[eDebate] LD, etc.--the Diet Coke challenge

J T jtedebate
Thu Nov 22 10:43:16 CST 2007


Thanks Neill for compiling the data...Just a few observations in interpreting the data...

It seems like there were several teams winning a tournament with prior college experience.  I don't care if you never cleared in novice, the very fact that someone had over 20 college rounds and still were allowed to compete in "novice" is ridiculous...that person had much more experience than someone doing non-TOC LD.

That winning teams had prior experience (whatever the level) reflects the reality that college debate naturally is going to attract more people with some HS experience than no experience---so of course these winners have had some experience

Remember, "experience"--even in LD--is relative.  Not every HS LDer has a coach that has ever seen a debate round (that was me), coaches them, travels them to any TOC/national circuit tournaments or could even conceive of what the "TOC" even is---different parts of the country are literally in the stone age!  Incoming frosh who did LD in these areas will be lost on the line-by-line, won't be familiar with 90% or more of the arguments and bankrupt on theory---as of day one!

Why are people who debated last year in college allowed to go Novice at all anyway?  Even if they were terrible, why more than one rookie season?  I understand that only at a certain number of rounds do they HAVE to go to JV, but why hold them back.  Certainly a case could be made for the lonely frosh who didn't clear or have a winning record---well, tough shit---work harder...maybe this person didn't have a coach or resources---all things that are inevitable.  none of this is a reason to hold them back in Novice.  I spy a much clearer motive that I have noticed over the last 5-10 years--CEDA/NDT points.  This is certainly not to say that all directors who chase the points title are doing anything afoul---but I have been aware of several directors that intentionally (yeah, they confessed!) held back Novice debaters for points. Since it seems like the CEDA points title race is usually between teams with large numbers of novice and JV participants (may not be 100 accurate),
 this is an important issue to figure out. This should not be read to encompass all schools with big novice programs, etc.  (I will laugh at angry emails)...However, the actions of SOME directors cast doubt on some of the motives and operations of others.

Thanks to Neil, Chief, Jackie and anyone else working on the issue

happy holidays

"Kuswa, Kevin" <kkuswa at richmond.edu> wrote: turkeys.

________________________________

From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of NEIL BERCH
Sent: Thu 11/22/2007 2:59 AM
To: edebate
Subject: [eDebate] LD, etc.--the Diet Coke challenge


In order to better understand the claims made by Chief, I just spent 2 hours looking up every team that has won a novice division so far this year (note:  this doesn't include tournaments where Jon doesn't have results up yet, and it excludes the Frederick Douglass, which was closed out at quarters, as well as Pepperdine, which has no elim results posted, and Santa Rosa, which was quite small and closed out).  Counting a closeout at West Point (and not double-counting two teams that have each won two novice divisions), there are 12 teams to examine (including 3 from ADA tournaments).  For each of them, I looked them up in two ways.  I checked to see whether either team member debated college policy debate last year for the same school (using Bruschke page data), and I checked to see whether either team member was listed on the NFL's points page (with their high school record).  Below, I report my findings.  The list is of those twelve teams, referred to as teams A through
 L.  I have randomized the order and have no interest in identifying the teams (and some interest in not doing so).  Two observations:
 
1.  No team has won a novice division this year (with the caveats expressed above) without having some prior debate experience.
2.  I'm not whether my data serve to support Chief's proposal or not.  The heterogeneity of previous debate experience leave open to conjecture (and I'll leave it to others to do the conjecturing for now) what sort of world would exist post-amendment.
 
On to the data:
Team A:  one person with 11 rounds of college policy last year, one with no experience.
Team B:  one person with 35 rounds of HS LD, 6 rounds of HS policy, and 13 rounds of HS Public Forum; the other with no experience.
Team C:  one person with a ton of HS Student Congress experience; one with no experience.
Team D:  one person with HS IE experience and 19 rounds of college policy last year; one person with 25 rounds of college policy last year (but never cleared).
Team E:  one person with 143 rounds of HS LD; one person with 24 rounds of HS LD.
Team F:  one person with 37 rounds of HS LD and 108 rounds of HS Public Forum; one with no experience.
Team G:  one person with 13 rounds of college policy last year; the other with no experience.
Team H:  one person with 23 rounds of HS LD; the other with no experience.
Team I:  one person with 11 rounds of college policy last year; the other with 147 rounds of HS LD.
Team J:  one person with 23 rounds of college policy last year, 4 rounds of HS policy, and 120 rounds of HS LD; the other person with 46 rounds of HS policy.
Team K:  one person with 163 rounds of HS LD; the other person with 116 rounds of HS LD and 28 rounds of HS Public Forum.
Team L:  one person with 14 rounds of college policy last year; one person with HS IE experience.
 
--Neil Berch
West Virginia University
_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate



JT

Asst. Debate Coach
Emporia State University
       
---------------------------------
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.  Make Yahoo! your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071122/afb91ea3/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list