Wisconsin Forensics Daily

1. 15 Responses to “WDCA Spring Meeting Discussion: Novice Packet System”

2. Just a few observations – we weren’t as active this year due to a death in the family, but we intend to come out of the gate more quickly next fall!

   1. The novice packet is a fine idea and it helps newer coaches/students, as well as older coaches who need a quick overview of the topic and case area for beginners. (that could be a good budgetary thing…)

   2. There was a good variety of cases with appropriate negative evidence. Kids had evidence on all aspects of the novice case areas and there were no surprises which sometimes discourage new kids.

   3. The length of the cases, however, was a problem – perhaps a little less content so the new kids can work on delivery – many felt they needed to cram as much in as possible to be “good”. Some of our judges believed that some of the evidence was well beyond the understanding of the kids in their rounds. (but then again, we weren’t at that many tournaments this year…)

   4. Continue the packet, but how about giving it strictly in evidence format – have coaches and students work out their own case organization?

   5. Let’s keep the phase out date, or even more it up to the 3rd week of October?

   By Sharon Sharko on Apr 17, 2009

3. 1. I liked the packet and because it set the evidence, this enabled novice debaters to learn argumentation skills as well as evidence application for backing their argument claims.
   2. The affirmatives were strong. These made teaching novices how to debate very efficient. I was able to structure “how to debate” so expediently, students who completed a fall sport were able to join the team without reinventing the wheel.
   3. Using a third party’s negative strategy yielded a mixed blessing. Some of the arguments didn’t work. Also, downloading the evidence was not efficient because of server problems and district filters. When the arrangement of the files was made available to circumvent server and filter issues, some of the files were not present.
   4. Yes! Please do it again. This time, get proposals from the member coaches to supplement what gets developed by the coaches at MUDI. Put out a “call for arguments” files in July with specifications such as number of pages and format. When the novice packet is assembled, the committee will have more to consider and hopefully, develop an even higher quality packet.
   5. Keep the packet all season.

   By Steve Gargo on Apr 17, 2009

4. I didn’t judge in the novice division at many WDCA tournaments but I’d like to respond to number five: I’m in favor of “phasing-out” the novice packet after Nov. 1. I look at it as a start-up kit and I believe that a) debaters should have a good feel for the format after two months and b) student driven research breeds creativity and ownership, which makes judging more enjoyable.

   By Corey Mehlos on Apr 19, 2009

5. I have a few problems with the novice packet as a middle level coach:
   1. Use of the packet was not uniformly enforced, outside arguments were allowed even when judges were told by the opposing side. It was not made clear what the sanctions would be. Novices were disregarding the packet and denying it to judges.
   2. the packet for the most part did not have a diversity of sources.
   3. It did nothing to help my students understanding of debate, it hampered their understanding of the entire topic and it took much longer for them identify the issues they were actually debating. For my students it was more a sport of reading than debating until the limits were removed.

   At this time I do not support the continuation of the evidence packet. It did not encourage urban debaters to try WDCA that were not already WDCA. It made my job easier as a coach but made it harder to keep the kids interested. Many of my students wanted to leave policy debate and do public forum instead. This year I may have to bow to their pressure if the packet stays in place. Cheryl Bachtell

   By Cheryl Bachtell on Apr 20, 2009

6. I think that the novice packet system was a good idea. I think that the set of evidence was good for the most part. I think that the impact was both positive and negative. It was positive in the sense that new debaters were able to understand that clash is probably the most important part of debate. The set of evidence created a lot of clash in novice rounds when in the past there was not as much.

   However, the negative impacts include decreasing the amount of creativity that in the past we did have and also that it was really hard to verify what arguments are acceptable and which are not. Because this verification is almost impossible I don’t know if we should have the novice packet again next year. The only way that I see the novice packet being more of a success or what we thought the success would be is if judges know the novice packet front and back to decide if there should be a disqualification. Also these newer debaters may decide that they don’t want to do debate ever again if a question of their evidence is brought to their attention. If judges can’t give out disqualifications (which I would assume is the case) then there must be an outlined system that would get the tournament director or members of the tournament practices committee (do we have one of those?) to assess the questioned evidence if a debater or judge would question evidence. But still, judges must know that packet or if there is evidence that is questioned, a serious look by the judge and tournament is needed. I think that may have happened in some rounds and for whatever reasons judges just didn’t take it seriously enough.

   By Steve Finch on Apr 23, 2009

7. I think Steve’s right — in discussing rounds with my freshman debaters and judges in novice pools at various tournaments, the enforcement issue was a big one. There was no precisely outlined penalty from straying from the packet, and no brightline for “how far one can stray”.

   As an educational model for debate, I continue to support the WDCA’s novice evidence packet. Last year was the packet’s first year of implementation, and speaking generally, I think debates increased in quality and new debaters were better-suited to learn the “core skills” necessary to move on to more advanced styles of debate.

   The WDCA wasn’t able to do a “dry run” before implementing the packet — given that the orchestrators of the packet were “flying blind”, year one probably went as well as reasonably could’ve been expected. There are still kinks that need to be worked out; but the WDCA would be ill-advised to abandon an initiative with so much potential after only one year.

   By Jon on Apr 24, 2009

8. One thing that I noticed last year is that there were not many schools in the Novice division early in the season at tournaments when we implemented the packet. Once the deadline was over, the novice division exploded. Now there may be potential with this packet, but can we risk low numbers at tournaments as a result of coaches who are against the packet, or students who don’t want to compete at meets because they don’t understand the packet, or lose to other students who don’t follow the packet strictly. Maybe we need to look at the whole picture here.

   By Ernest Chomicki on Apr 24, 2009

9. I think my recommendation that you eliminate the mandatory requirement still stands. The only risk is that teams seek to avoid clash by using the packet for intel against the teams that don’t do their own research and then intentionally pick arguments that avoid the evidence packet. It still maintains all of the educational merits of having a packet.

   I would suggest a list of packet mandatory tournaments and packet optional tournaments for the beginning of the year and survey judges, coaches, and debaters at the tournaments to see which is preferred…or if the concept of having packet mandatory and packet optional tournaments on the same weekend is even a better alternative to picking one or the other.

   By Cory Puuri on Apr 27, 2009

10. Even the wacky pitching coach from “Rookie of the Year” would tell a new pitcher that you don’t try to throw a curveball until you master the 4-seamer. In basketball, you don’t start practicing reverse dunks until you can execute a lay-up. When a child get’s his/her temporary driver’s license, you don’t take him/her driving in Chicago until they can drive around the parking lot without hitting a pole. Cory’s suggestion is analogous — debaters need to learn HOW to debate before they start crafting their own args.

    At the novice level, learning core debate skills outweighs education — there’s a reason that the even the best debate teams in the nation don’t let students start cutting their own arguments until their junior year. There are a couple of theories which explain the alarmingly high policy debate dropout rate in WI:
    1) Only a small fraction of novice debaters master CLASH and ARGUMENT COMPREHENSION by the end of year one. Those who don’t are objectively MILES behind the 8-ball, which makes debate a rigged game that very few people want to play.
    2) Big school advantage — at the novice level over the past number of years (in general), the teams with more debaters and coaches who were willing to cut cards destroyed the teams that weren’t packing anything except the Baylor Briefs. Granted, there have been exceptions. And granted, the big school debaters still have to understand argumentative execution. But in general, there’s an extremely positive relationship between the size and strength of a team’s research capabilities and their success at the novice level. Making the evidence packet optional would supercharge the small-school disadvantage — the teams that have students and coaches who have a talent for creating arguments would exploit *every* loophole in the novice packet. Once again, that makes debate less fun, doesn’t teach clash/argument interaction, and ensures that the WSDT’s VSS division will only contain teams from a handfull of schools. Mandating the evidence packet, at least for a portion of the season, forces every debater onto an even playing field (at least in terms of argument quality and quantity). We need to show EVERY debater that debate is an activity in which the shortest David can cripple the tallest Golliath. Vital to establishing such a perception is showing debaters in their first ten-or-so tournaments that debate is a UNIQUE activity in which brains trump brawn. Even if the small school/big school disparity is inevitable at some point along the road of policy debate, it’s just TRUE that debaters will be MORE WILLING to cope with inequality if they’re convinced:
    a) debate is fun
    b) inequality can be overcome
    Maintaining a strict packet framework with a LIMITED NUMBER of CORE arguments is vital to teach debaters the core skills of debate and show them that debate is an arena where anyone can succeed.

    The risk of teams using the packet as an intelligence tool to side-step teams that don’t have the means to cut their own arguments is almost 100%. Even at the highest levels of HS and collegiate debate, the community caps the level of disclosure at citations. Giving teams a packet and then allowing teams to research *around* the packet is the worst possible educational model — your suggestion is a direct incentive to avoid clash.

    By Jon Voss on Apr 28, 2009

11. I feel very mixed about the limited novice packet system. On the positive side, I had new middle school debaters who could at least read evidence and begin to understand the clash. Also, debaters with less experienced coaches have more opportunity to compete with debaters with experienced coaches. On the negative side, I had experienced debaters with creative thoughts who were held back by the packet.

    I also felt the interpretation of the system was not clearly understood by all parties: judges as well as coaches. I originally understood that the novice packet had to be used through the first tournament in Nov. At that tournament, I found that everyone else was bringing in new evidence. Also, can arguments not listed in the evidence packets still be used? I think the novice topic should be the limitation, not the evidence.
    I also agree with those who have said the judges were not in a position to judge if non-packet evidence was being used.

    If the novice evidence packet is retained, I favor moving up the date for using “outside” evidence and argument to Oct. 1, or Oct. 8. This would allow debaters to get their feet wet with the novice packet, and those who felt more adventuresome could move ahead. I personally would encourage debaters who are having trouble understanding the topic to stay within the packet until they are more comfortable with the topic. I don’t think all debaters are in that position and should not be held back.

    By Andy Moss on May 8, 2009

12. Jon: You spent a lot of time swinging for the bleachers and then completely missed my suggestion for how to resolve the problem. The solution I offered completely solves the risk of doing away with a temporal packet restriction.

    The only benefit of a packet is to speed up the process of getting to live debates so that students can work on their presentation and clash skills. You don’t need a packet to teach research, writing, argument structure, etc. On the other hand, there is no reason why you need to put novice debaters on creative lock down for 2/3rds of a season to get them to clash.

    You played collectible card games in HS, right? The thing that makes game theory so effective is the mix of structure and creative freedom. It really does work to offer options to entry-level competitors. It works especially well if you have the options on the same weekend (even better if you could offer them at the same tournament).

    BTW, because I find your opening somewhat condescending, I’ll answer each one of your analogies with one simple response. Each one of your examples is not based in the rules of the game but rather a coach’s preference for bringing a student/player along. That’s a pretty significant flaw.

    By Cory Puuri on May 8, 2009

13. Georgia has *packet* and *non-packet* divisions of novice at some of their tournaments. I would fully support that, but I don’t think we have the numbers (yet, hopefully) to support that. In an ideal world, we could build the size of the novice division up to a level that would support packet and non-packet divisions at a few tournaments, especially early-season ones.

    ~Bill

    By Bill Batterman on May 9, 2009

14. Couldn’t you run packets in the North opposite non-packets in the South and rotate them?

    BTW, I was a little surprised JV got canned from the WSDT? That was probably a great move for PF, but it was a pretty bad move for retaining less-experienced debaters in Policy.

    By Cory Puuri on May 15, 2009

15. > Couldn’t you run packets in the North opposite non-packets in the South and rotate them?

    Certainly, but we don’t have enough tournaments to do that unfortunately. This makes sense, but we first have to build the schedule up again so that there *are* tournaments in the North and South on the same weekend. That’s only true for a few weekends this year.

    > BTW, I was a little surprised JV got canned from the WSDT? That was probably a great move for PF, but it was a pretty bad move for retaining less-experienced debaters in Policy.

    There was a surprisingly large (at least to me) consensus about this change. It was presented/defended as a way to ensure the sustainability/viability of V4. Invitational tournaments can still (and will still) offer JV divisions, but JV debaters that qualify for the WSDT will compete at the varsity level. This will hopefully result in larger varsity divisions and more incentives for students to “move up” once they’ve done well at JV tournaments.

    There are certainly counter-arguments, some of which were raised at the Spring meeting, but people seemed pretty supportive of this change.

    ~Bill

    By Bill Batterman on May 15, 2009

16. Speaking from my own team’s experience, I have had too many JV students unwilling to put in the work for a state touranment because they knew they could just sit in JV. Now, these people didn’t dominate JV because they were generally lazy, bu they did well enough that they could have made the jump. In some cases, I later kicked myself for not forcing the issue and I plan to do so more in the future.
    Those that did better at state JV probably had evern more reason to be in the varsity pool. So who is left? Those that are, frankly, very new or not very good JV debaters. Are we going to hold a state tournament for that? I know that sounds harsh, but the benefits of that versus pushing students to learn more, do more and achieve more? I didn’t see it as a hard decision. For me, it had less to do with “viability” of any division and more to do with education and competition philosophy. Now, elimiating JV at tournaments? That I don’t want to see. My former novices will be doing JV tournaments the first third to half of the year, then they will move up. They already know they can’t stay there and they are girding themselves for the effort already. This rule change has already helped my team in just the way I expected. BTW, thosethat are moving to PF are those that were never going to be varsity policy debaters for one reason or another anyway. Instead of dropping the team, they are now moving to a style of debate much more in-line with their personalities. I didn’t lose anything. In fact, the rule has HELPED my team retention.

    By Dan Hansen on May 18, 2009

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.