Jump to content
tennisguy1313

Case Book

Recommended Posts

So in the end wouldn't this be the same amount of "cheating" that a casebook would be?

No, because it's not out in the public domain. This requires a school to have great flow notes, so that way they know what each point of an aff. case is and then they can work on finding NEG. cards for it.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, because it's not out in the public domain. This requires a school to have great flow notes, so that way they know what each point of an aff. case is and then they can work on finding NEG. cards for it.

 

That's what would cause to people to quit debate to get that level of an affirmative. If someone had to go to a tournament every weekend and flow each team to somehow get an aff they would be a lot more likely to quit because debate would take every single weekend they have. Instead teams run things that really don't add a lot of education to the world: XO's (I know people love running them in Kansas but man they're uneducational), , the same generic DA's. I still believe debating cool PIC's is a lot better than debating an XO or Con Con every round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's what would cause to people to quit debate to get that level of an affirmative. If someone had to go to a tournament every weekend and flow each team to somehow get an aff they would be a lot more likely to quit because debate would take every single weekend they have. Instead teams run things that really don't add a lot of education to the world: XO's (I know people love running them in Kansas but man they're uneducational), , the same generic DA's. I still believe debating cool PIC's is a lot better than debating an XO or Con Con every round.

Yes, but to some people that's what keeps them in it, they like the challenge of making a neg. file for an aff. case. If I went into every round and ran the same generic da/K, it would get old pretty quick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

correlation does not imply causation.

 

the presence of a casebook does not mean there will be pics. the absence of a casebook does not mean there will be only generic disads and the XO. if you don't like the way kansans debate, you should realize this is not an effective way to change it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but to some people that's what keeps them in it, they like the challenge of making a neg. file for an aff. case. If I went into every round and ran the same generic da/K, it would get old pretty quick.

 

This would not happen if there was a casebook because instead of running crappy generics we would have specific DA's or PICs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear tennisguy1313 and Ozmanks,

 

Please stop ruining an intelligible discussion with your asinine remarks/name-calling. Why don't you go hang out in the Miscellaneous forum for a change? Thanks.

 

Sincerely,

Danny

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. I think 8 minutes is a much better amount of prep time. When there are rounds with conditional arguments and multiple worlds sorting through them takes time, I propose either adding disclosure or 8 minutes of prep to check back the lack of disclosure because it takes time to pull out 1NC arguments. We obviously limit prep time so we can run a tournament in the course of two days, and anymore than 8 makes it very hard to get a tournament run on time.
I think debaters often refer to this as “non-responsive”. It is a slippery slope argument. Why 8 minutes? Why not 9, 10, or 11? If each of these promotes better debate, why do we draw an arbitrary limit?

 

And as far as running a tournament in two days, the “cool” national circuit tournaments are all going 3 days now (most of that is because they take forever to tab, but oral critics will do that...) So, why limit tournaments to 2 days? Why not increase prep to 45 minutes and run the tournament a week long? That would make for better debates, right? Of course, you just might have a harder time finding judges that will sit there all this time while you script out every single word to detail and find just the perfect card to support your point, but it’s all about having the perfect debate round, right?

 

2. I'm advocating having disclosure of 1AC's and some negative disclosure, common negative positions. I think the first step though is disclosing plan text and advantages before the debate. The debate then occurs when we each have access. The debate is focused around a starting debate, the worst debate is when a team has no answers to certain DA's, this inevitably could happen when you break a new DA encouraging more research. A 2AC, and 2NC does hurt some of the actual debate. Yet, having common 1NC's and 1AC's ahead of time allows us to have better debates as we have a starting point to the debate, we make the end though which most people feel is the most important part.
Again, “non-responsive”. Why is sharing the 1AC and 1NC where we draw the limit on pre-round sharing? Heck, why even have those speeches? Why not walk into the room with all the arguments predetermined and just have rebuttals? Why is NO DEBATING being done in the 1AC or 1NC? Why does the round start in the 2AC? And why does it have to start there? Why can’t, after we script the 1AC and 1NC, then script the 2AC and the 2NC? Where is the limit?
3. I like working on your feet but it's really hard with 5 minutes of prep….

So, when something is hard, we should change the activity rather than work at it and get better? Okay, then lets make 1AR’s 30 minutes long, cause currently it is really hard to respond to the negative block in 5 minutes. (again, my first argument on limits, why have limits in speech times either?)

 

I have not made a single argument against casebooks per se. I have been making arguments that your justification for casebooks is false. I’m looking for a reason for casebooks that doesn’t rely on the idea that more time to think makes for a better debate.

 

And no, I was not quoting Ede Warner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Debaters like to use extreme, totalizing, examples to prove their point. You've given the extreme of my argument. Now I can give you the extreme of your argument:

Why do we have ANY prep time? We should just give speech after speech after speech! That would force people to think on their feet.

Okay, I’m down with that. From a judge’s perspective, that would be awesome! No more sitting there waiting while you write out what you are going to say before you just stand up to say it. I’m totally down with that.

 

Back in the day (when I walked up hill both ways to school) I used to take pride in my standing 1NC’s. But then again, I actually flowed during the 1AC and actually listened to the cards during the 1AC. My 4 tubs weren’t full of generics, but case specifics, which were organized so I’d know where to apply my arguments. And, if I did hit a case that I hadn’t heard before, it was usually either squirrelly so I’d run tons of T, or it had some logical problem that I could exploit. And I was average! The good teams did these types of things with ease. Probably from lots of practice rather than asking for a copy of case before they even knew they’d be debating….

Actually, you know what? Why don't we just get rid of evidence all together! That way people have to formulate all of their arguments on their own?
We did do that. It is called PFD. And all across America it is growing in popularity because Policy debate keeps changing more and more to advantage one style over all others. The one place where Policy stays strong in the face of PFD is Kansas. Part of that is the division of the semesters (even though you can do PFD in the Fall if you wanted to…) but most of that is due to Kansas embracing all forms of debate, not just the style that is embracing casebooks.
Casebooks allow for debaters to finetune how they think about their arguments, how they want to frame particular points, find evidence to support their points, etc.

They allow for more targeted, specific research which in turn provides for a better, more clash-filled debate.

Again this claim of “better debate”. So, the more fine tune, the more particular, the more evidence, the more targeted, the more specific research, the better the debate? Okay, if I accept this premise, the best debate has no time limits and probably isn’t presentation based. That just doesn’t seem like it is this activity. That is something else. If you want the best of this activity, it includes some speaking, some presentation, some ability to think on your feet, some not quite having the perfect argument but making due with what you have and making it work in rebuttals, and some adapting to what just happened.

That's a great quote. However, casebooks don't prevent lightbulbs from going off in young, brilliant debaters' heads. Quite the opposite. Maybe instead of a lightbulb going off in-round, the light bulb goes off at 3AM when a squad is hunched off their Mountain Dew-ridden desks, with their facecs illuminated by the glow of their addicting laptops. At that moment, one debater after sifting through a teams posted 1AC cites, leans back in his chair and says to the rest of the team, "I've got it." I can tell you I've had plenty of those moments, and they are what made me love debate.
Those are awesome moments, aren’t they? My point isn’t so much as the lightbulb moment as it is the original, unique, creative thought that comes from a team who is thinking during the round. Anyone, with enough time, enough resources, and enough Mountain Dew and make a great argument. Being able to do that on the fly, well,… that is something special. That is a skill that should be encouraged through practice (debate rounds are just practice for your real future) rather than squashed through infinite pre-planning and prep. That might mean you sacrifice some immediate competitiveness (which seems to win out every time in some circles) while you develop these skills, but in the long term I challenge that you will be a better debater as well as a better person.

 

Furthermore, I really just don't think that what you are getting at even pans out in the real world like you are saying it will. I can't even count the number of times when I tried to make an analytical and I had it perfectly packaged in my head but I couldn't translate it into words. The result wasn't some coup de grace, or a silver bullet that made my opponent concede. Far from it. Those are the times when on the van ride home from a tournament I rethink the argument a dozen times and finally come up with how I want to execute it next time. Not to mention, I can't even count the number of times that I thought I had some dope analytical and I went for it and after the debate the judge says to me, "That was a good argument, but I really felt you needed evidence for it."

Just my thoughts.

You are a gifted debater. You are super smart and had excellent coaching, so I’m not trying to take anything away from you. It is good that you learned from your experiences on the van ride home, and became a better debater. What I’m saying is that what you are advocating eliminates those van rides home. It sounds like that was a good experience for you, why wouldn’t you want future kids to do the same?

 

I too dislike judges who think you need evidence on every point. That is a bias that a lot of flow judges have that is crap. So, is the answer to have evidence for everything we say and have no independent, individual thought, or to get away from that awful biased mindset that bad flow judges seem to have. Casebooks seem to encourage the bad biased behaviour.

 

In the real world, I don’t get infinite prep time before I make an argument. There is no casebook to tell me what arguments my competitor is making to win the business that I’m after. I don’t always have all the research that is specifically on case, but I make due. I guess, once again I’m valuing educating kids to prepare them for the real world and their future beyond debate over “better debates” which I’m taking as more intellectual and competitive. I’ll sacrifice some intellectualism and some high end competition to put you in a better place to have a job someday.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^^^WOW i think that what you just said is exactly what we should look at i mean that is exactly what i was thinking you just put in better words.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And no, I was not quoting Ede Warner.

 

haha.

vindicated

 

Mr Volen, I understand your limit arguments. But 5 minutes is pretty much just as arbitrary as 8 minutes. As is no time, as is 45 minutes.

We have to draw the line somewhere. Just because people advocate moving the line back 3 minutes does NOT mean they advocate moving the line back perpetually. We're not devoid of moderation, nor do we misunderstand the other side of the coin. It's about striking a balance, and these "if we took your advocacy to the extreme" arguments are not productive. Anywhere. They make liberals into communists and conservatives into either fascists or anarchist.

Eight minutes makes more sense to people because it extends prep time to be the equivalent of a constructive, and with experimentation appears to improve debate quality without substantially delaying anything.

you are of course welcome to disagree.

 

but please, people, stop with the slippery slope claims. They're nonunique, unwarranted, irrelevant..

 

cross-apply to the caselist debate about when people disclose - 1AC vs other times

there is a legit debate to be had there, but the argument of disclose everything as soon as you cut it vs. never tell anyone anything is unrealistic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's about striking a balance, and these "if we took your advocacy to the extreme" arguments are not productive. Anywhere. They make liberals into communists and conservatives into either fascists or anarchist.
LD debaters regularly take arguments to the extreme, and it is extremely productive. Just because no one can justify shifting the arbitrary limit, doesn’t mean the argument against shifting is bad. All I’m doing is pointing out that the other side can not justify their claims for “better debate” just through more time.

 

Eight minutes makes more sense to people because it extends prep time to be the equivalent of a constructive, and with experimentation appears to improve debate quality without substantially delaying anything.
See! I knew you were a smart one! {serious tone, not sarcastic}The way to justify a position against a slippery slope argument is to make a claim that a specific limit has merit. In this case, 8 minutes has merit cause it is as long as a constructive speech. That at least is a reason. Though, 5 minutes is as long as a rebuttal, so that makes sense to stay with the status quo….

 

I can draw the line in the sand as far as casebooks. You will find out what my 1AC is when I read it. Anything later, other than you just not listening, I’m guessing would have a host of procedurals read against it. Anything earlier can not be justified as the limit, or even earlier than that would also be justified. Thus, not doing casebooks, but instead actually listening and flowing a 1AC, just as the judge is doing in the back of the room, is justified even if taken to the extreme.

 

Oh, and did we forget about the judge in the room? Let me teach you something. All the time that you guys and gals pass paper back and forth and read each others arguments, the judge is left only listening to speeches. So, in the end, it is what the judge hears that matters, not what you have on paper. Sure there are the “cool kid, ultra-flow judges” who will show you how cool they are by reading the evidence after the round (which further entrenches us in the idea that only evidence matters, not ideas or analytics), but a majority of the judges will only vote on what they hear, and casebooks means the judge hears less and less of the arguments that would have been explained in the round. I guess we could just phone in the entire debate and give a copy of the casebooks to the judge before the round and just skip 1AC’s all together….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, if I accept this premise, the best debate has no time limits and probably isn’t presentation based.

 

 

Neither of us will ever agree with each other because we have fundamentally different views on the importance of presentation and the role that evidence should play in the debate.

 

With that, I will agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither of us will ever agree with each other because we have fundamentally different views on the importance of presentation and the role that evidence should play in the debate.

 

With that, I will agree to disagree.

I respect that. I'd like to run a little test though. Look me up in 4 years, after you graduate college, and lets see if you still have the same fundamental views. I'd be willing to bet we agree a lot more in the future than we do now... :)
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I respect that. I'd like to run a little test though. Look me up in 4 years, after you graduate college, and lets see if you still have the same fundamental views. I'd be willing to bet we agree a lot more in the future than we do now... :)

 

Unfortunately, I will have probably forgotten all about debate by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ooh, an anonymous snarky comment. Well done.

 

 

haha, well seemingly true, I guess I'm at the age now where I hear about the things I was running back in the day and can not help but to reflect on it publically with "snarky?" comments.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always found it odd when traveling outside of my "traditional debate" bubble when the Neg team would ask us our case, especially at Nationals, which seemed to be a very common practice.

 

To me, the insane amount of scouting that happens at the higher levels of traditional debate was a thrill in and of itself. Discovering a school's secret; developing a split-second strat against a squad's newly broken case; the politics, the back-scratching, and the back-stabbing; those were all just as fierce "heat-of-the-moment" experiences as what happened inside of the actual round.

 

I enjoyed the feeling of watching another team struggle to handle our newly broken, highly-strategic aff. I enjoyed the feeling of watching the Aff team cry as they discover I have a 20-page frontline made specifically for their school and their case within the second day of a tournament. I also enjoyed the feeling of watching someone try to break a very poor, logically improbable case, just for the sake of it being "new" and hopefully trying to trip us up, only to be crushed by sheer logic and split-second thinking.

 

I've never had the pleasure of enjoying a fully-prepped round. Ever. Even the scouting reports we're generating for nationals aren't solid. I would hate it if I knew what the other kids were running 100% of the time. It takes out the challenge. Of course, the difficulty then shifts to creating a completely rock-solid aff and neg strat, and some may find pleasure in that. But I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...