WDCA Spring Meeting Documents
April 23, 2010 – 10:43 am by: Nick BubbThis post is to discuss various spring meeting proposals and reports. Proposals/Reports will be posted as they are submitted.
Reports
WDCA History Report – Doris Sexton, West Bend
2009 WDCA Season Survey Raw Data – Nick Bubb, Madison Memorial
2009 WDCA Season Survey Comments – Nick Bubb, Madison Memorial
Judge Certification Discussion – Dan Hansen, Mukwonago (document pending)
Ballot Tracking Initiative – Dan Hansen, Mukwonago (document pending)
Proposals
WDCA Paperless Barrier – Bill Batterman, Marquette (document pending)
WSDT Judge Preference Order – Tim Dale, UW-Green Bay (document pending)
Restriction on Maverick Debaters – Dan Hansen, Mukwonago (document pending)
40 Responses to “WDCA Spring Meeting Documents”
Will you put up 2010 Forensics State results soon please?
By Guest on Apr 24, 2010
I can’t post them until someone sends me the results.
By Nick Bubb on Apr 27, 2010
NICK – I was getting my emails to you sent back, presumably because my address book had you as @wisc.edu and I see now that your link on this post is a gmail account. I’m writing this to make sure the resend goes through. Just email me back a confirmation.
Thanks.
Dan
By dhansen on Apr 27, 2010
I just responded. It’s probably loaded with incomplete sentences and thoughts. This post has been updated with what you sent me. I still need documents on the items.
By Nick Bubb on Apr 27, 2010
I reading Bill’s proposal, it seems fair at first glance. I think it’s something we should give serious consideration to, but I would offer a friendly amendment, to make sure things remain equitable for teams of all sizes and budgets. This rule change could easily be made with a one year sunset provision. This lets the WDCA try it out, find out if it works and decide again after being able to collect some hard and fast data on the effects of paperless debate.
If I have any reluctance in supporting this proposal it lies in not being sure what it would do to competitive equity. I really, really don’t want to get into the usual argument about budgets, travel and the like. But, I want to make the playing field as level as possible and encourage as many kids from as many schools as possible to become involved. If anybody has data about the effects of paperless debate, I’d be interested in knowing about it.
By John Knetzger on Apr 29, 2010
There’s really no competitive issue — the current rule requires that a “hard copy” of evidence is provided to opponents/judges. There’s no reason a “hard copy” has to be a piece of paper instead of a netbook/laptop. As long as the team debating without paper provides the evidence to the other team, it’s not any different than the squo.
It would be a shame to see the WDCA “ban” paperless debating.
By Bill Batterman on Apr 30, 2010
Paperless evidence increases equity and empowers teams with less resources and avoids checked bag fees at airports, wasting paper and printer ink, and saves the time it takes to produce and file hard copies.
It also makes it a lot easier for kids to bring their evidence home, or to duplicate and back it up. And as an electronic pack rat, i’d love to archive debate evidence year-over-year.
This is a positive thing for tight budgets, not a negative.
By Shawn Matson on Apr 30, 2010
It’s a positive thing for school budgets ONLY IF it’s not a negative thing for personal budgets. What I mean by that is that all your statements are contingent upon students THAT HAVE LAPTOPS. The vast majority of mine cannot afford laptops. If one exists in the home, it is property of the parents for work and will not lend it to the student. Checked bag fees is only a consideration for national circuit teams, not generally those with the most restrictive budgets. If ANY student doesn’t have the laptop, paper copies are a necessity, so the time saved is minimal. That being said, unless it creates a competitive disadvantage, I don’t think we should legislate against it.
That leads me to my one possible concern. This will become less and less of an issue as technology advances and prices come down, but handing a laptop with what you read in the last speech to a kid who isn’t comfortable with laptops because he/she isn’t wealthy enough to have that kind of tech around constantly IS a competative advantage. The time it takes that kid to search for what he needs in the evidence compared to a paper copy is not insignificant with limited prep time.
One last question – I assume in your proposal that you mean for the paperless team to bring a laptop that is dedicated to being given to the other team so they can keep/use it during their speech? If so, great, but let’s write that in. If not; if you just meant they have to flash it at the other team in C-X, then I suddently have HUGE objections to what becomes anything BUT a minor change.
By dhansen on May 4, 2010
Copying expenses outweigh laptop expenses unless you’re getting paper/copies from your school for “free”. If that’s the situation, then obviously even a $2 laptop costs more than the squo. However, my sense is that most schools “charge” the debate team for paper/copies. Given that you can now get a netbook for $200 and laptops for barely more than that, it makes more sense for schools to buy laptops for their debate programs than to continue to buy paper/copies for them. Whether this is ultimately worth it is a case-by-case thing, but with the price of computer tech going down it’s only a matter of time before laptops are ubiquitous and paper copies are considered a fiscally irresponsible relic.
The other benefit to paperless debating that applies to every squad is that you can fit more students into smaller vehicles… no more 15-passenger/12-passenger vans stuffed with tubs = more comfortable and more safe transportation (and more teams able to compete for less money).
Anyway, I appreciate the points that others have made here and in backchannel. I just don’t think it’s unreasonable to allow debaters to use computers if that’s what they want to do. If some high school debaters aren’t capable computer users, I think that speaks to a failure of our educational system. Are there really high school students that can’t navigate a Word document? How do they write papers for school? How do they update their Facebooks? From their phones? And if such individuals do exist, should we really force everyone else to use paper as a remedy?
The intention of the rule is to ensure that the other team gets a “hard” copy of the evidence that is read in a debate, but not necessarily a “paper” copy. The availability of evidence should not change: depending on the preference of the opponent, a paperless team can flash the cards, hand over one of their own laptops, or provide a viewing computer. The best practice when debating teams without laptops is definitely a viewing computer, and that’s what teams that have gone paperless this year have done. I don’t necessarily think we should mandate viewing computers but I’m fine with that if it’s required to get people to vote for this proposal.
Westminster just won the TOC and they’ve been paperless all year. They provide a viewing computer, flash their speeches to it, and everyone is happy. In debate terms, this season has empirically denied the DAs–several programs have gone paperless without incident and there’s no reason Wisconsin shouldn’t allow this evolution to occur in our state. No one is forced to go paperless: if you love printing and copying and carting around tubs, you can continue to do so until your heart’s content.
By Bill Batterman on May 5, 2010
What time do we start?
By Ken Sajdak on May 6, 2010
Can I ask a couple of question regarding paperless?
The digital divide issues are real and need to be considered (Issue 1: Small schools, urban schools, rural schools. Issue 2: Increased cost to “novice” lead to less participation?), but my real questions are…
- Does going paperless INCREASE research load and reliance on evidence? What is the conversion rate? How many tubs fit on one computer?
- Does electronic evidence increase evidence sharing? (Especially between rounds. Are there ethical issues? And those of you who know me, increased time between rounds?)
- I assume that we will continue to prevent internet access during rounds? (although I suspect allowing that will be the next logical step – I can store evidence online online and have even better backup and security)
- Would the proposal be better (and allow for greater evidence falsification protection) if we require digital evidence to be in a certain format (pdf?)
By Ken Sajdak on May 6, 2010
The general meeting starts at 10:00 am.
By Nick Bubb on May 6, 2010
I don’t think that there really is going to be an increased cost. Correct me if I’m wrong Bill, but the suggestion merely allows schools to provide access on a computer screen as opposed to a piece of paper when evidence is requested.
Theoretically, all schools could continue using paper files, all could switch to laptops, or a mix. I don’t believe this forces schools to go digital. It merely allows choice.
So if cost is an issue for the school but they can afford to stay paper, then I’d assume they’d just stay paper and continue doing what they are doing now.
- I would assume kids would research as much as they would normally research. It actually may cut down on maintenance time as making a folder on a laptop is faster than making a physical folder.
-If a kid is going to cheat they are going to cheat, whether they have paper files or they have digital files. I think the ethical question of cheating isn’t really a player in paperless discussion.
-Preventing access is important still because googling arguments against your opponent is a competitive advantage when done midround. Pulling up already researched evidence you prepared however is not.
- Again you can cheat no matter what format you put it in. I can alter a word document to say Dr. Frankenfield has empirical proof Obama is actually a werewolf and then convert it to a PDF file. I could also print this document out and put it in my physical paper file. If you are concerned about individuals altering the document itself while they are debating, I can understand that, but I don’t think that is going to happen.
By James Hoggatt on May 6, 2010
Paperless is a lot cheaper for many teams that are charged for paper/copies. The “digital divide” arg is an aff one — if computers are more expensive than paper, teams can continue to use paper; if computers are cheaper, teams can transition to paperless.
There’s certainly a transition DA — paperless is hard to learn, so if paper/copying is affordable for your program it makes sense to keep doing it. It’s becoming unaffordable for some programs, though, at least compared to computer costs. “Don’t let big programs go paperless because small programs can’t afford laptops” seems like a nonstarter; there’s no mandate for paperless but there is a real “big teams can’t afford paper/copies” advantage to allowing the transition.
Does it increase the research load? No. You can store as many “tubs” on a computer as you want; there are no functional limits.
Does it increase evidence sharing? No. Most teams produce all of their evidence electronically and then print/copy it; that’s just as easy to email/dropbox/share as it is if you eliminate the printing/copying.
Does it lead to internet access in rounds? No. That’s a separate issue. Many teams use laptops now but are prohibited from accessing the internet. At some point when internet access and computers are ubiquitous, maybe that norm/rule changes. For now, it’s not going to change just because we eliminate the (kind of silly if you think about it) step of printing the files we create on the computer for use in our debates.
Should we mandate a format? Clearly no. 100% of the paperless teams that I know about have used Microsoft Word. Mandating PDF format would mean that Wisconsin programs can’t take advantage of the tools/technologies that others have developed. I know about a few projects to create paperless systems in OpenOffice — that would be awesome because there are no license fees to worry about, which means costs decrease even further. Laptops with Linux and OpenOffice are super cheap; if a team can debate paperlessly using that kind of tech, they’ll save a ton of money.
The bottom line is that there’s no reason to Ban paperless in Wisconsin. It’s already reaching critical mass at the college level, it’s beginning to proliferate in other regions, and it’s inevitable that paper will go the way of the dinosaurs in not too long. “My kids don’t have laptops” or “my kids don’t know how to use laptops” is not a reason to legislate “no kids may use laptops”; this is not a requirement that everyone go paperless but a correction/clarification to the rules so that “hardcopy” isn’t defined as only paper, not a computer screen.
By Bill Batterman on May 6, 2010
OK… devil’s advocate here…..
I’m a “paper” team. You are a “computer” team. What does that say non-verbally to the judges?
As for “cheating”. If they are going to do it, shouldn’t we have a standard that makes cheating a more difficult thing to do?
And, my issue of the size of hard drive may men that I carry more “crap” just in case they run into something bizzare?
I’m not opposed to computers, (I teach in a virtual school and one of my teams was an early adopter) we just need to move carefully to be able to preserve debate.
We (as a community) are WAY smaller today than we were 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and even 40 years ago when I debated in HS.
We need to worry about “barriers to entry” into debate.
By Ken Sajdak on May 6, 2010
Tilting at windmills, I think. This transition is inevitable; it’s cheaper for many schools, and it’s getting cheaper all the time. Teams can get around any “laptops = more stuff” issue now by carrying a printer and printing on-demand (we’ve done this before). But that’s more expensive and, frankly, annoying. How awesome is it to get rid of tubs? Totally awesome. No more giant vans stuffed with crap, no more carrying 200 pounds up and down stairs, no more carting through snow/ice, no more spending hundreds of dollars on expandos and highlighters and tape. People are going to look back in ten years and laugh at us for putting up with paper for so long.
By Bill Batterman on May 6, 2010
Well, Bill, I for one would only feel comfortable voting with such a provision (lendable copy, not just see-in-cx copy) in place.
Just to clarify two side points that were made:
I’m a little fuzzy on your math, Bill. Even if we were charged for copies (we’re not, but it could be coming), we couldn’t even get 3 laptops for the price of the paper we print. How’s that going to work for the other 90% of the team? Also, not carrying the beheamoth tubs that you guys carry and not using 15-passanger because they’re illegal (for us, at least – not sure how others can do it), we’ve always managed to get our crates into our minivans. I’d love to go paperless with laptops, but we simply don’t have the resources.
By dhansen on May 6, 2010
Nothing wrong with tilting….
Inevitable doesn’t mean positive….
By Ken Sajdak on May 6, 2010
Besides, carrying 200 pounds of stuff was a choice.
By Ken Sajdak on May 6, 2010
If you’re charged $.05 per copy, that’s $25 per ream of paper (500 sheets). Each tub fits many, many reams of paper; conservatively, estimate that to be 5. That’s $125 per tub—and that’s extremely conservative and doesn’t include costs of folders/expandos. Three tubs per team would cost $375. If both students already have laptops, that $375 can be spent on a viewing computer instead of on copying. “But our kids don’t have laptops!!!” — fair point, and unfortunate, but not a reason to ban paperless—you are free to continue making copies.
I 100% support the use of viewing computers — I think I misunderstood Dan’s caveat about that (yes, the evidence must be handed over to the other team for their use during prep time/speeches/etc., not just shown during the CX).
I cannot see how the transition to paperless IN THE LONG TERM (e.g., b/c it is inevitable) can be seen as anything but awesome. There are short-term problems (just like there were short-term problems when squads moved from note cards to ditto paper, or when squads first started doing electronic/database research), but those problems are not sufficient to justify a ban.
By Bill Batterman on May 6, 2010
For sure, I didn’t mention the copy vs. laptop cost issue as a reason to vote against your initiative; I just wanted to be clear that an argument saying “anyone can go paperless” wasn’t valid. BTW, YOUR tubs might run 125. Ours certainly do not….I estimated we only made maybe 30k copies this year. We pay .02, the actual cost of the paper, so that’s only $600. I can’t get two laptops for the whole team on that. You have a much bigger team with much bigger tubs with a much worse copy account situation, so the math doesn’t translate. Again, however, my point is limited to this one.
A second issue this brings up, however. I’m nervous about access speed. Maybe I’m not the computer geek I claim to be some times, but it’s just faster to see something shuffline a few papers than it is finding it in 6 different open windows of files another team opened. I’m motivated, if this passes, to use it as justification for correcting another rules problem we have in debate – no standard prep time statement. We have the WSDT as 5 minutes, but many tournaments do 8. Worse, some judges do 8 when the tournament does not say to do so (a breach of judging guidelines and a finable offense). Maybe we could declare 8, at least at varsity. It would help with the electronic pile issue, and personally, I like it as a check against sped cards that a team hopes the opposition won’t really read.
OOh – neat idea: We’ll copy the MLB financial structure and impose a luxury tax on the wealthier teams so I can get me some laptops! ;P
By dhansen on May 6, 2010
Paperless does kinda suck, esp. when first beginning — that’s why it’s important to commit as a squad and practice that way during the summer so that by the time the season starts, you’re not a n00b. My experience with paperless teams this year has been overwhelmingly positive, though — some debaters don’t like debating paperless teams, but once you do it a few times it is actually easier/better (I can go into more depth about that, but I don’t want to get sidetracked). Will there be teams that are bad at paperless? Yeah. But there are teams that are bad at paper debating now and we haven’t banned paper.
RE: prep time, tournaments should establish a rule and judges should follow it. The norm at invitationals is definitely 8, not 5, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable for judges to “default” to 8 if they haven’t been told otherwise. If they HAVE been told otherwise, then they should follow it — I agree with that 100%. I’d also support 8 minutes of prep at the WSDT, but that’s a different issue.
Ultimately, my argument re: paperless is this: it’s inevitable and banning it in Wisconsin just means a few programs delay their transitions and aren’t able to achieve the cost savings associated with it. If the cost savings argument is a net-negative for other programs, then they don’t have to transition — and most won’t. That’s fine, and there’s no competitive advantage to paperless (it’s HARDER, and it requires relearning — there’s only a chance it makes debate HARDER for the team that is paperless), at least not one that justifies a ban.
By Bill Batterman on May 6, 2010
If it is harder, and if there are initial cost barriers (the computers), I am wrong to worry about the impact on debate in the long run?
I don’t think so.
Maybe we should just give up on making debate egalitarian.
By Ken Sajdak on May 6, 2010
You’re right, Ken. Wisconsin should ban paperless debate because doing so would result in more equality.
Who is going to quit debate because some teams are paperless? What schools are going to cut their programs because other schools stopped printing/copying evidence?
If paperless makes debate cheaper for some programs, why isn’t that net-better for “Equality”? I get it: you and others hate national circuit debate and this is just another change that has occurred at the college level, trickled down to the national circuit, and now threatens to reach critical mass. So it must be elitist/evil. If that’s your position, so be it; I disagree.
By Bill Batterman on May 6, 2010
A couple things to add to this discussion that have been mentioned, but are seemingly unresponded to:
1) Paperless would not be mandatory.
2) I’m doubtful about the “high cost” barrier to laptops. The initial cost is $200-500 depending on how much you want to spend. But this is one-time costs. It’s not a $200-500 per year cost. A kid invests this once and they have a computer. If you prorate the cost over it’s high school use it’s only $50 to $125 a year. Even if your paper costs are only $600 per year – that’s $2400 over the lifetime of a debate team. That’s a pretty hefty cost and the technological investment seems cost beneficial.
Criticizing schools for buying team laptops seems similar to criticizing kids who buy a new suit for competition. Should we require all debaters where jeans just because that not everyone wants to where a suit and tie? Our activity has always had financial disparities.
By Nick Bubb on May 6, 2010
Bill,
I respect you deeply, however, I do not appreciate the ad homs. You know I support switch sides (even if I speak out against some of its practices.)
There is a great divide in the landscape of debate. You can believe this if you like, but our team has a budget of $0 (really) and we have a HUGE deficit that every time a new administrator steps in, I get hassled about fund raising. (Cross apply this Nick’s number 2 above).
Directly to Nick’s point, my teams know, if they want to compete in VSS, they need to look like those elite national teams. (Close rounds go to the known quantity.) Remember, as I said earlier, I had a team that was an early adopter of computers in debate – Sam Tang and Kevin Keadle, so we even have a computer.)
The problem is, as you recruit, kids need to know what the costs are up front. The CITY of Waukesha is not the richest place on earth. Many of this year’s team that debated well at State in Novice are on free and reduced lunches.
You can say, it’s voluntary, but when I debated) you didn’t need a timer (it was a real person). When I started coaching, you used note cards, briefs were just starting and you could use a recipe box.
I’m not arguing that:
1) we should not adopt computers. OR that
2) it’ll lead to bad debate.
I am saying, that I think debate is valuable to ALL students. Anything we do to increase barriers loses us students. Why is PF the fastest growing event?
I love policy and want it to thrive. Can we be sure to think ahead before we jump?
By Ken Sajdak on May 6, 2010
The respect is mutual, obviously, but the tone of your posts is not cordial: “Maybe we should just give up on making debate egalitarian.” This is a sly rhetorical move: it positions opponents of your position as opponents of Equality. Speaking against your position means that one must necessarily be speaking from a position of privilege.
The problem is that I’m committed to debate, too, and especially to opening doors for students to participate in it. I’ve written many thousands of words about technology and debate, including what I think is a very fair-minded article on paperless: http://www.the3nr.com/2009/07/07/going-paperless-can-high-school-programs-effectively-make-the-transition/.
But when I advance an argument opposing the prohibition of paperless debating on WFD, I am predictably met with accusations of elitism and insinuations that I do not care about the future of debate. I do. Unless you can answer the inevitability argument, though, you are just digging your head into the sand — teams in other states are and will continue to go paperless, and your position will just leave Wisconsin programs behind.
By Bill Batterman on May 6, 2010
Or non-existant.
That possibility is real. Money is critical. (we can discuss the copying budget vs computer costs later.)
You said: “Paperless does kinda suck, esp. when first beginning — that’s why it’s important to commit as a squad and practice that way during the summer so that by the time the season starts, you’re not a n00b.”
That means I establish a requirement that each pair of debaters have 3 laptops or not debate, IS a position of privilege.
To have my team budget find money is suicide.
You can tell me to stay with paper, but the reality is that computers would become the norm.
I again, am NOT a Luddite. I am not against computers in debate. I am asking us to look at the implications on the state of debate in Wisconsin. MAYBE, it is better to leave Wisconsin programs behind on the national level than to kill of all the smaller, poorer, more rural and more urban programs behind.
MAYBE, the proposal should be looking at a subsidy or sponsor that could help struggling programs.
Look at what I said earlier. I have NO budget. I have a majority of my novice debaters from this year on free or reduced lunch. South debate WILL disappear if costs rise. 36 years of my life with it. Forgive me for being concerned.
By Ken Sajdak on May 6, 2010
I don’t get the “link”: Why would allowing some teams to debate paperless require others to do the same? If it doesn’t make sense financially for your squad to debate paperless, why would you make a decision to do so? “[T]he reality is that computers would become the norm” — why?
Over the long-term, the reason computers will become the norm is because they’re cheaper and *everything* is becoming paperless. In the short-term, though, I don’t get the “allowing some teams to debate without paper means others will have to try, crushing their budgets and resulting in their programs ceasing to exist.” If that’s really true, then I’m with you. But I don’t think it’s true.
By Bill Batterman on May 6, 2010
First, a really good article at 3NR. Well done.
You ask:
“[T]he reality is that computers would become the norm” — why?
I have 3 responses.
1) Inevitability.
Batterman 05-06-2010
The bottom line is that there’s no reason to Ban paperless in Wisconsin. It’s already reaching critical mass at the college level, it’s beginning to proliferate in other regions, and it’s inevitable that paper will go the way of the dinosaurs in not too long. “My kids don’t have laptops” or “my kids don’t know how to use laptops” is not a reason to legislate “no kids may use laptops”; this is not a requirement that everyone go paperless but a correction/clarification to the rules so that “hardcopy” isn’t defined as only paper, not a computer screen.
2) History. What happened to recipe boxes? Art pads for flowing? Stock Issues? These may all have been improvements, but they were supplanted. Computers (we are told) will be better:
Batterman, 3NR
Aaron also describes several competitive benefits of paperless debating:
We have quickly found ourselves with a host of secondary benefits from the paperless transition. We have more prep time before rounds due to not moving tubs, we can more easily replicate standard work done in many different rounds, we get back to the hotel earlier because we don’t have to clean up, we can provide cite requests of every card read in a debate within minutes, it’s somewhat less likely my students lose their files…The list goes on.
3) Judge Pressure
Batterman 3NR Argued Paperless needs to be fostered because:
“. . . students will be forced to print and file paper copies for use at the paperless-unfriendly competitions. While adopting a part-time paperless model is possible, doing so moots many of the advantages associated with the paperless transition. Debate is hard enough without forcing students to become experts at both the traditional paper and the paperless methods of preparing and delivering speeches.
Even when tournaments themselves do not frown upon paperless debating, at least a few judges will consider it their prerogative to discourage it on their own. At regional and local tournaments in many parts of the country, the use of laptops even for flowing is considered inappropriate by a sizable portion of the judging pool. Many of the same judges that take issue with “circuit-style” practices—open cross-examination, prompting, spreading, and casual dress, for example—and arguments will fight tooth-and-nail to prevent students from debating exclusively with computers. Anyone that has attended a state debate association meeting where technology usage was discussed knows how contentious of an issue it has become. Even when a consensus in favor of paperless debating develops, a subsection of coaches and judges will remain vocal critics of the practice—students who have made the paperless transition will certainly not look forward to seeing these individuals in the back of the room.”
As a “local only” coach, it works the other way as well.
By Ken Sajdak on May 6, 2010
1. The reason that it is inevitable is because of cost — as laptops become ubiquitous (and that’s closer than you’d think; netbooks are $200, and that’s affordable for almost everyone), the cost for programs will go down. If the cost/benefit analysis doesn’t justify going paperless NOW, it probably will in a few years. In the meantime, you’re not forced to make the transition.
2. The competitive benefits are only accrued at the highest levels. Are “local-only” programs like Waukesha South concerned about the time it is taking them to fulfill citation requests? Are you finding that it takes forever to clean-up after a round and that you’re missing dinner as a result? Are you worried that your opponents will beat you to the room that you’re debating in because they don’t have tubs? At some point, you’ve gotta be realistic about this; most of the teams you’re worried about don’t even disclose before debates, so all of the preparation/cite-sharing benefits are totally irrelevant.
3. Do you really think judges will *look down at* teams that aren’t paperless? I can’t prove it, but you’re wrong: if anything, there have been a lot of judges on the national circuit this year that have been annoyed by paperless teams. Think about what you’re saying: do you really think “National Circuit Judge Jethro” is going to go into a round and think “I hate the neg because they have paper — I’m totally hacking for the aff”?
Is this a double-standard? Am I justified to say “some people hate paperless but no one hates paper”? I think so, based on a lot of experience.
The bottom line is that banning paperless sends the following message to me:
“The WI debate community does not want Marquette to save money and in fact would prefer if Marquette stopped traveling at all… that way they wouldn’t have to consider paperless. It would also be better if Marquette stopped researching so much because that makes the game harder for us. The fact that Marquette students pay the bulk of their travel costs just proves our point: they’re a bunch of rich kids, so screw ‘em.”
I don’t like that message. And whether intended or not, that’s the message that I’m getting… loud and clear. Again.
By Bill Batterman on May 7, 2010
On number 3, yes I think in the same way that some want to punish paperless teams, a paperless judge will side with the paperless team in a close round.
By Ken Sajdak on May 7, 2010
“On number 3, yes I think in the same way that some want to punish paperless teams, a paperless judge will side with the paperless team in a close round.”
As someone who has judged extensively on the national circuit this year, worked at a summer institute in which paperless was a frequent topic of discussion, and discussed this issue extensively with both debaters and coaches/judges from throughout the country, I don’t think that’s true. At all. It just doesn’t make sense:
There is a *reason* for some to hate paperless teams: they feel like they’re elitist rich kids who deserve to lose. Believe me: we get those kinds of decisions now, and we debate with paper.
There is *no reason* for anyone to hate paper teams. Literally none.
By Bill Batterman on May 7, 2010
Respectfully, you are saying that NO ONE get voted against because they are OBVIOUSLY not a “big” school?
Walk a mile in my mocassins.
By Ken Sajdak on May 7, 2010
No, I am saying that no one has ever been voted against because they read evidence from paper instead of a computer screen.
Big school doesn’t mean paperless. Paperless doesn’t mean big school.
You haven’t had any interactions with paperless teams or with debates between paperless and paper teams. But you’re staking your position on “if this happens, paper teams will be voted against by hack judges.”
That’s not a persuasive argument; you don’t even have an anecdote to support your side.
Here’s one for the other side:
Westlake, Texas. Very small/poor program. Paperless.
Glenbrook South, Illinois. Very large/rich program. Paper.
Has Westlake ever lost a debate b/c they didn’t have “rep”? Probably.
Has Glenbrook South ever won a debate b/c they DID have “rep”? Probably.
Does the medium on which they present/read evidence have ANYTHING to do with that?
No.
By Bill Batterman on May 7, 2010
1) I am refraining from anecdotes to protect the guilty.
2) When I used the term “big team” before I wasn’t referring to school size, but to reputation / national circuit.
The effect. just like your national judges who are voting against paperless teams, is perceptual. (I HOPE it is not real.)
No one has voted against us because we were South (although my son makes a compelling case that when he debated butting his name on the ballot sometimes doomed him. ). They voted on “issues” but the close issues went to the team that was “expected” to win. (I’m sure you have seen the opposite work (Judges vote against you because you’re from the big, bad Marquette and they ALWAYS win) but I don’t seem to get those jugges as often.
I have seen this effect more often as budget has forced us into an every smaller circle of travel.
We have/had rules in the past against wearing anything that identified your school in rounds. One of your predecessors used to walk his teams into big rounds ahead of his team after the judge had arrived to “announce” his team’s presence.
Things like that will happen as long as we have human judges. I just see paperless debating right now as something more likely to be adopted by those “national” teams that have the most to save (baggage check, etc) being the early adopters. Message: “big” is paperless.
The last to adopt, budget constrained teams with lots of free and reduced milk kids where copy costs are “hidden”.
Sounds like a textbook definition of a barrier to entry. Barriers to entry mean less competitors. In our case, the result, less kids and teams.
I have no personal problem with computers. I’d like to see safeguards built in that protect “small” programs from extinction.
Then, of course, even if we are able to go paperless to emulate our more successful (bigger?> brethren, will be the inevitable development of “case law”.
Can I “keep” your arguments?
How do we know/ protect?
Can the judge ask for and receive the speeches for his/her own “ease”?
Can they keep copies? Can they “outline” the speeches and copy the outline to their flow?
Will a papered team be at a disadvantage in flowing in front of a paperless judge?
Move slowly is my caution.
By Ken Sajdak on May 8, 2010
This argument is running the risk of becoming just another internet shouting match, and I would hate to see that happen, since I personally feel that this is an important issue for Wisconsin to face. Ken and Bill, I think you both need to recognize some things first before this discussion can move forward.
Bill – Ken is not trying to “hold back your program”, stem the “national-circuit trickle-down”, or any such nonsense. The objections that Ken raises are out of legitimate concern for his team, and for smaller squads in Wisconsin, and not a desire to bring Marquette debate or Marquette-style debating down. Incendiary rhetoric like accusing Ken of “hating national circuit debate” threatens to derail the discussion into arguing other stylistic differences, a debate which has been played out on way too many websites, including this one. I think this would unnecessarily muddle the discussion, and I think this is too important. You would probably agree with me.
Ken – Likewise, Bill is not trying to run the smaller schools out of business, so to speak. Statements like your “egalitarian” statement are not helpful, and they only serve to ignite tempers. Bill is as dedicated to debate as you are, and he does not have a vendetta against small schools – I even witnessed his willingness to help small schools. As a varsity debater at Sheboygan North, a school with an extremely limited budget, I constantly received free advice (and in one instance, files) from Bill, who had no obligation to help us, and who had no other motivation than to see another Wisconsin team succeed. Ad hom attacks are not appreciated, by both sides. If you examine Bill’s arguments without assuming that he wants to increase Marquette’s prestige and/or power, it is easy to see that he is not making any such move.
On the issues:
To begin, I’d like to make clear that I am in favor of paperless debate, and I can speak from the perspective of someone who has done both styles. I spent 4 years in high school doing paper debate, and I spent my first semester at Trinity University doing paperless debate. Some initial observations that I think are relevant to the discussion:
1) RE: Paperless teams will win in front of “paperless judges”: I understand your concern here, Ken – I have been on the end of decisions that may or may not have been tilted by an inattentive judge voting for someone who “looked” like they won. However, I have spoken to a lot of people about the visual appeal of paperless debate, and the spectrum seems to range from slight annoyance to neutrality vis-à-vis paper teams. I don’t think that “paperless” vs. “paper” is the same type of ideological difference that judges will care about they same way they care about “speed” vs “non-speed” or “policy” vs “kritik”. Paperless is quite literally the surface off of which evidence is read, and nothing else. The vast majority of judges, regardless of ideological differences, judge debaters based on the content and substance of their arguments, which renders the “paper” vs “paperless” argument irrelevant, since evidence meaning is not related to whether the ink is attached to crushed wood pulp or computer pixels. Judges who prefer to judge based on speaking style and eloquence of the debaters will still judge on these things – reading off of a computer does not make you a more eloquent, easier to understand, or overall better debater. To put it simply, judges really just don’t care. They want to hear what you have to say.
Ken also points out that for his teams to win, they need to “look like the nationally elite debaters.” Looking like a nationally elite debater is a pretty ambiguous term – my senior year, I got two of my National TOC bids in jeans and a hooded sweatshirt. Looking like a nationally elite debater has nothing to do with paperless, and very little to do with looks – it has more to do with sounding like a nationally elite debater in terms of argument sophistication, and banning paperless will do nothing to change this.
2) Competitive equity – I debated around 20 rounds total during my stint in college debate, winning about half of them. All but one of my losses were to paper teams, many of which I considered “close” debates, and all but two of my wins were against paper teams, some of which were also “close” debates. In exactly zero of these debates (statistically, this equals ~0%), was paperless debating a factor in the judge’s decision. Zero of the judges even mentioned the fact that we were paperless in these decisions, and some of these were “regional” judges who did not judge much, or at all, on the national college circuit.
Of course, I realize that this only rules out paperless being the proximate cause to winning, and the obvious response to the above paragraph is that I might have won debates due to prep time inequities, computer advantages, etc. In order to rule this out, I think some descriptions of a paperless round from someone who has “been there” are in order.
a) There are 6 or 7 word documents open on my computer, but not on the viewing computer – when I give the evidence to my opponents for them to look at, the evidence I will read in the speech is in one word document, in the order that I read it. Numerous teams remarked how much easier this was not only for their organizational purposes in reading the evidence, but for general round organization – they had all the evidence we had read at all times, which means nobody had to waste their prep time looking for evidence.
b) I don’t have Bill’s gift for debate statistics (something which will come to haunt me when I finish pursuing my undergrad degrees in two sciences), but I can give some rough estimates about how paperless affected my prep:
a. I had roughly the same amount of pre-round prep once rounds were announced – if I got to the room faster, it was usually <5 minutes faster than I would have
b. I probably spent MORE time prepping speeches with evidence than I would have with paper – this is because I had to organize documents and make sure that the speech document I gave my opponents was sufficiently organized
c. The only place where I saved an abundance of time was post-round clean up, which is a mark in favor of paperless, especially for tournament directors who like to run smooth, efficient tournaments (i.e. most tournament directors, I hope)
c) Even if there are some prep time advantages, like getting to rooms earlier, or easier organization of files on the computers, banning paperless is a bit of a slippery slope in these areas. If we don’t want people to get to rooms early, should we make each team have a minimum number of tubs to weigh them down? If computers are too organized, should we ban really good organization in tubs? Where do we draw the line?
At this point, I should probably get to the meat of the argument, which is cost inequities. I think this is a lot less complicated than both sides are making it out to be, and I think that Nick sums it up very well when he points out that this measure would *not be mandatory*. There will be teams that like to debate paper: fine. There are teams that like to debate paperless: also fine. Bill’s WDCA proposal only allows paperless debating – it does not mandate that paperless must be used. There is not historical precedence for the claim that computers will become mandatory. I have been using a laptop ever since I started debating – it has not become a requirement to use a laptop in Wisconsin. I have been a “speed” debater ever since sophomore year – it has not become a requirement to speed read in Wisconsin. Paperless debating is not an ideology – it is simply a method, and a fairly innocuous one, at that. The intention of this amendment is to allow programs to choose to use one or the other (or, as James pointed out, a mix – I’d be interested in seeing how this worked). The point is budget conservation (if it suits you), not controlling the budgets of other schools.
I also don’t think that this is a barrier to entry into debate, especially when teams don’t have to use it. I think it would be fairly easy to have novices use paper so they get used to the debate format – even teams like Marquette may allow novices to use paper, since it costs much much less than supplying the varsity teams. Additionally, novice difficultly is not a reason to disallow paperless on the varsity level – rules could probably be made for each division.
Finally, I think that this *is* a slow step. Allowing paperless will not kill paper – that has been demonstrated on the college level, where two “paper” teams were in the finals of the National Debate Tournament. The amendment is simply an allowance of paperless debate, not a mandate. As a Wisconsin debate alum, I am asking both sides to please calm down so that we can resolve this issue in a way that can make everyone satisfied.
Respectfully,
Tim Knoedler
Sheboygan North Class of 2009
By Tim Knoedler on May 8, 2010
An update: the paperless proposal was passed with the caveat that guidelines would be developed for paperless debating prior to the 2010 debate season.
By Nick Bubb on May 10, 2010
also tim, re: 2.b(c): this is known as the Jon Voss effect. On a related note, I need to go make a phone call. :)
By Nick Bubb on May 10, 2010
No internet shouting match.
None at the meeting as well.
I think both sides understand the benefits and weaknesses better and the fall “roll-out” will be smooth,
By Ken Sajdak on May 15, 2010