[eDebate] AT: Olney -- Where are the people?
Tue Apr 26 13:38:23 CDT 2005
Hello Jack et al,
First, your historical examples are more than a bit flawed for a
number of reasons:
1). Some of those topics - like violence is a justified response to
political oppression were TINY.....TINY....I won CEDA nats that year
btw - coming from a big school - with lots of researchers - we won by
having more evidence on that and the second semester topic Foreign
Investment - which was massive. Why? Because we had hits against
every team and case or generics that covered them because we had 15
kids and three coaches all of whom cut good cards.
2) The same teams won in CEDA every year - just like in the NDT - SIU,
UCO, KSU, Macalester, UCLA, UNKC, Gonz, and Emporia dominated that
period just like NU, Dartmouth, Wake, Harvard and Cal have in the NDT.
The difference was that a few Fave teams would lose early. With the
exception of the year the Fort got to finals it was PREDICTABLE as all
hell. Why did those schools win???? Including your UCO and Saluki
teams - because they had more researchers, more money, and were better
prepared for suprises on the afff an neg.
FUNDAMENTALLY you keep missing that you get a small percentage chance
of getting a suprise win on the aff and ZERO chance of being more
prepared on the neg.
Another problem is that you are wrong about NDT success....For
instance, Gonzaga and Whittman and UNT have all had teams in Quarters
of the NDT....West Georgia was in Semi Finals.....None of those squads
(and I can speak personally about UNT) were coach and resource rich.
I recently remember Aaron and Jonah and Jon and I getting a first
round bid and a trip to octas in a year when we were operating in a
deficit with constant budget pressure and only four card cutters.
Finally, the teams that are best at answering performance cases are
the teams from the big schools like Harvard Malumphy/Lux - NU -
Branson Morales or Goof Morales - Dartmouth - Leong and Turner (maybe
the best at answering performance affs I have ever seen). Ultimately,
successful big teams adapt and dominate the field - thats just the way
I have ALWAYS worked with small schools as a coach and your proposals
honestly scare me....keeping ahead on a topical affirmative and being
creative on the negative has always worked as a recipe for success for
the schools I have worked at.
Certainly no disrespect intended,
On 4/26/05, debate at ou.edu <debate at ou.edu> wrote:
> Hi Charles,
> <<<<I'll admit I didn't really read all of these discussions.
> <<<My quick thoughts:
> First, "small" schools vs. "big" schools:
> The main distinction people seem to generate is that small schools
> aren't research-intensive, while big schools are. >>>
> That is not really my distinction. I admit any distinction is artificial.
> I know when we are at the NDT and we take our "team" picture, with 3 people, and other schools take their "team" picture, with 14. There is obviously a difference in size. I do not think "research" intensive is the key. I think everyone has to be research intensive to compete. It just depends on what literature you research.
> <<<I think that really answers the whole question, too. This activity
> that we do, it's a research activity. If you're dividing schools into
> two groups, one which does it and the others which don't (or at least
> do a lot less), the first group is ALWAYS going to be more successful.
> ALWAYS. Topic wording doesn't matter. Teams that have lots of people
> doing lots of research will be more ready than teams that don't. >>
> Most of this I discussed above. And yes topic wording does matter. You just make the same claims as the others, without talking about the loss of schools competing. I listed three resolutions that took CEDA debate to the height of its participation, and you avoided to discuss. That is where my argument is really based. And yes, with those topics we did research, and case specific. I had six deadly force strategies one year. Just like Feldman and his permit strategies.
> <<Big topics will help the aff. It'll help small school affs and big
> school affs. Small topics help the neg.>>
> I say small topics hurt aff creativity more than they increase education through negative predictability. Where is the critical thinking when you shuffle around the same evidence?
> I have lost of examples about the height of CEDA participation, and you have zero proof your style of debate increases school participation. If so, when has debate participation increased with small resolutions, amidst all of the assertions.
> <<But if you're from a "small" school, you're going to have to debate on the hard side of the topic half the time. In that half of the time, you'll be at a SERIOUS
> disadvantage to the research teams. >>
> And I say that the loss of aff flexibility is outweighed by having the same specific evidence as everyone else.
> <<Big topics make being neg virtually impossible against big schools.
> They're the only team in the country running their aff, and they cut
> more cards about it than all small schools combined, because they have
> time to work on it and the small schools don't. >>
> People debated the same topic before. Not impossible. This is where people start showing signs of absurdity when they claim it would be impossible to debate a big topic.
> I know you might be exaggerating, but I am trying to discuss something that should not be swept under the rug of exaggerations.
> <<Small topics make being aff virtually impossible against the big
> schools. You run the same aff that NU or Dartmouth or MSU runs. You
> have to deal with everyone's negative to that aff. >>
> Historically untrue. I gave my example. 3 resolutions, over 300 teams at CEDA Nats.
> <<Where is yours?
> Either way, it's tough.
> But, there's one difference. Unless the topic is super small, like 5
> cases small, people generally only have one A strategy to debate the
> big school team running the aff. For example, a number of teams read
> ag affs last year. Many of them were pretty good. But when I was
> doing work for Harvard, I primarily focused on beating HV. >>
> I think this is a good example of my argument. Schools with more researchers can have people pone up on each advantage, like AIDS, and then they have an AIDS expert, while other schools do not have that luxury. A limited argument field allows that expertise, that, I think gives a competitive advantage to some school. A broader topic makes you have to chase the many different affs around, rather than learning how tweek the AIDS debate. This is where we part on identifying what we think is educational.
> <<When we debated other teams who read ag affs, sure we had stuff to
> say, and sure it was fine, but we didn't read our counterplan designed
> to beat HV. So you heard a good (but suboptimal) strategy, often one
> which we had read before, and which you were probably ready for.
> On the big topics, there's no such effect. Everyone gets their own
> aff, you don't have time to research a lot of them, so you have to
> flail away with a relatively generic strategy. Such strategies tend
> to be unsuccesful against research heavy teams, who (as someone else
> noted) have really really good answers by now to consult CPs and
> Agamben and the realism K. >>
> I think we disagree on what wins and what does not. Also, larger topics do not take away from in depth, specific debates. The literature is what guides us to these places, we are just trying to stake out the lit before the topic comes out, rather than exploring after the topic comes out. I would rather a team have to dust off their front lines to my cp, than get to read their multiple advantage/turns and add ons against my specific counterplan that is also run by ten other schools.
> <<When in doubt, make the topic smaller. >>
> I disagree, I think it crushes participation. I got some numbers. Where is your proof it has helped participation.
> <<It will create better researched debates.>>
> Not true, it creates the same regurgitated debates, where is your proof that is educational?
> << And no topic is so small that there isn't room to innovate.>>
> I think those are crafty innovations, but in no way endorse critical thinking. Does this increase participation in numbers of schools?
> << People still had new stuff to say on the CTBT at the NDT
> after it had been researched to death for an entire year by the whole
> debate community. >>
> Why should we have to spin your wheels "researching to death"? That is a concession on education lost by having too limited of a topic. Some people were innovative, but so was the person that invented tooth-picks.
> <<Jonah Feldman produced a new permits strategy (or 2...or 5) for every
> tournament. We had a bunch still in the boxes at the end of the year.
> And because we had so many good, well researched debates on permits,
> I know a lot more about them than I did about anything on the Indians
> topic. >>
> 1st I will say that cuz jonah rocks, and probably works really hard. But 2nd, that does not address my issue of
> a. seek and destroy benefits large schools
> b. loss of aff flexibility outweighs increase in specific evidence
> <<Second, Pepsi:
> What's the deal with Pepsi? They're unveiling the "new" Pepsi Lime.
> Yeah, it's totally new. It's not like Coke came out with a
> lime-flavored drink over a year ago. Way to stay ahead of the curve,
> Third, lists:
> Like most things, they're good if done well and bad if they're not. I
> think they're kind of good for K teams, at least in some
> circumstances. Here's why: with lists, you often have the option of
> simply reading the resolution as your plan text. This forces policy
> teams who don't want to debate your shtick to actually go for
> framework if they want a theory arg. And, despite the general outcry,
> framework args don't win all that many debates. A lot of policy teams
> would much rather have T arguments to go for, allowing them to
> sidestep the framework morass. >>
> I don't like lists.
> <<Third (supplement): my new test for framework debates:
> Does the aff have to answer normal T arguments? If they do, they're
> probably legit on the framework. If they don't, then the neg has a
> pretty good case on framework arguments. In my experience, this test
> pretty clearly delineates the line between predictable and
> unpredictable K affs.>>
> Don't know what to think about this.
> <<Fourth, aff choice:
> Don't want to get into it too much, but I find aff choice extremely
> persuasive. Burden of rejoinder, all that jazz. It's a solid way to
> get rid of a lot of these framework debates, it solves all the
> switch-side stuff (for both sets of teams), and it generates some
> pretty good debates. >>
> I don't think going aff is like calling shotgun, but you have an interesting argument here.
> <<This doesn't contradict with my earlier statement that small topics
> are good. In fact, it is entirely consistent. Aff choice (on
> frameworks) is good precisely because aff choice of plans is limited.
> On huge topics, aff framework choice becomes a lot less reasonable
> because the types of affs available becomes basically unmanageable.
> However, on a fairly limited topic, aff framework choice can makes
> things a lot less constrictive than they initially seem. >>
> I disagree here. I do wish more people would see topicality this way if we do get boxed in by a limited topic.
> <<Fifth, Whitman
> > And Whitman has lots of coaches also.
> <<Really? Wish someone would told Thad and I. Might've eased the
> research burden.
> Unless by "lots" you mean "two." And, as Jim has admitted recently on
> e-debate, he doesn't exactly cut lots of cards these days.
> Unless we're still using the definition where "lots" is "two.">>
> Obviously you know them more than I. But, the Whitman teams we debated did not exactly run case specific d.a.'s and counterplans. I think we heard Zizek or Agamben. Now are they doing what you said is hard to do, take what people lable as "generic" and make them win anyway, despite the great frontlines people have?
> My purpose is not to take away from the hard work people do to win. It seems like people want to set me ablaze by attempting to claim I have disrespected others in the community. Where is your discussion of Southwestern, KS, or schools that have left the activity. They should be at the heart of the discussion.
> > Neither were in quarters at CEDA Nats or the NDT.
> <<Well, Whitman BM was in the quarters of Ceda Nats. >>
> Yep, my bad. They are really good too.
> <<And, teams in the quarters of the NDT:
> -Redlands ST, who hardly had a legion of coaches
> -Harvard LM, who (despite Harvard the squad having like a bazillion
> coaches) really only had Nate. (Although I did do a pretty great job
> of bringing them food and Peter told some good jokes) >>
> You got a few examples here. I think Harvard has a few more researchers than Nate! I got more examples of schools that have left the activity than you have that have proven small is good for small.
> <<Not that it proves anything, of course.
> I guess that's all for now,
> Charles >>
> Like I said, my small/large school is trivial. And maybe Whitman is small. And I never claimed people with just one coach could not win. I am not whining. I am talking about the reduction of participation in our activity. Some people win no matter what the topic is because they are good, and they work hard. I make those concessions.
> Interesting discussion.
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
More information about the Mailman