Where has the *FUN* gone?

[USC MissingLink]

I've judged at two tournaments and something has struck me. It seems that debates have become so serious and focused on argumentation that the little things that make parli unique and fun are being lost.

By little things, I mean witty remarks, funny statements, clever turns of phrase. Or, just a general fun atmosphere in which debaters don't take the event too seriously and have fun. Even the hear, hears and shames have ceased. The event is becoming robotic.

Now, I recognize that this may be the way it's been for a long time and that my experience as a competitor may not have provided a ballanced perspective of the sort of debates that occur in the NPDA, but let me tell you from experience that one of the best parts of this events is its encouragement of such acts. A celebration of wit if you will.

I think it's time to put the "fun" back in defunbate.

jEd

[truthisjust]

I think your view is a product of making the transition from debater to judge. I experienced the same thing last year. It doesn't get any better.

[USC MissingLink]

Maybe it's a part of that transition, but I know there was a time, as a spectator, when the debater would make the audience laugh. That seems very rare these days.

I'm self aware of the fact that there's innevitably going to be a difference between judging and competing, and I don't think that's what I'm noticing (although I could be wrong).

jEd

[Samopolis]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> [M]any NPDA teams seem to be increasingly using pre-prepared topicality arguments, pre-prepared "critiques," heavily sub-pointed pre-prepared cases, utilizing an opp strategy of taking the debate as far off case as possible, multi-pointing responses, speaking very quickly at times, defaulting to policy interpretations of resolutions, and so on...[/quote]-Shipley



Jed, I think your observations (on how wit, humor, and subtletly have gone utterly out the window) are describing tenets of the same "new" parliamentary debate that Brian and Jason Steck spoke of during the Is Nouveau Parli killing "Classic" Parli? (http://pub31.ezboard.com/fnetbenefits99602frm26.showMessageRange?topicID=31 .topic&start=1&stop=20) discussion. (I won't reopen the issues discussed therein, but I think it's probably the most pertinent and most developed thread we've had here in On Case.)

[Samopolis]

Sorry to break the unspoken NB rule about not stroking Jed's ego, but while we're on the topic of wit, fun, humor, and parli being an art form, that final round @ Azusa last fall between USC and NAU takes the cake w/o a contest, IMHO.

(If my memory serves me correctly, than this particularly sublime debate was the same round that both sides advocated a double-win, thus taking the ballots out of play. Coincidence?)

[joecool12321]

I wonder how much of the supposed problem is caused because the event is set within a competitive framework, as Sam points out. It seems like, in most cases, this “other-izes” the opposing team. For example, at Claremont my partner and I were told, “[We] just want to leave single mothers out in the cold.” While this may have merely been a strategy to inflame my partner and I—causing us to miss arguments or miss-allocate time—it reveals an underlying problem.

Most judges take some form of a “flow” paradigm while evaluating the round, and attempt to remove themselves from the debate as much as possible. This seems to at least encourage an “us vs. them” dichotomy, where “we” win or “they” win. Thus, whatever a team can do to encourage their chances is seen as a viable option.

What if (and I’ve thought about proposing this as a standard in-round, but I haven’t worked out a way to explain it clearly) the judge functioned as more than a “computer argument analyzer” that took in arguments, but functioned as an “interested citizen”. The standard would look something like this:

“I come into the debate with knowledge and opinions. Asking me to get rid of those opinions is fundamentally impossible: I am what I am. However, I am fundamentally interested in holding rational, justified beliefs. In that vein, I’m already disposed to one side or the other. Say, for the sake of argument, I am currently pre-disposed to the Government team. If the Opposition can cause me to question beliefs I currently have, while the Government cannot help me answer them, I will vote for the Opposition. If, however, the Government team can help entrench my current view, and give me more justification for that belief, I will vote for them.”

Now, this paradigm does not eliminate the dichotomy. But the primary focus is no longer the “other” team. Now, the primary focus is convincing the judge (what an amazing concept)! To be a little more explicit, the motivation is no longer, “I want to beat the other team in order to win the ballot.” Hopefully, this type of a paradigm leads the focus of the debate to, “I want to convince the judge in order to win the ballot.”

This also serves as an automatic balance to “mindset abusive” cases. A case is “mindset abusive” if it plays on perceived predispositions of the debate community. For example, I would argue that extending rights to the GLBT community is “mindset abusive”. First, these aren’t merely abusive because they appeal to the judge. It’s really hard to debate an issue with which the competitor fundamentally agrees, right? Like, on one level I can debate Iraq much better than GLBT rights, because I’m not convinced Iraq is good or bad, whereas I’m convinced GLBT rights are good. Thus, when I see a case like CSULB’s immigration case (which is awesome), it’s really hard to come up with answers in 2 minutes. Now that I’ve been away from the debate, I have answers, and I’ll do much better if I hit the case again, but it’s imperative to realize abuse doesn’t only happen when there’s an appeal to the judge. Anyway, back to the “mindset abusive” cases. Well, the above paradigm is a balance to such a case.

Scale of assuredness:
---------------------------------------------------------------
^ 90%
Say, for the sake of argument, a judge is 90% certain that rights should be extended. The Government team has quite a bit of work to do in order to make the judge even more convinced. On the other hand, the opposition has a much easier job trying to show how some preconceived notion might have an underlying flaw. It’s simply easier to cause the judge to question more, because the judge believes more. I hope that makes sense.

This paradigm is (unsurprisingly) not without problems. The first and most obvious one is this: What happens if a judge is “100% convinced” on some issue, and he or she thinks they know all the answers to any possible argument. Doesn’t that make debate impossible?

Well, I suppose my first answer (ha, ha) would be that this necessarily leads to a ballot for the viewpoint opposing the adjudicator. Right, if the judge is 100% convinced, than it would be impossible for the team with the same view to further entrench that view. Seeing as how most judges would probably not like this result, they may be more willing to entertain clash. Second, though, it seems this is a problem within the current system as well. Judges have predispositions! That’s why people run GLBT cases! Some circuits (I think of the High School Home School Debate League) are amazingly conservative. Surprise, surprise, GLBT rights cases were hardly presented. So “silencing” is really non-unique. But I think the above paradigm is still better, because it seems to be less prone to “other-izing” than a mostly “flow” paradigm is prone to “other-izing.”

All of my analysis might be utter crap, though, and probably is. But I’m just trying to understand the issues, not “be right” or “win an argument.” So I’d love feedback on the above. Also, I know that I’m guilty of (at a minimum) in-round other-izing. How have other, better debaters gotten around this issue, and how do you keep the round “fun” in the face of a team that really doesn’t seem to want to have any?

[UCSDanny]

hi,

one thing I noticed last year - when debate actually became fun as a competitor, is it really all depends on the audience in the round. the only rounds that have been really "fun" (as opposed to supplying my addictive 'fix' =P) were rounds that had large audiences that actually reacted to the Puns, witty questions, etc that you speak of. I suppose many of the rounds you are referencing were preliminary rounds with 5 total people in the room. unfortunately most of the time the other team won't laugh at a joke which leaves 1 person, a hopefully neutral judge, to laugh - which might be uncomfortable. It's really amazing what an extra 5-6 people in a room can do, add 20 and it's a real kick. I got to debate a demo round in front of a auditorium full of high school students and it was SO much fun =)

there also might be a question of maturity for the rounds. to be able to have "fun" I think, like others have said here, competitors have to sorta shed the desire to win every round and really enjoy the rounds. I think this starts happening when you're in the deep elimination rounds and you're already happy where you've gotten in the tournament. If you're in the 0-5 bracket (where I spent many a tournament =)) I can understand why debate might not be the most enjoyable experience.

It also might be a beginning of the season thing? People are still getting back into the swing of thing, remembering how to debate - and maybe by mid-season we're back up to our punny selves?

I would have to vehemently disagree however that because some teams are beginning to sound like "ceda" that debate is no longer fun. Personally I'm glad people are starting to make more "ceda" style arguments. A judge at Fresno asked us to slow down and avoid "ceda" for the "sake of parli" I thought to myself it's lucky we're moving towards ceda for the "sake of parli." Personally I think more advanced argumentation (which I take it people mean when they say "ceda like") can only help the event progress to a truly persuasive form of debate. "line-by-line" which one judge said we did "too much of" only helps debate by making it more organized and coherent to me. 4 pointed T arguments make more convicing arguments. and if this were not the case, teams making these style of arguments would quickly lose. but that's not what we see, is it? this, I think, is healthy and more fun to debate. The most fun debates I've been in have been the most structured and organized debates - not the ones I think people who say avoid "ceda like" would like to see. Maybe those would be more in the spirit of classic parli or whatever that means - but those are no fun to compete in for me.

I've probably not covered everything (hehe) said above but I think I got my point across. anyway, I really should be studying for the LSAT....

-danny

[USC MissingLink]

(If my memory serves me correctly, than this particularly sublime debate was the same round that both sides advocated a double-win, thus taking the ballots out of play. Coincidence?)No coincidence at all.

For one of my classes I had to put together an annotated bibliography and the topic I chose was the role of the judge in accademic debate. These days, we take the existance of a judge and decisions as dropped arguments (i.e. gospel Truth, the word of God, fact).

I found it interesting that way back when debate was just beginning there were people who questioned whether or not the role of the judge was even necesary - for many of the reasons we've outlined.

Two notable sources from 1915 and 1929:

Woodward, Howard S. “Debating Without Judges.” The Quarterly Journal of Speech 1 (1915): 229-233

and

Schrier W. M. “Shifting the Emphasis: An Argument for No Decision Debating.” The Quarterly Journal o 15 (1929): 364-374

The advocates for no-decision/no judge debating were eventually drowned out by those who insisted that a decision was necessary to maintain public and participant interest and to tap the American thirst for competition.

Another point I'd like to make has to do with a role of the lay-judge. As some of you know, I voted against the "Celebrity Judge Amendment" at NPDA last year. However, as I told Tom Kuster immediately following the debate, I agree with the ideology behind the policy, but the structure was poor. You can't reward debaters for doing certain things throughout the season and even in the priliminary rounds of a National Tournament and then change the rules on them in out-rounds at that very same tournament.

I do however believe that there is great validity to the argument that lay judges would help the event. As I see things now, parli is just becoming a replacement for CEDA without evidence. Robert Trapp argued that if parli is to be justified in remaining separate from the NDT/CEDA events, it must maintain it's unique characteristics, specifically a focus on public speaking. (Trapp, Robert. “Parliamentary Debate as Public Argument.” In a paper presented at the Tahoe Conference on Academic Debate, June 2001). I think this is valid, especially since parli debate doesn't have the structural support to truly become argumentation focusses - we don't use evidence to support our claims, rather we assert facts. In argumentation, this will just lead to muddled debates where no clear conception of reality is ever advanced.

Many have suggested the use of lay-judges in forensics in order to maintain this focus on public speaking. See, for example:

Bartanen, Michael D. “The Case for Using Nontraditional Judges in Forensics Contests.” Argumentation and Advocacy 30 (1994): 248-254.

Cox, Sam E., Tammy Lyman Honse. “Inexperienced and Experienced Debate Judges: Beyond ‘Name Calling.’” CEDA Yearbook 12 (1991): 48-66.

The reason lay-judges could address the problem of over-reliance on argumentation is that lay-judges are not educated in the nuances of debate jargon and technical argumentation. Do not make the mistake of thinking that this means lay-judges are stupid. A study conducted by a former Trojan found that the language and form alone was responsible for a significant reduction in the comprehension of debater's arguments by experts in the field that the arguments were being made. In other words, and economist will have a hard time understading the argument about the economy because of the way in which the debater is making the presentation.

Swinney, James P. “The Relative Comprehension of Contemporary Tournament Debate Speeches.” The Journal of the American Forensic Association 5 (196:cool: : 16-20.

Sadly, these elements of technical language and argumentation have no applicability in the real world. They are useful in a debate round and in the debate community only, where all members are oriented to their meaning.

Some argue that the role of the judge is to be an educator in argumentation, a role which the lay-judge, unversed in argumentation theories, will be unable to fill. I say no. Trapp applies G. Thomas Goodnight’s spheres of argumentation to the issue of debate. Technical argumentation can be likened to argument made in the technical sphere. Common-man argumentation is the public-sphere. Goodnight explains that the technical sphere can be expressed in the public sphere using different language. In other words, debaters can still use complex theories like counterplans and kritiks, they'll just have to 1) understand them 2) be able to explain them.

This has gotten kind of long... sorry. Darn 11:30 Pepsi...

jEd

[StarDancingGirl]

In high school, we had lagrely lay judges, and we disliked them immensely. However, especially as I've debated on the college cirquit, I've come to realize that there is a place for lay judges, just not the majority of the time. They do force you to explain your arguments so that they can be accessible to a majority of people, and I also think they force you to impact arguments more. Why is T important, why are the harms so bad, how specifically do you solve, etc. Also, it may also force you to weigh things more carefully through your criteria. All of these things make you better debaters, as well as better speakers.

[ML]

My initial thought:

Debate is never fun. It's just a bunch of masochists getting together every weekend for an orgy of mental whips and chains. If you can't handle the flow, get outta the round.

But seriously folks.

I must take issue with the delineation being drawn between "fun" (aka "true Parli", lighthearted, public speaking focused, entertaining, enlightening and dare we say sexy debate) debate and "serious" (aka CEDA, technical, jargon-based, hypercompetitive, buzz-kill-only-for-geeks-debate).

Bad "public-style" debaters use long introductions, bad jokes, and other poorly wielded tools to cover up the fact they never do research or keep up with the world and could give a damn about the serious implications of the things they argue. Bad "policy-style" debaters use jargon, speed, and trivial knowledge to cover up the fact they really don't know what they're talking about and could give a damn if anyone else does.

Good DEBATERS in general are able to adapt to complex argumentation, can be fast and clear enough for relatively slow judges to catch on to, AND use their rhetorical skills to provide pathos and ethos in their rounds. They are transcendant of format or style.

My point is, stop blaming the arguments and trends being used and start working on educating the debaters on how to use them effectively. Topicality arguments do not take on a life of their own and "spoil" clash unless inexperienced debaters let it happen. Kritiks are perfectly acceptable (in fact many policy critics and coaches think they are more appropriate for a parliamentary format than a policy one), as long as they are well-explained and have a link. Running a value case advocating universal government works too, as long as all the debaters are up on their international law, regionalism, and world systems theory. Experience teaches debaters (at least the ones willing to learn) when not to go for T, run a kritik, or argue an abstract philisophical case. By letting the round be about the debaters (instead of making it clear there are certain arguments you will or won't listen to or nit-picking about style...) you facilitate their learning more effectively.

And, having been on the other side of the ballot for about five years now, I can tell you it is never as much "fun" as it was when you were competing. But it is rewarding, and that's what makes it worthwhile.

ML

[tutakai]

I think the implication that the transition of parli away from witty, audience-centered debate and toward technical, flow-centered debate has much to do with the dissmissive attitude toward so-called "lay" judges (and debaters) is correct. Some kind of wierd social construction (hey, I'm at the U of Minn -- what do you expect) has taken place where a consensus has been reached in two aspects -- one technical/normative and one purely normative:

1) "The flow" is an objective record of the round that should be the focus of all decision-making.

2) Technical, heavily sub-pointed, atomized debate is "good debate" and witty, big-picture, analysis-driven debate is "bad debate".

Judges and debaters who don't specialize in flogocentric debate are openly mocked and heavily struck whenever the opportunity arises.

In short, NPDA has gotten PRECISELY what it has asked for.

[sbatt]

I agree with the previous post. This phenomenon has been coming for awhile, and folks who complained were scorned. I have a lot of time invested in this, including 8 years of coaching, and I continually struggle to get people to see quality at a higher level. The problem isn't a new focus on quality arguments; it's a paucity of quality arguments. There is a regression to the mean. There needs to be creativity and innovation, and heaps of scorn placed upon the forces of conformity. Then, we can start having fun.
Shawn, DOF
UOP

[Samopolis]

<img src=http://www.net-benefits.net/emoticons/hearhear.gif ALT=":hear">
Right on, Shawn. We need to, as they say in the teenage vernacular, 'keep it real'

BTW, I've started a new thread called The Flow As Gospel, as such an interesting discussion deserves its own thread, IMHO.

[brianjackson]

I too am in favor of lay judges playing a larger role in both college and high school debate. It seems to me that with more paradigms and philosophies in the judging pool, we as debaters become better at arguing to different audiences. Sure, most people can learn to debate exclusively in front of lay judges or exclusively in front of ex-debaters or exclusively in front of any one "type" of judge. That, however, does not teach us to communicate effectively with all or even most people. Yes, the flow is important, but the flow is not the almighty god of debate; rather, it's a tool to be used by judges in conjunction with everything else that happens during the debate round--from witty remarks to unflowed POIs and on down the list.

The conflict between lay judges and academic judges seems to me to be representative of the larger conflict between debate as an educational activity and debate as an academic game. Most of the complaints that I've heard about lay judges center around their refusal to accept "debatey" arguments. The complaints about lay judges seem to be things like not voting on T or critiques or dropped arguments, but rather on the overall impact of the debate round. That attitude seems to be representative of the educational aspect of debate--teaching debaters to communicate effectively with people who don't necessairly have the same background in rhetoric/communications. Academic judges, on the other hand, will frequently vote on technical arguments even if the "big picture" of the debate would indicate the opposite vote. This seems to better represent the idea of debate as a game.

Is there a "right" way to view debate: as a game or as an educational activity? Probably not. Certainly, there's no consensus among debaters, coaches, and judges about whether debate's focus should be education or gamesmanship. However, I believe that until a consensus is reached, the arguments about lay judges v. academic judges will continue to fester.

Just a few thoughts...
Brian Jackson
Claremont Colleges

[pattybar]

Hello All,

I think the challenge of 'lay judges' is the same as the reason they are good for the activity... namely that they need to be convinced. Translation: they aren't predisposed to make a decision in a debate round for debate reasons not properly explained in the round... translation: they don't understand jargon, don't know what the "good positions" are and are not interested in who your coach/team/favorite comm theorist is....In other words, IMHO, they actually judge the debate.

It seems that there is some sort of bizarre tournament administrator's idea that we can just toss any person into a debate round and they will magically make the "correct decision" from a "normal person's" point of view. This isn't quite accurate. Lay judges want to understand the rules of the debate and they want to make sure the winning team adheres to those rules... SO, lay judges need to be given those rules.

Hmmmm.... now, NPDA has a problem, as its formal rules need help... but, NPTE has an answer for that. Y'all should check out the NPTE rules for debating and judging.

npte.debateaddict.com/npt...rules.html (http://npte.debateaddict.com/npte_debate_rules.html)

Patty

[pattybar]

Oh, poor Jed....

As I told Jason this time two years ago.... the reason these rounds don't seem as fun as the rounds you competed in is because they aren't as fun.

Fun debaters make fun rounds... and whether or not I voted for you, your rounds were fun.... welcome to the other side of the postings, my friend. You will come to value the fun rounds more than having enough sleep or time for lunch.

Part of your quandry is that the season is still young and those who are trying parli and will leave soon haven't figured out that they'd "rather sit in their room and drink Corona". They will leave mostly because they aren't having fun... because they aren't either good at all of this (and aren't willing to stick around and learn, thus they leave...) Because they aren't good they are on the low side of the bracket. Those rounds are rarely a joy to watch.

The other part of the problem is that those who are returning have had all summer to ponder the flow-centric reasons they didn't win NPDA --- and they are darn sure not going to waste any of their precious time being entertaining for you....especially not when they have either a) massive time allocation problems, b) some great [in their eyes] new K or T arguments, c) a partner they dont' know/trust, or d) a partner who they think should consider the 'corona' option themselves.

Don't worry, things will get a little better -- be careful what you say to debaters about being entertained... I've tried all options and found that there is nothing you can say to get a really good round (mostly because they will get silly in an attempt to entertain you, leaving in you nothing to vote on but stand-up comedy). The best you can do is to smile, flow casually, act like you know what you are doing and smile at EVERY joke.

Soon enough the word will get around that you were a debater who was pretty entertaining and that is one element teams should include. It might help to tell your teams your basic problem with the past two tournaments so they can tell their pals what you'd like to see -- namely, some of the fun and actual arguments.

Patty

[USC MissingLink]

Perhaps my confusion comes from the fact that I believe that being "fun" is an extremely effective way to win. Debate is a game and not taking it seriously opens doors and strategies that have powerful argumentative potential:

1) Taking debate too seriously limits the arguments that debaters are willing to make. I remember specifically the final round at the second half of the Colorado Swing in which the opposition argued abuse and refused to take "unpopular" positions (like police powers are statist and authoritarian, or that the rule of law should not be a paramount value). These positions would have lead to a fun debate, but instead the round ballanced upon "abuse." conversely, in many debates I was involved in with Danny and Brandon from NAU, such position were eagerly pursued. NAU notoriously took extreme positions, and did very well with them. My point here is that if debaters are willing to have fun they'll be more willing to make the arguments that can win them the debate.

2) Being light-hearted has implications on how the judge perceives the round. I've always coached that a very important aspect of a debate round is "owning" the round. Making it clear that you are in charge. This goes from your stature upon entering the round to your banter with the opposing teams, judges and audience. Having fun sends the message that the debater is confident and comfortable in the round. This will innevitably win points with the adjudicating panel.

3) The fun itself makes the round interesting and engages the audience, and therefore the judges, in the arguments being advanced. As much as we like to think of judges as steryl non-human decision making machines, the truth of the matter is everything, including the flow, is subjective. Human appeal (fun) can influence that decision.

4) Rhetorically, fun is an amazing way tool and one worth learning. It's the ability to make that operator on the technical help line go the extra-mile to help you. It's the ability to convince a study-group that your ideas are better. If it works in the world, why not model it and practice in debate?

Fun can be a valuable tool, and I think it is something that should be taught to debaters. Take the event seriously, but for the love of God, have fun!

jEd

[Samopolis]

Another A+, Mr. Link. You've figured it out.

Wit, humor, fun- they all serve to make a debater more accessible, and I think there's a direct link between that and winning.

And isn't that the beauty of this problem? Teams default to technical, flow-based argumentation because they want to win, when, ironically, it is doing just the opposite that would snare them the most ballots.

My coach, Steve Lipman, has always maintained that the best way to persuade is to not even attempt persuasion, but rather explanation. I find that the more I keep this in mind during the round, the more I enjoy debate.

[pattybar]

So, Jed you have a great set of arguments and examples for your own squad about how fun leads to winning.

The next question is how to make a change on the circuit?

I'd say that teaching your own students this formula is a good start.. .also, the formula doesn't need to apply only to "lay" judges, since even debate judges are mostly human.... so, appeal to them also.

I think you can also help, provided you see some good rounds, by making a comment on the ballot and directly to the coach of the teams that impress you.... even if they don't win.

Finally, work on bringing in debate rookies to your squad. They won't have the High School debate mentality that simply festers and results in the flow-orientation. Make contact with the political action kinds of groups on campus, with the comm club and the philosophy club.... and any other activities you think might bring some fresh blood into the debate community. With enough of that on the circuit, at least your teams will be interesting to listen to in practice AND they will set a standard on the local circuit that requires both some humor AND some arguments to win.

Take care,
Patty

[Trojan Tau]

I agree with Patty ... Debate Rookies can bring a fun element. I didn't have any idea what a flow was walking into college. The concepts of harms, topicality, and disads were empty words. I'd done plenty of JSA-debates and made speeches to all sizes of audiences, so I was ingrained with the concept that any type of public speaking should be focused at the audience so that you entertain, inform, and convince them. That attitude is key for NPDA.

NPDA is audience-centered intercollegiate debate. Go to the NPDA homepage and that’s what it says: AUDIENCE-CENTERED. I think one of the things that can make that hard is a lack of audience … most parli rounds have one judge, 4 debaters, and a lot of empty space. As previous posts have said, the entertainment value rises as you have an audience to respond to the debate. Too bad that’s usually only in out-rounds.

I remember an exhibition worlds-style held in 1998 or 1999 in Monterey, CA. It was Stanford, Berkeley, Oxford, and Cambridge. There was a huge audience, and it was outstanding. People were rolling in the aisles. As fine as those institutions and debate programs are, it was obvious that the audience was necessary for it to be fun. Everybody played off of the crowd. And there was one other thing that made it really special: they didn’t use a single debate term (like “topicality” or “DA”).

At Claremont I felt that my sense of humor was stifled by a few things (that apply in most prelims). With the exception of out-rounds:
1. There is no audience to perform to.
2. A joke has to be very well tailored to the judge, and that’s some serious pressure. If you mess it up, that can really hurt speaker points. If a judge doesn’t like a joke or sharp turn of phrase, audience laughter can at least make up for it. If a judge does, audience laughter makes it that much better.
3. People care a lot about the flow, and about terms. Throwing out a lot of debate lingo makes the debate dry, technical, and official sounding. Whenever I hear that, I feel like I should do the same, or at least stay away from humor. Refer back to the worlds example.

Fast forward to tonight. We had a few new kids watching a practice round at USC. The 4 debaters were very relaxed because of the post-tournament let down (ie: tired of hearing jargon and topicality stuff, no pressure of “winning” or trying to break). The receptive audience combined with the relaxed atmosphere led to one of the most “fun” debates I’ve had in a long time. Puns, jokes, and clever turns of phrase dominated the round and had everybody in the room flushed with laughter (except John, but it was hard to tell under the stubble). That’s really the way it’s supposed to be.

Looking back over the last couple years, I wish I had the advantage of knowing debate terms and structures walking in the door. However, I'm very glad that I’m not into CEDA/NDT style debate. Before our parli practice I heard part of a policy round today and wanted to gag. While I have a lot of respect for those who do it, I certainly have no desire to sit down and listen to it.

I don’t know a whole heck of a lot about IEs, but I know that you do get an audience out of the people who you are competing against. Unfortunately, I don’t think your speeches can really intertwine. That’s why parli is so great. You have the opportunity for clever people to have their words dance together forming a magical display of wit.

Bottom line: How do we get an audience in rounds? What about having more byes for the sole purpose of having an audience?

[USC MissingLink]

I recognize that it is more difficult to be funny to an audience of one, but a few points.

First, I've seen rounds in front of packed houses (people sitting on the floor packed) where the debaters had an excellent opportunity to use humor but didn't.

More imporantly, when I talk about having fun, I'm not talking about telling jokes or getting a laugh. I'm talking about really having fun in the activity, for win or for lose. Realizing that it's a game and playing it. It's the difference between watching the little league world series and the MLB world series. The content may be better in MLB but it's not as fun to watch (imho) 'cause the kids are playing for the love of the game and having a great time.

It all comes down to not taking this stuff too seriosly. If you have fun with it, you'll enjoy it more, your judges will enjoy you more, you'll win more and then you'll enjoy it even more.

Wierd how that works.

jEd

[pattybar]

Its all the Zen of debate... the more you focus on the fun instead of the winning, the more you will win. Hard for some people to do, but definitely possible.

I agree that an audience can make it easier to be fun and funny, but if a team goes into a round and actually enjoys what they are doing, it will be catchy... if only among themselves. Then what the judge sees is one team that enjoys debating and the other that is rather stodgy.... so, who would you rather vote for in a close round... those who are having fun and projecting the attitude that this is actually a fun event.

Patty

[Samopolis]

I think I know a good way to get folks from talking their rounds so seriously, but it could get complicated (and expensive)...
<img src=http://www.net-benefits.net/emoticons/bong.gif ALT=":bong">

"May I have a sip of your Pepsi, Mr. Speaker?"

[Western Amy]

I love rounds where you're having a good time, but I just have to throw something out there that's haunted me ever since I began my debate career.

I'm not funny.

What recourse am I left with? I about hit my capacity of getting a few laughs by making fun of my partner. Usually, he was the funny one. Make the format more and more about entertainment, and analysis can suffer, and so can the straight woman of the comedy duo. Perhaps there could be clinics at camps and the like, but teaching case-building is an awful lot easier than teaching humor. Talk about closing off our organization to accessibility, now we're limiting it to the comedically challenged

Tongue firmly in cheek (but see, this post wasn't funny either!)

Amy

[USC MissingLink]

You may not be funny Amy (i still think you're a crazy, psycho wierdo) but that don't mean you can't have fun. Again, be careful to assume that only people who are funny are having fun.

jEd

[pattybar]

Gee Amy, I think you are funny...

Actually, Jed's deeper point was that there should be the feeling that the debaters are enjoying themselves. You were always fully engaged in the round, it was clear you thought it was a good and fun activity...thus, the W.

Don't worry, Jason wasn't intentionally funny either but he did get some laughs when his opponents would give him the opportunity (especially fun at the expense of Bill Herman, finals at the Creighton Tournament a while back...)... the point is to enjoy what you are doing.

Patty

[properwinston]

Lay judges would be nice because no one could say words like "uniqueness," "inherency," and "turn" without actually explaining what these words mean and how they affect the debate. Parli is becoming much too enamored with policy jargon. Of course, this trend can be turned back by the competitors. Everytime someone says, "that argument ain't unique," then simply ask: "what is uniqueness, how does it relate to this argument and why is it important to the debate as a whole?" I am confident that 90 percent of open teams couldn't answer all three of those questions. This isn't a condemnation. These are not easy questions to answer.

[Dan6814]

I agree with you about the inherency part -- aside from saying that we don't have the policy now, I've never understood why the government team has the burden of providing the opposition team with arguments -- but uniqueness is a pretty simple argument. I think most open teams know that saying that something's "non-unique" means that whatever harm or advantage is being discussed is not unique/special to one side or the other. That's actually one of the pieces of jargon I mind the least, so long as people explain why it's non-unique (but that's just about actually making an argument, jargon or no jargon).

Dan

[tutakai]

Dan, the problem with "inherency" arguments in current debate is that they are only a degenerate version of the original issue. This degeneration has been allowed to occur because the real issue underlying "inherency" has become obscured by the use of jargon (surprise, surprise). I wrote a paper on this subject that I may yet submit for publication.

People think that the purpose of inherency is to show that the policy isn't (or won't be) in the status quo. This is an incoherent burden because it demands philosophically contradictory positions from the affirmative -- the aff has to prove why something HASN'T been done in order to get the judge to DO that thing.

The real purpose of inherency was to provide the link between harms and solvency by ensuring that the plan addressed the actual CAUSE of harms. Thus, the aff has to show that the harms cited had a particular cause that could then be addressed with a plan. If the cause is a structural (i.e. a law), then the plan could change the law. If the cause was attitudinal, then the plan could enact a structure to hopefully override or constrain the effects of the attitudes. Thus the jargon "inherency" is reducible to the middle term in the old, familiar "problem, cause, solution" format.

But a wierd mutation happened and a thing called "existential inherency" came along that refused to identify a cause. Additionally, some people started shortening a call for structural inherency into an unthinking demand for a "barrier". That caused the focus of "inherency" arguments to shift from harms to plan and to ask the question "is the plan already in place?" instead of "what is the root cause of harms that we must address?"

Its a legitimate question from the standpoint that if the plan is in place already and the harms still exist, then clearly the plan doesn't solve. But that is a voting issue as it relates to SOLVENCY, not "inherency" as a free-standing issue.

I think "inherency" as a jargon word can be easily dispensed with and the focus shifted to issues of causality, alternate causality, and solvency -- issues more compatible to coherent argumentation and sensible burdens.

[joecool12321]

Parli is becoming much too enamored with policy jargon. Of course, this trend can be turned back by the competitors. Everytime someone says, "that argument ain't unique," then simply ask: "what is uniqueness, how does it relate to this argument and why is it important to the debate as a whole?"
I remember one round last year where I was just getting a ton of points coming out of the other team, and needed some way to slow them down. So I rose for a POI and asked, "You keep using the term 'pre-fiat'. What in the world does that even mean?" It gave me a few seconds to catch up and write a few responses.

After the round, the judge reprimanded me for asking that question. Apparently, it made our team look like we didn't know what we were talking about. So I guess my question is this: Would questions on jargon be effective, or would they just make you look dumb? What about theory questions? It seems to me that teams often slap the term "critique" on what should be a disadvantage, and expect it to be a voter (an issue I often point out), but should I question the fundamental nature of a critique? It just seems like asking, "What's a drop? I didn't realize I was holding something," does less to help and more to hurt.

--Joey

P.S. I still think a big issue is the 'otherizing' that happens in round.

P.P.S. What are some of the teams that are a good example of 'fun' or 'funny' on the circuit today?

[Dan6814]

I'm not disputing the history of it, and quite frankly, if you think both its past and present uses aren't effective or coherent techniques, then I'm pretty much in agreement with you. I've never really thought that identifying the root cause of something is necessary in the stock-issue sense (though extremely helpful). If I identify a problem, and solve for it, does it really matter in every case what was causing it? Sure, coming up with the wrong solution might have masking or other disadvantages, but that's not a reason to chuck the plan if the solution still does more good than those DAs.

Dan

[tutakai]

If you identify a problem but don't address the actual cause of the problem, how can you solve for it? If your plan does either remove or overpower the cause, then it won't solve. Proving that you have found the cause is vital to remove it and at least very important if you want to claim you are overpowering it. That is why causality is important to consider in a stock issues format.

[Dan6814]

"Proving that you have found the cause is... at least very important if you want to claim you are overpowering it. "

That was my point, I think. Sure, it's very important, but it's not absolutely necessary. My impression of the point of a stock-issues paradigm was to say that plan HAS to achieve all of them, or else you can't vote for the proposition. If it's not an absolute requirement, then it doesn't seem like it should be a stock issue.

Dan

[NonEcdicus]

Anyone (Dan?) have an example of a policy case where identifying the cause of the harms is unnecessary?

[Dan6814]

I suppose it would depend on how many causes you thought a problem could have. If there's a problem with discrimination against an unprotected group because of social bias, and I pass a law prohibiting discrimination, I haven't affected the root cause, but only a secondary cause. Is that inherent enough? If there's ethnic tension in a region (sorry to use the same general example twice), and the U.S. govt. sends thousands of peacekeeping troops to man every corner to prevent the risk of fighting in the streets, I'm injecting the fear of punishment into a situation to avoid one of the more massive harms, but ignoring the ultimate cause of the problem.

If 'inherency' includes the idea that I can claim the cause of a particular harm is a lack of something completely non-unique to the situation, then I suppose Jason's right; you have to say that your plan would work. But since, as he points out, solvency anyway, inherency as a stand-alone issue can't include that added cause, and so I don't see why it's absolutely necessary to a case.

Dan

[tutakai]

If all you have done is pass a law banning discrimination and the REAL cause is attitudinal (which cannot be changed by laws) then you cannot claim solvency through your plan except by bald assertion.

Failure to explicate a cause that is specifically addressed by plan means that you have not proven the link between plan and claims of solvency. Analysis of causality is essential to make solvency anything more than just assertion.

[Dan6814]

I must be being unclear. I'm not attempting to solve for the root cause; I'm trying to make sure it doesn't expose itself in nasty ways by introducing the deterrent factor of state punishment. That's still a viable plan as far as I'm concerned, even if it does pose a significant risk of masking the problem. You're right that I don't solve for the ultimate cause, but I'm not trying to do that, and I can get advantages by preventing the cause from expressing itself in the worst way. Not complete solvency, sure, but I've never met a credible debate theorist that claims you need to get 100% to win a round.

I still think we agree that inherency is a shorthand way of saying solvency.

Dan

[StarDancingGirl]

You're right--no credible debate theorist would argue you need 100% solvency, but we had some judges in h.s. who believed we needed it ;)

[Tutakai]

>I must be being unclear. I'm not attempting to solve for
>the root cause; I'm trying to make sure it doesn't
>expose itself in nasty ways by introducing the
>deterrent factor of state punishment.

But you still need SOME discussion of the cause in order to show that your "deterrent factor" will be enough to overpower it, even if only some of the time. You could, for example, run the usual harms, cite unaddressable attitudes as a cause, but then cite rational choice theory as evidence for a "deterrence" solvency mechanism (so you would not have to rely on a bald assertion).

In such a case, the strength of discriminatory attitudes is a KEY element in determining whether "deterrence" will be enough to actually constrain behavior. Thus, it cannot be ignored or neglected without reducing the quality of the case.

[SkiBum]

The most fun I ever had debating was the break round deciding who went to nationals my senior year in high school ( I won't mention how long ago that was). It was incredibly late at night, everyone had debated god only knows how many rounds over the past two days--and at this point it was "all on the line." There are a few things I remember about what made that round "fun."

First, with all respect to Danny, it wasn't because everyone was happy with where we were at in the tournament: there was only spot left, and both teams desperately wanted it.

There were two things that influenced the "fun" factor: 1. an audience--I don't know what the hell 30+ ier's were doing in a policy debate round, but they were there and 2. (probably the more important influence) this guy on the other team decided to wear a Burger King cardboard crown in the debate. It set the tone. He was determined to have fun (dumb sophomore :) ), and his determination rubbed off of the rest of us--competitors, judges and audience. Everyone had a blast in that round, including the audience of ier's.

For a long time, I thought the reason I thought that round was fun was because we won. But several years ago, I ran into the other half of the team that we defeated -- the half that didn't wear the Burger King crown. We talked about that round (we had both been seniors), and she let me know that it was the most fun she had had debating as well--even though they had lost.

Now, in reading this thread, I very much sympathize with Jed, when he questions why we are living without nearly as much fun in the rounds as we should have. What I have found (and what my incredibly long story demonstrates), is that all it really takes is one person to be in the round that has made a dedication to having fun in that round, and lets everyone else know about it. That's when the fun rounds happen.

And Jed, here's the key: it can be the judge that sets the tone. Joke with the debaters before the round, let them know that you're at the tournament to have fun, and that you actually enjoy this crazy thing called debate. Joke around with them. Smile (it's amazing what that does). If you let everyone in the room know that you intend to enjoy this round, they will try and make it enjoyable; in the process of making it enjoyable, they will enjoy the round as well.

As further "proof" of this claim: there are some panels that I hate to be on, because of the stuffiness of the judges. On the other hand, there are some judges where we always have enjoyable rounds (Stannard, Tracey Mahoney, Geoff Brodak come to mind), and it's because we always come into round kidding around and having fun (if you've seen Brodak and I trying to avoid being the chair, you understand)--the debaters' pick up on that attitude of fun, and it will carry throughout the round.

Damn, an incredibly long post to make a stupid point: rounds are as fun as you make them. So make them fun!

J

[USC MissingLink]

And Jed, here's the key: it can be the judge that sets the tone. Joke with the debaters before the round, let them know that you're at the tournament to have fun, and that you actually enjoy this crazy thing called debate. Joke around with them. Smile (it's amazing what that does). If you let everyone in the room know that you intend to enjoy this round, they will try and make it enjoyable; in the process of making it enjoyable, they will enjoy the round as well.Actually, it was the fact that I have tried to have fun with the debaters and failed miserably at making the round fun that inspired this post. The debaters laugh. They say "That was funny. Now: let's get to case. Off the one..." It really takes the debaters. Otherwise, the judge just comes accross as immature ;)

jEd

[pattybar]

Jed,

In some ways you are correct, it does take the debaters being WILLING to relax a little. It also takes some time for a former-competitor-turned-judge (hmmm, sound familiar) to be able to be fun with the competitors.

From my experience coaching, there are three ways debaters look at former competitors as judges...

a) They are comfortable because they know that the judge actually does know what they are doing, but they don't want to screw it up in front of you because they respect you (thus, nervousness, no humor)

b) They are afraid of losing a ballot because they either 1) fail to meet your expectations, thus losing to you--not the other team or 2) they perform better than you could have -- and you don't want to let them win because they could surpass you. (thus, don't want to try to be funny and fail in front of a funny competitor)

c) (this isn't as applicable to you as to many others) the competitor regularly beat the judge at tournaments and they are afraid you want to take revenge. The variation of this is that the competitor does not respect the judge becuse the competitor has already achieved in debate what the judge never will... etc...

All of this takes some time to work itself out... relax, the season is young and the competitors are still getting into the groove. Soon enough you'll have some nice, solid ballot comments, helpful suggestions and good RFDs out there and the competitors will realize that you are simply a fair judge. They will then feel relaxed enough around you so that you can start the fun in the round if needed.

Patty

[NoGraveButTheSea]

I am inclined to believe that most all judges want to have fun in a round while also paying this event the respect it deserves. For example one of my canned introductions that always get a smile from a judge is "and i'd like to thank my partner Nathan "there's no chance we're not gonna" Winn. And I try and be as loose as possible while still maintaining professionalism, I am not a follower and I never have been, so no matter how elitist or uppity this event might be/seem at times I just flat refuse to be complicit in that sort of 18-22 goin on 12 mentality.This is all a gas and I treat it that way and I believe that you can do that w/o sacrificing integrity or competitiveness. On Patty's notion of being judged by competitors you defeated in the past...I have that issue on the CC circuit this year. There are a couple of competitiors who are coaching for the CC's they competed for last year and well not to brag (ok i'll do it)but I was 27-8 last year against CC teams and 7-0 againt the two individuals of whom I am speaking so even though I make it a point to not make enemies at tournaments or anywhere else, I would be lying if I said I don't feel a little uneasy about being judged by these people. However I just try and have faith in the professionalism and fairness that 99.9% of the people in this activity use. Besides as Mike Dugaw told me
yesterday "If you don't give em' a reason they can't vote against you, it just gives you more motivation to not suck." and as always he is right.

[Western Amy]

WIll, can you start making a collection of wisdom from Sir and post it here? I'll reciprocate, i promise, I love collecting quotes from debaters.

[zacariasla]

Yes, more words of wisdom from sir would be awsome.

[USC MissingLink]

Ooh! Someone re-start a thread of funny debate quotes in off-case!

jEd

[pattybar]

The best and most consistent coaching advise I've ever stolen from another coach was, "don't suck"... given the first time by a coach who had said all there was to say to a given group of nationals-ready students. She was right, the key is not to suck... I've transported it and shared that advise in another state... and they didn't suck.

Patty

[USC MissingLink]

Another observation regarding this thread: This weekend at Azusa, I judged some open rounds and some novi rounds. While structurally the open rounds were stronger (duh), the novi rounds were almost universally more fun. I wasn't the only one to make this observation; in fact, it didn't even occur to me until Owen from UCLA pointed out that open debaters forget what debate can be about.

Yay fun!

jEd

[joecool12321]

I thought the quarter-final round between Gavin and John and Ben and Erik was fun.

--Joey

[USC MissingLink]

agreed; and as I've said, the best teams have fun. this merely proves that fun leads to success (if not by causation, there's surely a case for a strong correlation).

jEd

[DreinCali]

Owen said something deep about debate?? Grant, I know you're out there. Why don't you update me? I know you can't live up to those results emails I used to send, but, come on, make an effort!

Dre

[Western Amy]

In passing, I wanted to mention the high caliber of junior parli that I saw at PLU. Definitely a different ballgame than the junior division i used to debate in.

[PancreasMatt]

I htink the fun-ness is on the slide down too, unfortunately. But i think there are a few people that are still really funny, like Joey from NAU. I think the obvious remedy is just more debaters watching "even steven" on the "Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart" and incorporationg that into rounds.

"should we invade Iraq? YEEEEEEEEEEES!!"
Steve Correll.
"Iraq invasion?? NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! and you steven, are a drooling buffon."
Steven Colbert

personal attacks ensue after this introduction.
matt c.

[BrendoFTC]

OOOOHHHHHH pancreas Matt, I loathe the.
Should Debate be more fun?
No!
Yes!
NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
You just made me vomit in my mouth a little.
What's the weather like up your own ass?
PS- Your partner is HOT!

[joecool12321]

No, Brendan, your partner is "hot"-er than you by two speaker positions. Hi!, though.

--Joey

[BrendoFTC]

C'mon, I beat him at Pasadena. Lemme cling to something

[foment]

i guess i'm funny like jesus


j

[zacariasla]

joey
You sure are
zack
I see you and think JESUS

[joecool12321]

I am what?

[rmccutch2]

...besides than getting everyone in the round drunk...

If debaters were to see each other more as friends to make fun of rather than opponents to destroy rounds would be more fun. I'm not advocating that the goal in a round should not include winning... but when you are debating friends, you get to have more fun because you can joke with them midround. This lightens the mood and makes it more fun for debater and judge alike.

Case in point: Debating Gavin at CSUN was a fun round because my partner and I knew him and we could joke with him.

So... tournaments need to be arranged so that there is time to meet people and become friends... to make rounds more fun.
-Richard

[zacariasla]

i was talking to washburn sorry for the confusion

[joecool12321]

Yeah, I realized that after I saw his profile. I should have deleted my post. Oh well.

[pattybar]

And, debaters should avoid making arguments that are, at their essence, personally insulting. Calling someone a racist/sexist/homophobe etc does not make for good relationships after the round.

Debaters should also be careful of how they act while watching out-rounds. I actually had a team who was booed and laughed at in their first ever elim round. Nasty behavior, not good for on-circuit friendships between the team (and coaches) and the other squad...

Patty