying to expand into debate. We have stepped outside of the comfort or the Milwaukee Debate League in order to widen our experience. Why is Emily convinced that I don’t want to give my kids a competitive schedule? Frankly, I’d love to take them to all of the National meets if time (theirs and mine) and money (theirs and mine) were no object.

I shared in this forum my concerns that the one meet a week travel schedule could kill my team. No one bothered to address that – in part because the thread shifted to a one big meet a month idea. Somehow, I was assumed to be an evil opponent to that fine idea.

3. Thank you Candace for acknowledging that my comments were about the struggles of starting a new team. You asked if UDL teams are joining the ranks of the WDCA. Last year, DeBois HS started attending WDCA meets. This year, as far as I can tell, my daughters’ school is the latest addition. There are a lot of schools with new coaches and programs. Some have expressed interest in joining WDCA once they feel a little more comfortable with the whole process. I have to be honest here – after this Welcome Wagon of incorrect assumptions and accusation thrown at me when I dared to express my opinion, I’m not feeling too comfortable myself.

I hope to meet many of you at State. I am not the evil, uninformed, or close minded person I have been made out to be.

By Nancy Wisniewski on Dec 4, 2007

being a debater, i see no reason to take any offense if a judge calls a round “bad”….. you can usually figure them out for yourself, and hearing a judge say that gives you an incentive to improve even more

also on a side note i do not understand why at the Appleton east challenge they gave no oral kritiks or discloser of LD out rounds (at least the ones i saw) yet they were given in VSS rounds. I think receiving oral kritiks from judges is very helpful (and every one wants to know how they do) so i was curious as to why they were not being given at all in LD (except a few of my prelim rounds) i understand that Tab Rooms want ballots, but why not give orals more often in LD, they are done in VSS where rounds are 2X longer?

By Samuel N. Hope IV on Dec 4, 2007

I have been away from this thread, fighting a nasty upper respiratory infection — I’m disappointed at how people have been attacking one another in a very direct manner. As I mentioned earlier (post 20), this doesn’t need to be specific, line-by-line “take-outs.” [As much as it seems those of us who have and currently do debate in high school might feel comfortable with]. I did not debate as a student. I bring a different perspective to coaching this activity: this is a big picture, real-world issue; one that demands a synthesis of concepts. The real world seldom uses line-by-lie deconstruction of arguments. I have worked far too long in public relations, legislative affairs and politics to consider any pragmatic value in that line of reasoning. You are free to disagree with that paradigm — as it were — but that’s who I am and how I argue (and perhaps that makes me no different than the so-called “dinosaurs”). If we are to encourage discourse vis-a-vis this blog, then we must be open to different styles of argument.

Additionally, I must defend two personal attacks made of me as “ad hominem.” Mr. Krokosky made a connection between my reference to elitist mentality and his post. That wasn’t the intention, and when I re-read my original post, I was clearly asking rhetorical questions for the sake of discussion, not attacking him directly. Moreover, my reference to “mature” was exactly as Mrs. Wisniewski interpreted it: I was simply referring to the need to “take out” every argument as something not often done in real-world decision-making.

I’m sorry this discussion took such a sour turn, and it’s disappointing that several of the posters (I’m not singling anyone out individually) seem to have trouble distancing their arguments from personal integrity. Again, after re-reading my comments, I stand by my record of not making any direct “against the person” attacks. If those are inferred, that’s unfortunate.

I think there were some great compromises proposed, particularly by Bill. As stated so succinctly by Mrs. Wisniewski, there are no winners and losers here, because there are no absolutes in real-world decision-making. Compromises to polarized positions are what makes for progress. Patience to see compromise move toward a particular position is the next step.

By Adam Jacobi on Dec 4, 2007

Sam highlights a great point that I would love to see done more. I may have been one of the few people that actually would disclose and give my RFD and several things that LD debaters could work on – back before I was disillusioned with LD debate.

By Nick Bubb on Dec 5, 2007

This is completely off topic, but I saw today that Midwest Airlines is having a huge ticket sale. If any of you will be traveling in January to tournaments, you might want to check it out.

http://www.midwestairlines.com/MAWeb/travelDeals/dealDisplay.aspx?id=234

Also, you get a free companion ticket.
http://www.midwestairlines.com/MAWeb/travelDeals/dealDisplay.aspx?id=230

Best,

Candace

By Candace Kissinger on Dec 5, 2007

Yeah, I have said in a round where debaters were not debating up to their potential because we see them week after week, that they did not do so good. Most debaters don’t seem to have a problem with it.

By Steve Finch on Dec 5, 2007

Candace, you just saved us about a thousand dollars on Emory tickets. Thank you!!!!

~Bill

By Bill Batterman on Dec 5, 2007

Your welcome. :-)

By Candace Kissinger on Dec 5, 2007

Sam, I would have loved to give you an oral critique after the out rounds were done. Unfortunately, debaters seem to just get up and leave without asking if i am going to provide them with an oral critique. not all judges do give one, but please ask me- because i *always* will. I know that you’ve had me for a judge before, and i have never failed to provide you with a disclosure and other comments about the round- with the exception of your outround at east. I didn’t comment then because one of the other judges didn’t seem to agree with the idea of an oral critique. please feel free to ask me after a round is done if i will provide you with an o/c. also, please email me about the out round at east if you have any questions.

By Emily Kapszukiewicz on Dec 5, 2007

my email is emily.kapszukiewicz@snc.edu. if anyone *else* would like to email me about any other concerns- feel free.

i have a spam filter

By Emily Kapszukiewicz on Dec 5, 2007