Wisconsin Forensics Daily

1. 38 Responses to “Monday Meditation: Eliminating the December PF Topic”

2. While I think there might be good reasons to have a Wisconsin-specific topic, I’m not sure that the quality of the NFL’s December topic is a good one.

   The NFL topic committee began writing topic after the December 2005 NFL dress code debacle. Here is what we have debated in Decembers since:

   December 2009
   Resolved: That merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensation in United States public schools.

   December 2008
   Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States.

   December 2007
   Resolved: That the United States would be justified in pursuing military options against Iran.

   December 2006
   Resolved: Colleges and Universities in the United States should end their early admission programs.

   By Bob Jordan on May 10, 2010

3. Bob, while I think there are some concerns about the quality of the NFL’s topic selections, those concerns were not a part of the discussion we had this weekend. In fact, the concerns about quality of the December topic were pretty small – except for the “remember how bad the 2005 topic was” discussion.

   Most Wisconsin debate teams have been done with public forum since January and many teams have not been aware about the on-going discussions regarding the union topic and the NFL. So it’s unlikely that the current debate was driving this discussion. However, I cannot read the minds of everyone who participated in the discussion.

   In general, this idea was not a criticism of the NFL. Rather, we were exploring potential ideas to make debate in Wisconsin better. If that means departing with the NFL topic for two tournaments, we shall see.

   Less than 10% of Wisconsin high schools have debate and our focus as an organization is how can we get more schools to participate. Debating “NIMBY” (Not in my backyard) issues and incorporating our post-secondary institutions are just two ideas that we think might help improve our situation.

   By Nick Bubb on May 10, 2010

4. I would strongly support eliminating the December topic and extending out the November topic. I honestly feel the true education of debate is found in the time between the first tournament and the second. It is at that point that students truly practice synthesis of ideas and are ready to discuss topics from a different viewpoint. More weeks emphasizes more synthesis and deeper thought.

   This would provide more time for case development which would lead to better debate overall. Further, I know many students who get burned out writing so many cases. If they are only attending one tournament in December they may be strongly turned off to working on the topic to their full ability. November is a shorter debate month anyways. This would make it the length of the October topic. Plus December is a really busy time.

   I think the NFL public forum topics are great. I don’t think that we Wisconsin coaches are somehow immune to choosing really bad topics. Everyone makes mistakes.

   By James Hoggatt on May 10, 2010

5. I’m not sure if debaters are allowed to comment on this and I probably have a very narrow point of view but here are my thoughts:

   I agree with Hoggatt in that Wisconsin coaches are not immune to choosing bad topics. With the exception of topics that are sold, the NFL seems to generally do a good job. In fact, while there have been topics I liked more or less, I have never actually hated a topic (although I never had to deal with NBA dress code).

   I would HATE extending the November topic. Once again, this is just my narrow point of view but November happens to be a weekend with 2 nearby TOC bid tournaments for PF, which means teams that travel go to tournaments with a lot of rounds. After debating 9 rounds at Apple Valley, 9 at Sheb North, and 10 at Glenbrooks, I would have wanted to shoot someone if I had to do another 6-9 at Appleton East and 6-10 at state on the same topic. Writing cases is hard work, but we all know that PF generally focuses on stock arguments more than LD or policy so while LD or policy rounds can change, PFers basically debate the same thing round after round and doing the same topic for more than 20ish rounds sucks.

   But having a Wisconsin topic just for the WSDT would also be hard. Practice on a topic is really really helpful. My partner and I thought it mattered so much that we insisted on going to Blake the week before Christmas (which we totally were not prepared for) just so we could practice the January topic before national qualifiers. And it is really nice to have the weekend before state to know what judges like and other teams are running.

   Also, with a Wisconsin specific topic it seems like there would be a lot less evidence available….not sure if this is true.
   Do we really need a Wisconsin topic to get other people in the state involved? For example, if a rhetoric professor is the target guest, it seems that a national topic should still work.

   Another potential problem is that Wisconsin topic means we don’t get to depend on out of state research. Which is in a way good because it means people can’t just buy books, but not being able to buy books would also be really really annoying. Successful teams obviously do a bunch of their own research, but I know a lot of teams start by buying books and not having that option would really disadvantage those whose coaches can’t churn out lots of ideas…

   Just my thoughts…sorry if I wasn’t supposed to comment :P

   By Valerie Shen on May 10, 2010

6. Everyone is allowed to post here. It’s a blog.

   The point is that professor would be more likely to come and see the topic debated if they helped developed the topic. Which, conveniently, answers the “Wisconsin Debate Coaches are Dumb” arg. Part of the idea is that academics would do much of the work – rather than debate coaches.

   Also, the more narrow the issue, the easier the topic is to write. Look at examples given. The wording is pretty strait forward. QEO means something extremely specific. So does high speed rail.

   By Nick Bubb on May 10, 2010

7. If the whole draw of a professor coming is that we do the wisconsin topic for one tournament during the season and for the rest of the year we do other topics that are not related to them or have their imput on, then I think the impact is going to be pretty low. Further for an academic to be involved, they would have to already be interested and would most likely come see a tournament anyways. Beyond that if the state weekend they are busy (e.g. finals in december) then their imput doesn’t really translate to attending.

   If we do replace it with a wisconsin resolution (which I feel is a mistake) then it will still be two tournaments max on the topic which I think translates into poorer debate for such an important tourney. Extending the Nov topic would allow for more educational skills to be garnered from sythesis and evolution of strategies and evidence.

   I think professors will be interested in being involved with debate by seeing good debate on a national topic than more inconsistant debate on a local topic. Not to mention personal viewpoints will be more obtuse with a wi topic.

   By James Hoggatt on May 11, 2010

8. James – I think you misunderstand the importance of state focused issues. These are issues that dominate life and often go unnoticed. (Or not, if you hunt in this state).

   Teacher pay and rail investments are also national issues. But the reasons have to be tailored to the specific region at hand.

   By Nick Bubb on May 11, 2010

9. I understand your arguments, Nick. Not sure how I feel either way. I’m wondering why debate works other places but not here. Or isn’t dying as quick, if you will. Any incite on your part?

   By Shawn Matson on May 11, 2010

10. Why is tailoring them to Wisconsin better than allowing them to be debated with a national system in mind?

    From my experiences doing tournaments that have a “regional” round of debate or extemp (competed in both in MN state college forensics)ballots often times were much more emotionally charged and politically based. Minnesotta eventually abandoned the practice for that very reason.

    By James Hoggatt on May 11, 2010

11. With all due respect, Nick, I think the Wisconsin-focused topics like QEO and high speed rail would make great group discussion topics. I could even see a Wisconsin Issues round of extemp (imagine the screaming in the draw room! Actually knowing something about a local/regional issue!).

    Valerie – I take your point about the number of rounds you competed in November, but you are the rare, rare exception to the rule. And while it might make you a little crazy, you are given a competitive advantage. For most, who will not attend even one circuit tournament out of state, the time to extend and develop a topic for the state tournament will make for better debate on balance – or at least allow for the possibility.

    By Mary Wacker on May 12, 2010

12. I fail to see why the politically charged problem is unique to state/regional topics. Consider the CFL Nationals topic. How is that not politically charged? How was the union topic not politically charged?

    By Nick Bubb on May 12, 2010

13. Um… I am not a fan of trying a regional focused resolution for the State tournament… it may be better suited for an earlier month… like September. But forcing students to prep differently than they do normally for the State tournament could breed animosity.

    By Michael Traas on May 12, 2010

14. Local issues are much, much harder to divide your biases from. Psychology of language tells us that if you pose the question “Should teachers make more money?” to individuals you’ll get one answer that will have some bias, but if you ask “Should wisconsin teachers get more money” the bias will be much higher if the judge is from wisconsin and the bias would most likely be lower if the judge wasn’t from wisconsin. While a bias will always exist, making the issue a home turf issue will make it more biased.

    For instance, at a tournament my freshman year in Parli there was a local round that eventually broke down to an alternative energy in the red river valley round (as that was the focus of alt energy in the region). We won the round soundly, however the ballot didn’t have an rfd that resembled the round but instead harped on a seperate issue the judge felt was more important that our opponents didn’t talk about which she felt should have been the focus of their case. This happened to other teams as well. Local topics make people more likely to be interventionist. Maybe MN is just over opinionated though, and my experience there has biased me.

    I completely agree with Mary and Michael. Especially that those would be amazing group disco topics.

    I still hold extending Novs topic would be the best. Longer time to prep and longer time to synthesize and feel out the judging field really puts the focus on the tools that debate gives you. Reactive editing, sythesis, and growth in discussion through an evolution of your viewpoint of the topic. This will also increase fairness for those teams not doing the first weekend in dec tourney.

    By James Hoggatt on May 12, 2010

15. Mike – how would your prep be different if the topic was high speed rail? Assuming we would pick a topic with literature (e.g. high speed rail) what aspect would really change? You could still research it, debate the topic at the weekend before, and the topic doesn’t have any risk of being trivial – e.g. the NBA dress code.

    On group discussion – I don’t care/this is irrelevant. Besides, this category should be eliminated. How is it that when I make comments like, “the loser in group discussion is the judge” that everyone laughs and no one defends Disco? The blurb I wrote about Disco for the April fools joke actually happened. No joke.

    We did have extemp topics on Wisconsin issues. See the link. It’s not my fault that people did not attend the memorial forensics tournament in 2009.

    Also – Mary/Hoggat – if you’re both willing to concede that these are good topics because kids need to be educated on them, I don’t think I need to argue further about their educational merits. If kids need to know about them, then why is a debate topic on these issues a bad thing?

    I’ve also noticed that no one commenting on this thread, save me, actually attended the spring meeting. I suggest that you attend the fall meeting, if you really feel that strongly about your opinions. The vast majority of coaches who attended that meeting considered this to be a positive development. We even were kicking around the idea that a potential university partner could provide additional resources for Wisconsin debaters (e.g. – a list of important articles on the topic). The more thresholds that we lower for debate, the better. The more people that participate in high school debate, the better.

    At the risk of sounding silly, no one has answered the fact that debate in Wisconsin is in a “try-or-die” situation. Either we make efforts to expand our debate community or debate in Wisconsin will be dead within the next five years. Extending the November topic is fine if the issue is only that the December topic is meaningless. But it is not the only issue.

    By Nick Bubb on May 13, 2010

16. Wow you got caustic quick, Nick. Just because we disagree with your proposal doesn’t mean we think you are an idiot. I don’t think any of us think your proposal is without merit, we just believe that the idea of a wi focused state topic wouldn’t bring as many benefits as you might believe and has some disadvantages that come with it.

    Lots of teams buy packets of evidence which makes it easier to retain novices as the research load is lowered signifigantly. My novices always feel more comfortable after they’ve read the briefs even if they don’t use evidence from them. Vals point is spot on in that regard.

    Again bad topic selection by the NFL isn’t really compelling. Any group can be tricked into choosing bad topics. I mean look at the UIL.

    I think doing this, especially at state as Mike noted, would sit uneasy with a lot of people.

    I would appreciate you not arguing that because we may have had other obligations on a specific day that somehow our opinions aren’t equal. We are all invested in this organization.

    I like group disco, its a great event when there are good topics. Its the most dependent of topic selection though. WI focus in disco would get professors interested as well if it would in PF. I don’t think this is somehow going to save debate in WI if we affirm your proposal,. I think that has to be achieved in another way.

    By James Hoggatt on May 13, 2010

17. Good things to be educated on and good things to debate are not the same. They never will be. Some things are great extemp questionsl some are great disco questions, and some are good debate questions, overlap is not guaranteed.

    Its good to be educated on the Rwandan genocide, it can be formed into a good disco or extemp question. The adversarial positioning in debate would make it a poor debate choice.

    I feel high speed rail would be more educational as a national style topic anyways than wisconsin only. I stil see no comparative advantage to making it WI centric. 2 tourneys on a topic isn’t the savior of debate.

    By James Hoggatt on May 13, 2010

18. Putting the issue of incompetent selection of topic aside (I’m sure that we are just as capable of writing either a terrible or awesome topic as the NFL’s topic committee) I think the idea of doing an Wisconsin/regional topic is generally positive.

    At the start of the discussion is where the sweet-spot is for PF debate. The first weekend of a topic, debaters spend more time on debating the framework of the debate (what is a stable nation, what does a merit pay proposal look like). Debaters are forced to think on their feet more and spend time defining these issues. Come the second week and debaters have gone home, rewritten, re-researched and honed a strategy. Cases from team to team start looking a bit more similar based upon what worked at earlier tournaments. Debaters default more heavily to blocks using arguments they’ve brainstormed in group sessions or gotten from coaches. The longer spent on a topic the more the debaters move away from the initial discussion to executing refined strategies. Personally, I think the refinement and execution of planned strategies is what makes policy debate, policy debate. PF, on the otherhand, should be more extemporaneous. Debaters confronted with a new topic can spend a shorter time delving in to construct their four minute arguments (two minutes if delivered with a policy spread), and think on their feet to persuade rather and execute strategy.
    This is why there was a discussion at the meeting about whether its better to have the state topic be a topic for state alone, or to have it for December. Is the second or third weekend the best or is the first pure out-of-the-box weekend the best? I can’t imagine that the possible 5th to 6th week on the topic (by extending November) can be ideal at all. Parity/equity also comes to mind here. Given the value of getting a preview of your advesaries’ arguments, the first weekend in December becomes a mandatory experience with information sharing and reservation of arguments/cases happening. Do you break the good stuff or do you see how it flys. If you couldn’t debate that weekend you miss a chance to see what’s out there and to see how your stuff works.

    A question about how debaters prepare is also very relevant. The number of unique arguments appearing in rounds is roughly equal to the number found in the most common commerically available prep books. Most novice teams in policy stick close to their novice packet even after the restrictions are lifted. I agree its an easy way to coach and prepare- have someone else give you an outline with major arguments to paraphrase and a handful of relevant sources to cite- and run with it. I won’t deny I’ve sent kids out that way despite discussing alternative arguments and evidence to include. It is often the team that finds unique arguments that is sucessful, however. At the state level, with the varsity students, I don’t think it unreasonable to ask them to shift their preparation style.
    However, we don’t necessarily have to make a major shift. If the topic can be determined sufficiently in advance, collecting a set of relevant materials and arguments from legislators, interest groups, policy wonks, and major wisconsin news sources, is not terribly time consuming, given all kids a baseline to address, and engaging in outreach at the same time.

    So the next question is “why state?” December offers some special advantages. First, novices aren’t really novices any more. If handing off a packet and saying lets talk after you read it helps early in the season, I’d hope novices have developed a bit more confidence by the end of the season.
    Second, swapping the earlier topics creates a problem of dual topics. This can be a problem for Wisconsin tournaments the multi-state field of TOC caliber teams at the Hilltopper in September would be impaired, hurting the quality of an early in the year marquee kick off, or burden those schools who’s students are given (or take) the opportunity to travel regionally or nationally as either full or split teams.
    Further, state offers a unique opportunity to attract attention. Legislators, DPI officials, or professors can be persuaded to look in. If its true that local issues inflame bias and interest more, debating them will attract attention. Having guests may not be a sure fire fix to save debate, but outreach is needed.

    In short, just picking a topic and saying “good luck” is not a way to do this. If the outreach and preparation work is done it could produce an interesting and unique experience. If we are capable as an organization to produce a topic and supportin materials (as we do with novice policy each year) the biggest debates are whether we would fundamentally and unacceptably change “how debate is done” by not giving access to nationally produced materials and discussion and whether having the topic cover all December or just the WSDT best balances “good debate” and competative equity.

    By Tim Scheffler on May 13, 2010

19. I supported the idea when it was first presented at the WDCA Spring Meeting and I still think it’s a good idea now. I can sympathize with two basic “neg” arguments:

    1. No national research products would be available (handbooks/topic introductions/subscription services).

    2. The topic is just as likely to be bad as to be good (the framers will be fallible in the same way that the NFL framers are fallible).

    The rest of the arguments don’t hold a lot of weight:

    1. I don’t see a difference between national and state issues in terms of the strength of people’s biases. Some people care strongly about high-speed rail in Wisconsin, but do they really care more about it than they do about affirmative action or the war in Afghanistan (to use two recent examples)? I doubt it.

    2. The current system allows teams to debate once before the WSDT (on the first weekend of December). If this is a problem, it can be fixed; if it’s not, then changing the December topic to be state-focused doesn’t change anything.

    Why do I think this is a good idea?

    1. There is a good chance of outsider buy-in, I think—more of a chance than many of you seem to think. It’s possible that the cynics are correct, but I feel like outreach efforts centered around a topic of state-wide importance coupled with a celebration of our state tournament would be highly effective. Could we perhaps succeed with outreach efforts even if with the NFL topic? Of course. But I think the quality of response we get to our outreach efforts will increase exponentially if we debate a topic that is important to state legislators, business leaders, academics, activists, and indeed citizens.

    2. The lack of nationally-produced materials is a benefit, not a harm. While these services are undoubtedly helpful, I think a big component of the outreach program that we talked about would include the collection of materials about the topic for debaters to use. In addition to a basic packet of publicly-available articles, I also think we could solicit experts on both sides of the issue to prepare topic introduction essays… I am positive that state-level think tanks and legislative offices would be happy to provide this kind of material. It would take effort by the WDCA leadership, but a well-implemented outreach strategy would result in comparatively superior preparation materials for teams/debaters than they would receive from the national subscription services.

    I don’t have a horse in this race, so I’m not passionate either way. But assessing the arguments on both sides, I think this is a low-risk/high-reward proposal. At worst, we debate a topic that isn’t all that different than our other topics for two tournaments. But if things go well, this is a great opportunity to get outsiders involved with and interested in high school debate in Wisconsin.

    I’m certainly open to being persuaded…

    By Bill Batterman on May 13, 2010

20. I totally agree with Scheffler that having a topic for too long is bad and we don’t want to become too similar to policy, but having a topic just for state doesn’t seem to make much sense. It makes it really hard to prepare, and it kinda becomes a competition of who can stay up later after the first night to write blocks and look up evidence.

    Not having a chance to “break arguments” before state would also make things harder. Especially since most judges don’t disclose, it’s almost impossible to know what does or does not work until the tournament ends, and I think not being able to try things out would make teams less likely to run more creative arguments.

    If we’re gonna collect a packet of evidence from legislators and other Wisconsin people about the topic, doesn’t that limit debate even more? Like instead of being limited to the topics found in an assortment of prep books, we might become limited to the topics in this one packet of stuff. Especially if the state based topic has less evidence. Being treated like novice policy debaters would kinda suck :P

    I’m also still not convinced that successful outreach requires a Wisconsin topic. Outreach is important, but if we’re talking about public officials who care about education, it shouldn’t have to be something that effects only Wisconsin. National topics like teacher pay are still relevant.

    By Valerie Shen on May 13, 2010

21. Valerie – consider the two scenarios and tell me under which outreach seems more likely to occur:

    Method 1 – using the NFL topic

    Dear Knowledgeable person,

    We’d like for your to collect articles, write papers, and be interested in the December Public Forum topic. We won’t know what it is until November, so you’d have to work really hard in a short period of time. And we’d like you to do it for free. There’s also a possibility that the debate will be about something that you aren’t really interested in like the NBA dress code.

    Method 2 – picking our own topic

    Dear Knowledgeable Person,
    We’ve conviened a committee of rhetoric and public policy professors over the summer to chose a PF topic about Wisconsin policy issues. They chose issue X. Given the recent debates about this issue, could you help us get articles, write papers, etc.?

    My point is that outreach is easier to accomplish if you control the topic. We can specifically select interested people and we can significantly reduce the work burden on these individuals by choosing the topic in advance. That increases the probability that people will participate. Assuming interested people will always act as they should is not a good strategy.

    By Nick Bubb on May 13, 2010

22. Or you could think about it like this:

    Method 1 – Using the NFL topic
    November 1st, 2010
    Dear Knowledgeable Person,

    The National Forensic League released today that the December 2010 Public forum debate topic is X. We were wondering if you’d be willing to collect articles, write papers, and help us out with this topic. Your work would support Wisconsin debaters, and be published on debate websites to help people across the country as well.

    Method 2 – picking our own topic
    September 1, 2010
    Dear Knowledgeable person,

    We’ve convened a committee of rhetoric and public policy professors over the summer to choose a PF topic about a Wisconsin policy issue that will probably be irrelevant by December. Some new law might pass so that it doesnt even make sense anymore. PF is supposed to be about really current events but we decided to choose a topic in the summer. Would you be willing to help get articles and write papers, etc? We really need your help because no one outside of wisconsin is going to do anything and our debaters dont have enough resources. And we’d like you to do it for free (I’m not sure why this is relevant since its true in both cases but you put it in your version so i decided to add it here :P )

    I didn’t realize that you planned on choosing a topic in the summer. I think that also might not work very well, for the reasons stated in the second letter

    By Valerie Shen on May 13, 2010

23. I am still not convinced…

    Nick – you talk about prepping the topic in the summer… this vastly changes the prep for this topic! -Will some coaches know the topic before others? -Will some be involved in preparing the topic and forming it? -Doesn’t this create a competitive advantage/disadvantage? -Whether there is an advantage or not, will there be a perception of advantage/disadvantage?

    Bill – if the tournaments the week before WSDT don’t get on board – how is this fixed?

    Why are we trying to fix the wheel that isn’t broken? PF is the debate event in Wisconsin that is growing – so why do we want to screw around with its State Tournament? Yes – numbers of debaters in general, debate schools and debate coaches in Wisconsin is withering like a sunflower come December… but call me a fool if I believe that incorporating a local topic at the State Tournament is going to heal all that ails debate in Wisconsin! I think we would get more curdling out of this cat if we create an outreach program… take the best from the state tournament out to academia Wisconsin or Politico Wisconsin with a topic that interests them – wow them with the best of WSDT, rather than changing the state tournament and expecting them to come and buy in. (having a party to sell products can be fun – but if you are serious about pushing the product – you are out there knocking on doors and taking it to their offices) Even if public policy professors are completely enthralled with the results – how does this help the number problems of Wisconsin Debate. (And can you show me the correlation with less than 2 internal links)

    I am just afraid that by trying to push a positive agenda with the State Tournament we could have a very negative effect. (Way too many perceptions surround that tournament!) Call me old, call me traumatic to change, call me a jerk… but I don’t what my State Tournament messed with. (Just my opinion)

    Don’t get me wrong – I really like the idea of debating local topics! We did it in front of the Appleton Area School District last year with a couple of good PF debaters – and I believe the results will have helped debate in the Appleton School District for a number of years! But why does it have to screw around with the State Tournament… and why can’t we take the mountain to Mohammad?

    By Traas on May 13, 2010

24. I agree totally with Traas, messing with pf state isn’t going to net any comparative advantage.

    I still don’t see how this outreach is going to work by just making one topic WI centric.

    I disagree on evidence packets. I can guarantee you that evidence packets are going to make new starting teams or teams rebuilding feel more competitive and thus more invested. In fact I am sitting here with someone trying to start a pf/ld tram at their school looking at evidence providers.

    By James Hoggatt on May 14, 2010

25. Bill,

    In regards to think tanks on the state level, I’m not sure I’m convinced that we’d get great participation. In fact, I doubt their involvement would be any farther than a list and copy of whatever their think tank produced on the subject. That’s not really anything special, as those groups aren’t going to provide other groups work. You also run into the issue of what happens when we hit an issue where only one side really gets involved?

    That in conjunction with what val notes is a huge concern to me.

    By James Hoggatt on May 14, 2010

26. Why don’t we change the Policy and LD topics to be Wisconsin-centered, too??

    Uh huh, uh huh…

    By Shawn Matson on May 14, 2010

27. Mike – I think you raise some valid concerns about how the process would work, should we decide to do this. (Remember, this is just an idea). I would ask this though, do you think that Bill’s kids get an advantage because he works on the novice packet? Just because a coach is knowledgeable about the topic, does not translate into success on the topic. (Scheffler is a labor and unemployment attorney and we didn’t win the TOC).

    I don’t have a solid response to the inside out model of outreach v. the outside in model. Certainly, a debate demonstration could work too. My feeling is that the WSDT is an event that we already have. Why should we create a new event, simply to show off what we are already doing. I will say this though – PF is the only kind of debate that is attracting this kind of response and is the only kind of debate that our target audience would be interested in listening to. The proposed strategy is a similar to what the NFL is doing and it is working to some extend. Outside groups are offering resources to debaters. They are coming to debate tournaments to judge. Our idea is essentially to replicate that exclusively for Wisconsin students. The only real way that would work is if we change the topic.

    Also – I’d really like for people to refrain from negative comments/dumb args that are not helpful to the process. There were less than 15 coaches at the WDCA meeting – debate is clearly on the brink. I am not naive enough to think this idea will save debate, but we do need to something. Inaction is not an option. If you’re just nay saying because you are trying to remember your days as a debater, you are not helping the discussion.

    By Nick Bubb on May 14, 2010

28. Ok, I don’t want to be party to a lynch mob… I do like the idea of local topics – just not a fan of them at the State tournament.

    I would really like to create an outreach program that is twofold. One that reached out to politicans and higher education institutions within the state, and a second that is geared to currently non-involved schools in the state. I also think this is best achieved by working outside our competitive schedule.

    Nick, Bill, Tim and everyone else on here – will you all help me – I would like to take one of those two topic ideas that Nick has and create a debate – a real debate this summer (I am sure we can find one day that we could get 4 quality students together) and record that round. Make it a tremendous example of what our debaters are doing. We could probably have a debate that truly encompasses the best of arguments on the subject(s) and make a quality recording to share with both groups. You create a great debate regarding QEO, with students articulating the positions – and it will blow away school boards and administrators that do not have debate programs – and we then offer to help them develop programs that could do this for their students. (offer to provide them with a debating opportunity – maybe even on a weeknight at their school – or help them find a coach)

    I want to do this – I really do! Cause I want to get every school in our conference to be able to bring a pair of students to a conference meet! I want to make a regional schedule and have some weeknight debates with Brillion, Manitowoc, and Green Bay schools. And I believe it starts with a DVD that I can hand them which includes a somewhat-staged debate with some of the best PF debaters from our state!

    Maybe a cost of being in the finals at the State tournament is to have to do this project each spring or summer – and become the marketing tool for WDCA!

    There – That’s my Pitch.

    By Traas on May 14, 2010

29. That sounds like a great idea. I would be happy to help.

    But I’m also not sure why we couldn’t do both?

    By Nick Bubb on May 14, 2010

30. I wasn’t at the meeting because I don’t have a team – yet.

    Mike’s idea is a good one. I’m willing to help in any way I can, and thanks for starting the discussion, Nick.

    By Shawn Matson on May 14, 2010

31. Calling arguments stupid isn’t a great way to make a point, Nick. It does nothing but make people feel as if you simply don’t care and that their voice doesn’t matter to you. The electronic medium is difficult to portray arguments in an effective manner. Want more people doing debate? Attract the people graduating into coaching. There are coaching positions and budgets available at schools currently, or are being discontinued because people retire and there aren’t new ranks of people moving in.

    As has been noted PF is in a great place as the only growing category. Why mess with a good thing. I think Traas has a great idea, I think the local debates from the outreach perspective would be better suited in the idea he presented.

    By James Hoggatt on May 14, 2010

32. Cut Nick some slack; if it wasn’t for him, the WDCA would have dissolved by now. We all realize he can get a little feisty, but it’s only because he’s passionate and cares so much about debate in our state.

    I like the Traas CP — my only concern is follow-through, which is why the original State Tournament Plan was proposed. When we commit to do something for the WSDT, it’s very likely that we’ll actually do it. When we commit to do something in other contexts, it’s very UNlikely that we’ll actually do it. Or at least that’s been the organization’s (recent) track record.

    Why PF and not LD/CX? Obviously because PF changes topics every month and is focused on a public audience: there’s no grand conspiracy.

    Why mess with an event that works? Proponents of the local topic don’t think it will do any harm… it’s still a new topic, it’s still the same format, and it’s still judged by the same people. This isn’t a dramatic change, so the risk of the Kill PF DA is exceedingly low.

    Like I said before, I don’t feel passionately about this either way, but I think it’s a fresh new idea at a time when we desperately need to do *something*. Maybe the Traas CP is sufficient/superior; if so, great.

    By Bill Batterman on May 14, 2010

33. I don’t think state is the place to experiment though. That’s a huge issue. If it ends up being a big flop we will have done serious harm to the legitimacy of the tournament and organization. When NFL is the mistake maker it doesn’t do harm to the legitimacy of the WDCA and instead just frustrates people. Plus keeping the state title topic out of the hands of the organization just settles better overall.

    I think we might want to poll kids at a tournament. I honestly don’t think students would like this and would turn them off to competition.

    I think if Traas’ plan is followed through its a superior outreach system to changing tounament topics, as it is no risk.

    By James Hoggatt on May 14, 2010

34. Reasons I think the idea of a Wisconsin-focused topic are good:

    1. It requires original thought and original research. If we’re trying to demonstrate the power and value of debate, these two skills are at the top of the list.

    2. It makes the resolution more relevant to the debaters because it is focused on us, and not bigger topics and generalizations about terrorism, the economy, etc.

    3. I don’t think it would be worse (or better) than the current system. There isn’t a tournament where someone (student or adult) doesn’t bemoan at least one of the resolutions from any of the 3 divisions.

    4. It sounds like fun (as a judge) to hear a round like this. Purely selfish, I know, but it sounds interesting.

    But, I’m not sure I’d be in favor of switching to this model for the WSDT. Since we’re going to crown a state champion, I think we might be best served by using the same methods we already use in establishing the playing field. But on the other hand, cross-apply #1 and we’ll see who puts the best research, argumentation and persuasive speaking together.

    By John Knetzger on May 14, 2010

35. I would like to add to Knetzger’s arguments…

    5. For most Wisconsin debaters, the season ends with State, so there is little lost to a state topic.

    6. There are stronger possibilities of recapturing state education leaders (professors, superintendents, etc) and political leaders into the activity. Would it be cool if the final round or (thinking big) all out rounds were judged by state elected leaders?

    By Ken Sajdak on May 15, 2010

36. 1. The best teams already do original thought and original research, outside briefs function to make small teams and novices feel more competitive. Loss of access to this would hurt competition at state, not help it. Further making it WI focused will narrow topic analysis which would infact hinder creativity and originality.

    2. I don’t think its anymore relevant. If they really like high speed rail as an idea they’ve already thought about how it would effect their area whether the topic says WI or not. Terrorism is equally as relevant as a WI policy that might never effect them. It might be more relevent to us coaches, but not really our students.

    3. True

    4. I feel exactly the opposite. I get enough WI in my daily life. I’d much rather a broad topic than what has been on the front page of the paper and on the local news. So its kind of moot. I’m more interested in what the kids would think.

    5. That applies to any topic.

    6. Sure I’d love that, but if we did I’d really be wary of WI based topics just because the nature of their jobs as politicians. Making it more detached would ensure the bias of elected official judges be lessened. I mean we honestly can’t expect someone whose been fighting over a certain issue in congress for a while to be completely unbiased.

    By James Hoggatt on May 15, 2010

37. Nick I kinda disagree that “Just because a coach is knowledgeable about the topic, does not translate into success on the topic.”
    While we didn’t win the TOC, we did manage to win a few rounds and Scheffler’s knowledge was the main reason for that. We would have done noticeably worse without it. If you have active coaches at all involved in choosing the topic, there is going to be unfairness or at least accusations regarding unfairness. So the problem is not just that some people will know the topic earlier, its also that they may know more about the topic.

    By Valerie Shen on May 17, 2010

38. Re: the video idea from Traa

    …already in the pipeline. As discussed at the spring meeting, stage one of the Judging Standards and Ethics Committee’s “grand project”, Paige Prichard and I simplified, clarified and organized the judge’s handbook. Yes, that’s a whole year project if you’ve ever seen its current state. Stage two, next year, is about judge adjudication materials. Online text, video and self- or coach-administered quizzes to help new judges become competent and comfortable. Essential in these materials is video of good debate. It would be very easy to take this video, burn it to a DVD and repackage it as promotional material for the WDCA. My timeline is to have our project plan, setup, site and partners all lined up this summer and then execute the plan during next season, with editing and production during the offseason. In short, in a year from now we ought to have a first-class training site with all the video you’ll want for the promotion!

    By Dan Hansen on Jun 1, 2010

1. 1 Trackback(s)

2. May 10, 2010: Wisconsin Ponders A Topic Experiment

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