Jump to content
cluce

Survivial of CX

Recommended Posts

From a previous post, I thought this may be an appropriate place to discuss how we as a community can insure that CX survives in Colorado. Wyoming feel free to add to the discussion and put your input on your experiences.

Edited by cluce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No wonder CX is dying. :(

But there's no need for discussion.

Obviously, how can we prevent it from happening in our schools?

In the Rocky North, we don't have many teams so that's why we're flying under the radar, as well as many schools.

So it's our problem to deal with.

 

But there's so many things that happen to make people go away.

Many less boxes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX in Southern Colorado ceases to exist any longer. My partner and I were the last team in Southern Colorado last season.

 

It's dead in SoCo because:

 

A) There aren't any legitimate coaches, and the legit ones don't want to invest the time and energy in CX or are biased against it because they are "old-school", meaning they reject the evolution of policy into a highly intensive research-based activity rather than more manner-based debating.

 

Also,

coaches in our region are paid next to nothing or do it as a volunteer, this acts as an independent reason that coaches don't want to have policy teams; it would mean a much greater time and energy commitment to the team.

 

B) The random attempts to do policy rarely survive because

1. There is no competition in the region because of A.

2. Strict CHSAA rules about traveling without a coach, etc, etc. So even the singular teams that want to do the research and pursue policy tournaments can't because SoCo schools stick to a strict Southern Circuit schedule that doesn't permit the students to travel up north at all. My partner and I were able to thwart this because we didn't have a legitimate coach in HS and had a friend in Denver who acted as our coach/judge when we went up north.

 

 

And, once it's gone, I doubt it will be revived:

 

1. Old coaches pass the torch to new coaches, and consequently are only trained for IEs, PF, and LD. Policy seemed like the third rail at my school; we went through four coaches, but none of them wanted to deal with policy.

 

2. And, with the growing popularity of PF, I see no real incentive for anyone to jump start policy.

 

That's just my take, and that's just the Southern Colorado region.

Edited by cx-ydebater
Additions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A) There aren't any legitimate coaches, and the legit ones don't want to invest the time and energy in CX or are biased against it because they are "old-school", meaning they reject the evolution of policy into a highly intensive research-based activity rather than more manner-based debating.

 

Just one side comment from an "old-school" debate coach: old school does not necessarily mean less "intensive research-based activity" nor does it mean "manner-based debating." "Old-school," to many of us, means focusing on the topic and the case/plan text. True case-based debate requires LOTS of research. Had to get that out of my system.

 

I'm not sure what can be done to "save" CX debate in Colorado. From my limited vantage point, the teams that seem to be growing are those that have the ability (money?) to travel out of state: Kent, Cherry Creek, Denver East, etc. I'm not sure if GW travels out of state or not. Those of us who stay in state only, (Golden, Bear Creek, Standley Lake, etc.) are struggling to keep programs going in the face of new-ish developments in the activity. There is a style of argumentation that is difficult to develop with a local-only team -- plus, as a coach who doesn't travel (except for Nationals), I'm not sure how to advise my students about some styles of argumentation.

 

I have 1 CX team now, and they are frustrated with the style of argumentation. They are frustrated with kritiks and the prevalence of nuclear war in the face of common logic. They are frustrated with the canned arguments from handbooks and camp files. As sophomores, they are seriously considering moving to PF or possibly LD. They believe the arguments in those debates seem more logical and make more sense than what they've seen in CX.

 

I support policy debate, but I'm not sure I'll be able to convince novices to try it next year.

 

One other thought about the energy required to coach it. It takes no more energy than doing a good job in LD, PF, or the non-debate events. All take hours after school. As a coach who has to "do it all," it can take a lot out of me to meet CX on Mondays for 2 hours, LD on Tuesdays for 2 hours, PF on Wednesdays for 2 hours, and the non-debate events during whatever time is left. I have a great assistant coach who loves CX and all forms of debate -- but I could see other coaches feeling too stretched: something would have to give or the entire program could sink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree straight case debate is possible and can win. That doesn't mean my students are happy with th stuff they meet and find it enjoyable to compete against that.

 

Not sure how CHSAA is causing the decline of CX participation. CHSAA rules are not causing my students to get frustrated with their competition. CHSAA rules are not causing my students to prefer PF and LD. Knowing the coaches at Bear Creek and Standley Lake, I can't see that CHSAA rules is putting them in a position of having only 1 team each (I believe). CHSAA rules did not convince Lakewood to stop doing CX. I don't see CHSAA rules having caused a decline in teams at Mullen or in the far south of Colorado.

 

Now it is very possible that CHSAA rules prevent teams from being more successful at tournaments outside our area. I can accept that argument. However, if we have students who only compete under CHSAA rules, there is nothing in CHSAA rules that would limit or deter students from participating in the activity. I understand that many folks don't agree with CHSAA rules; however, those rules have been around for a long time -- long before the decline in numbers. There are those coaches who would suggest that our drifting away from the spirit of stock issues and other CHSAA rules has caused CX's decline.

 

I'm sorry you are frustrated with CHSAA rules right now. But I'm not sure how they are causing a decline in CX. The issue must be far more complicated than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have 1 CX team now, and they are frustrated with the style of argumentation. They are frustrated with kritiks and the prevalence of nuclear war in the face of common logic. They are frustrated with the canned arguments from handbooks and camp files. As sophomores, they are seriously considering moving to PF or possibly LD. They believe the arguments in those debates seem more logical and make more sense than what they've seen in CX.

 

ms peters:

having debated against your team at state quals(and I think larue left them with a long note about the round on the ballot) i think it was more so an issue of them not being willing to EXPAND. no matter what state or by what rules you compete by, you 1) have to be willing to impact an argument and 2) have to be willing to think outside the box a little bit. if i can make that suggestion to them( they were very clean speakers by the way) then i think they might be more successful. So no offense to them, but i feel their criticisms are sorta poorly backed in that way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I offer a hypothesis: the internet is responsible for the decline of CX in Colorado.

 

Premise: CHSAA rules are taken as a given framework for debate in Colorado. The reason for this is that I am not sure that policy is declining nationally, but CHSAA rules might play a particular role in its decline in Colorado.

 

Reasoning: debate camps have existed for some time. They have always produced evidence, and always of varying sorts and quality. In Colorado, a majority of debaters, past and present as far as I can tell, do not attend camp. Maybe someone from a team would, but individuals would not. This limited the access to camp-produced evidence and forced teams to do more of their own original research. Sometimes this research was done, sometimes not. It also meant that what kind of research was done was more under the control of coaches and CHSAA paradigms, which emphasize stock issue debate, non-topical counterplans, and have never heard of critiques (or probably politics disads).

 

The internet changed this in two ways. First, the internet allowed people to acquire camp files without having gone to camp. It allowed people to collect the files produced by multiple camps. The files produced at these camps over the years moved further and further away from those that would conform best to the CHSAA paradigm of case-heavy debate. Instead, camp files would include any number of counterplans (topical and not, PICS, consult, etc), critiques, outlandish disadvantages (read politics, even though I like running it in rounds, it has very little real world application), etc. Nationally, policy debate has become more of a game in which any claim is accepted as truth unless challenged by the other team. This allowed people to claim nuclear wars, ontological damnation, or other weird impacts that a simple 50,000 people have less food to eat can't outweigh. What the internet did was allow people an easy way out. By collecting camp files, people could avoid doing as much of their own research. In turn, their arguments that they could run became dependent on what arguments camps were producing.

 

The internet also acted to make research easier. This is largely a good thing, but it also meant that people could turn to critical theory, blogs, etc. that they could not find before. This increased the possible scope of sources for arguments, which increased the number of arguments people could prepare and had to prepare for.

 

As a result, Colorado debate coaches came to be faced with coaching an event that they really had no experience in. As Ms. Patrick commented on Rapp's thread of a similar title, she had a debater who had been a high school champion but 2 years after having graduated felt that debate had past him by. If this is the case for a high school student who did the event relatively recently, how must a coach who did the event much longer ago feel?

 

I can actually offer one example. Martin Schnipper, who some of you may or may not know, helped coach me and Gabe during our sophomore year. He has/had been involved in the debate community since I believe the 1960s or 1970s. He coached at New Trier (which is one of the best schools on the national circuit and has been for some time) and other places. However, prior to helping us, he had been out of debate for about 10 years. He helped Gabe and I tremendously, helping us go from relatively weak debaters at the beginning of our sophomore year to national qualifiers by the end of junior year. However, he commented to us at the Dallas nationals that he thought he could be of no more help to us. It wasn't because we had learned everything that he knew about debate, but because much of what he knew about debate was no longer applicable.

 

Debate generally takes strong coaching to be sustainable. Isolated teams can achieve success without access to quality coaching, but when those teams graduate they generally leave behind a weak or nonexistent program. But if debate has passed coaches by, they cannot hope to be quality coaches. Does this suggest that an injection of young coaches would solve the problem? Maybe, but I doubt it.

 

Much of the current crop of coaches accepts the CHSAA framework, but debate nationally doesn't look like CHSAA debate. At the same time, enough people try to debate in the national style that they scare people who are taught by coaches teaching the CHSAA style. I think the example of Greg Davis at Lakewood is demonstrative. He was an NDT debater in college, but the style of debate he saw being practiced by Sanford and Jeffries (which brought them many wins and admiration inside the clique of national-style debaters in Colorado) reflected nothing of what he conceived debate to be. He decided it wasn't worth his time to teach and event that he didn't consider to be good debate, or a good intellectual activity, so he dropped the program. I am sorry if I am misrepresenting this story, but its what I recall of the decision.

 

A discussion of signaling might help here. Debaters who use (a form of) the national-style are generally the one's that win. I don't think this is necessarily because the national-style is a superior form of argumentation to CHSAA/traditional style, but because the national-style, when practiced well (and many do not practice it well), forces teams to do innovative research and treat debate as a game rather than an activity that truly seeks to convince people of things. This provides a competitive advantage that forces other people to either attempt to practice the national-style, lose, or quit. CHSAA style may be pedagogically better than national-style, but I feel that it is competitively disadvantageous.

 

This means that young debaters go to their coaches and ask to be taught the national-style, but their coaches can't do it. As the coaches see these young debaters grow disillusioned, they too become disillusioned and eventually drop the event.

 

To summarize, the internet led to a proliferation of national-style argumentation without the accompanying proliferation of national-style coaching. So long as this disparity continues, debate is in trouble.

Edited by jormarber
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy: I put the guys' opinions in perspective -- they are sophomores and have a lot to learn. Thanks for your comments.

 

Jordan: This is one of the most cogent and reasonable explanations I have heard. You have really hit the nail on the head. What a very impressive attempt to put this issue into its proper perspective. While I'm not sure the Internet is fully responsible, your comments about coaches not being able to keep up is right on the money for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jordan, I am wondering if you believe one of the solutions would be for more coaches to go to camps over the summer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jordan, I am wondering if you believe one of the solutions would be for more coaches to go to camps over the summer?

 

That might be something that helps, as might new coaches with more recent experience in the event. However, I think you need either a change in mentality across the board (coaches, judges, and debaters) towards CHSAA style debate, or towards national-style debate. CHSAA style debate is probably easier to teach and easier to judge, which makes it appealing. More coaches going to camp would lead to more coaches understanding national-style debate, but I'm not sure that there is a judge pool to support it in Colorado. Part of the reason you see the "good" teams at Creek, East, etc going out of state for tournaments is that they get to do the national-style debate that they learn at camps. I personally think that that style is more fun (thats largely why I pushed so hard to travel to out of state tournaments when I was in high school), and I suspect that the people who go to camps think so as well.

If you want national-style debate, you need judges capable of judging national-style debate. As far as I know, most regional circuits are closer to national-style than CHSAA but still far from the national circuit. More coaches who learn national-style concepts would also mean more available judges for national-style debate, so from that standpoint it would be beneficial.

I see the problem being partly that the older generation of coaches does not like the national-style form of debate. It is viewed as pedagogically and intellectually inferior to the more "real world" and "manner first" style that theoretically is practiced under CHSAA rules. However, as I and others have said at various times (and is being said right now in the current CHSAA state thread), national-style arguments can be run under the CHSAA paradigm. It is more an issue of coaches not wanting their students to impact everything in nuclear war, or other outlandish things. I'm not saying thats a bad thing; everyone knows that nuclear war really isn't going to happen if we don't pass a plan that solves poverty for 50 people, but in debate people choose to accept that that is the case. From that standpoint, debate is a game rather than an intellectual activity. I think thats fine, but many coaches would prefer it the other way.

I think what is happening now, in terms of teams traveling out of state while others disappear will continue to happen. Those schools that travel get coaches that will help them in national-style debate, whereas those that don't travel don't get those coaches. The result is that, in terms of being able to debate national-style, the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. So long as there is a disparity of resources that allows some teams to travel and some not to, you will see some teams continuing their monopoly over national-style coaches while others don't have them. Maybe increasing the supply of national-style coaches could break the monopoly (its more like a monopsony, but thats beside the point), but since most coaches start out as assistant coaches, they would need head coaches at non national-style schools willing to give them a chance to create national-style programs. I just don't see that happening. It is much easier for existing coaches to switch to LD and PF, events that they feel they understand, then to actively seek out national-style coaches and allow those coaches the autonomy they need to shape national-style teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Ms. Peters that it is not all the internet's fault, but that Jordan is largely correct. I think that if coaches were able to go to camp, that might help somewhat, but most coaches are unable/unwilling to do so, which is very reasonable.

 

I think the way that debate has changed can be summarized as this: Debate used to be about true persuasion. Winning was prized, but the way it was done was to actually convince a judge that your team was correct. However, debate nationally today is about doing whatever it takes to win. Each round is a game the same way a football game is a game, and has all the trick plays, scouting, and special tactics that accompany football. In short, debate is no longer a discussion, it is a game.

 

When high schoolers (and coaches) in Colorado become disillusioned and frustrated with CX is when they want to have an honest discussion about things that could happen in the real world, and the other teams want to play a game. Unfortunately for the teams that want to have the discussion, teams that consider debate a game have all sorts of tactics and strategies that, if the judge is willing to buy into the gamesmanship, the team that wants the discussion has no clue how to deal with, nor do they have the desire to deal with them.

 

Personally, I believe the game approach is better. This stems from my basic belief that 99% of the time no team will ever truly persuade the opposing team or the judge to completely change their beliefs about a subject over the course of an hour long debate, no matter how real world the discussion stays. Given that belief, the goal of debate is no longer to truly persuade, it is to win the ballot. And if the goal of debate is to win the ballot, then I should use whatever tactics and strategies I can to help me achieve that goal.

 

For those who buy into the gamesmanship, the approach can be very rewarding, and not just in terms of winning rounds. It teaches logic skills, if not necessarily persuasive skills. It forces you to conduct extensive research on a wide variety of subjects. Ultimately, all of the belief change takes places out of rounds while doing research. I also believe the game approach provided more fun rounds for me because it allowed me to take the work I had done and apply it to the logic games, and I personally find logic games to be fun.

 

If it were possible to have teams who prefer discussion only debate other teams like them and teams who prefer the game approach only debate teams like them, then nobody would complain. The most frustrating rounds are when discussion teams face game teams. These rounds are very frustrating for both teams. The discussion team doesn't get the discussion they want. The game team doesn't get the logic game they want. What results is something in the middle neither team really wants to do. It doesn't matter who the judge is, one team is not doing CX the way they want to do it. But what happens more often than not, no matter the judge, is the game team wins, probably because it's somewhat easier to draw the discussion team, but more importantly the judge, closer to the logic game framework than the discussion framework. And because most people don't like to lose, discussion teams end up being forced to either become co-opted by the game framework or quit debate/switch events.

 

To link everything back to CHSAA, CHSAA supports the discussion framework. The CHSAA rules don't prevent the gamesmanship framework, but they do make it more difficult to do. It is possible to make most any argument under CHSAA rules, but the rules stipulate sometimes that arguments are made in manners not most conducive to winning (e.g., the explicitly defined burdens for counterplans). More importantly, though, debaters believe (correctly or incorrectly) that CHSAA rules constrict the gamesmanship approach. The combination of these things causes an increase in the number of frustrating rounds. The rules create a bias to teach to the discussion framework, but the discussion framework is not conducive to winning many tournaments, even with strict enforcement of the CHSAA rules. The frustration (which does not all derive strictly from CHSAA rules, as noted above) drives coaches and students away from CX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we've found the problem:

 

people enjoy debate for different reasons

 

Yeah, shocking, i know.

But when many of you say that debate is a game, well yes, that's EXACTLY what it is. Are we not debating to win? Debate IS a game. A discussion can often be a part of that, but when you are in a competitive activity that has to follow some objective rules so that it isnt totally subjective, it will likely be crowded out. So if that is the problem, then well there's no solving that, sorry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess we've found the problem:

 

people enjoy debate for different reasons

 

Yeah, shocking, i know.

But when many of you say that debate is a game, well yes, that's EXACTLY what it is. Are we not debating to win? Debate IS a game. A discussion can often be a part of that, but when you are in a competitive activity that has to follow some objective rules so that it isnt totally subjective, it will likely be crowded out. So if that is the problem, then well there's no solving that, sorry

 

Andy, I am not saying that the debate-as-a-game aspect is bad. I think that it is a more fun activity and has just as much or more intellectual merit when practiced as such. However, some people prefer the discussion/reach a consensus variety. Debate on the national circuit epitomizes the game variety. However, many (most?) of the coaches in Colorado don't know how to teach the debate-as-a-game variety effectively and/or prefer the debate-as-discussion variety, which leads to disillusioned debaters who get beat by the debate-as-a-game practitioners. These disillusioned debaters then change to other events or quit speech altogether. And when coaches see this happening, they too become disillusioned and subsequently stop teaching the event.

I don't really know how you fix this problem. Maybe its bringing in a new generation of coaches. Maybe its coaches attending camp. I'm pretty sure that its not getting rid of CHSAA rules (although that might be a part of it, it wouldn't be a solution without a number of other steps). Maybe it will largely die out in Colorado except for the small number of schools which are able/willing to travel.

What I do hope is that coaches continue to allow people to try the event. I had a coach who knew next to nothing about policy, yet he encouraged me and a few friends to try it. With his support, and a lot of willpower, we ended up being just fine and it was one of the most enjoyable experiences of my life. Maybe thats also where the community at large comes in. If people don't run 3 topicalities, a k, a cp, 2 disads, and case against a novice team when they know that they don't need more than the cp and a disad and case to win, then maybe fewer people would quit. My first partner quit debate rather quickly after we got smacked around a few times. I think the onus is on debaters to be friendly to novices, encourage them, reach out to them, help them, even (especially) if they aren't from your school or a school with a strong debate program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might detract from the original discussion, but someone should note that policy debate is evolving beyond the "game style" mentioned above to one that focuses on the discourse of debaters (ie narrative affs, Ks of debate affs, etc). I'm not sure what this means, as in I'm not sure if this means that we're two (if not 100) steps behind the national circuit or if this means that the focus of debate on the circuit is coming back to persuasion or if this will have a positive effect on policy debate. I'm not saying that everyone on the national circuit is going to be doing narratives in ten years, but it is a development on the circuit that no one in Colorado (maybe except for Patrick) has been involved in. I use the term "behind" because I feel that the evolution of Colorado debate towards a more circuit-oriented approach is inevitable or CX will die out in this state for reasons already discussed above.

Just thought I'd throw that out there. I just rented the documentary Resolved and I'm pretty excited to watch it.

 

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117933980.html?categoryid=31&cs=1

Edited by jijikago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This might detract from the original discussion, but someone should note that policy debate is evolving beyond the "game style" mentioned above to one that focuses on the discourse of debaters (ie narrative affs, Ks of debate affs, etc). I'm not sure what this means, as in I'm not sure if this means that we're two (if not 100) steps behind the national circuit or if this means that the focus of debate on the circuit is coming back to persuasion or if this will have a positive effect on policy debate. I'm not saying that everyone on the national circuit is going to be doing narratives in ten years, but it is a development on the circuit that no one in Colorado (maybe except for Patrick) has been involved in. I use the term "behind" because I feel that the evolution of Colorado debate towards a more circuit-oriented approach is inevitable or CX will die out in this state for reasons already discussed above.

Just thought I'd throw that out there. I just rented the documentary Resolved and I'm pretty excited to watch it.

 

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117933980.html?categoryid=31&cs=1

 

Just because people are using narratives doesn't mean the game style is ending. A few people do things like "the project," but most, even if they are reading narratives or critical affs and stuff like that are doing it because they think it gives them the best chance to win. Narratives have existed on the circuit for a while, and though I have not seen a circuit round since I graduated, I kind of doubt that they are gaining much more popularity than they had when I graduated.

And people in Colorado have tried to do narratives before. Sanford and Jeffries tried it a little. A lot of teams include some type of story at the top of their aff that they then use as a reason to vote aff. Maybe the people who run narratives win percentages have increased over the last two years, but it was always my impression that a skilled debater could beat a narrative debater, unless the narrative debater was more skilled. And by skilled I mean they have to be able to flow, extend arguments, and "push around the chess pieces" just like any other debater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting discussion.

 

As one of those old dinosaur coaches who truly believes in the educational benefits and practical applications of the stock-issues paradigm (I know -- I'm so out of touch!), I wanted to respond to the idea of coaches attending more camps. For me, that most likely won't happen. I start researching in August, taking kids every weekend to tournaments beginning in October, going 3-4 weekends a month through February, then preparing for State and Nat Quals (with their new topics in PF and LD), and during good years, helping kids get ready for Nationals in June. All the while, I teach 4-5 English classes and attempt to grade papers.

 

I have a husband and 2 children. After Nationals and until school starts in August is MINE. I can't do debate 12 months a year. I just finished my masters so I was doing graduate classes every summer for the past seven years. If I were to do a debate camp in July, I would burn out. Other coaches in Colorado are in the same situation. Those of us who coach (somewhat successfully) all 11 events need a break.

 

I might reconsider the camp thing if there were a day camp in the metro area. But I can't spend 1-3 weeks in the summer away from my family -- I barely get to see them during the school year.

Edited by tpeters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because people are using narratives doesn't mean the game style is ending. A few people do things like "the project," but most, even if they are reading narratives or critical affs and stuff like that are doing it because they think it gives them the best chance to win. Narratives have existed on the circuit for a while, and though I have not seen a circuit round since I graduated, I kind of doubt that they are gaining much more popularity than they had when I graduated.

And people in Colorado have tried to do narratives before. Sanford and Jeffries tried it a little. A lot of teams include some type of story at the top of their aff that they then use as a reason to vote aff. Maybe the people who run narratives win percentages have increased over the last two years, but it was always my impression that a skilled debater could beat a narrative debater, unless the narrative debater was more skilled. And by skilled I mean they have to be able to flow, extend arguments, and "push around the chess pieces" just like any other debater.

 

I wasn't aware of the fact that CO teams ran narratives. That's really cool. And I don't think that the game-style debate is ceding to narratives (although that would be interesting). That's why I said "I'm not saying that everyone on the national circuit is going to be doing narratives in ten years." My point wasn't that the game-style debate is over, and I agree that the narratives are a part of the game culture, but I also think that it brings back the persuasion (not just the facts and statistics) factor into the game, and it also points to just another aspect of policy debate that Colorado isn't taking part in.

Edited by jijikago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jordan, I am wondering if you believe one of the solutions would be for more coaches to go to camps over the summer?

 

I spoke on this issue at length in my thread, and have not much to add. Additionally, since I have given up on CO, I have no desire to issue another frustrated declamation.

 

However, and I mean this with all due respect- a camp, even assuming it somehow got underway, would not solve the problem. At risk of redundancy, I won't elaborate much more, except to reiterate that the more fundamental problem is that of a) coaches utter unwillingness to teach/support debate and abandoning it in favor of PF/LD, B) lack of influx of new coaches that have recent NDT experience/little NDT or TOC influence in the region, and finally c) pompous attitude of existing HS debaters towards the (now extinct) pool of lay judging.

 

A and C feed off each other and compound the problem, although I think A is the bigger factor. It wouldn't even be an issue if B also didn't exist. However, it does. I guess it's somewhat therapeutic to do this lamenting dance every now and then (hell, I spawned a thread in this vein a couple topics down), but ultimately I feel this thread is basically an epitaph.

Edited by RappGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil, thanks for your comments.

 

I want to extend an invitation to this community to really brainstorm some solutions to the CX issue. I have placed the topic of "saving CX" on the docket for the Vail Coaches Forum.

 

While I understand some frustrations regarding actions throughout the state over the past 5 years, now is the time to move forward. Blaming the creation of PF won't solve the problem because PF won't go away. Criticizing the hiring decisions of countless schools won't solve the problem because those are the coaches who were hired.

 

Paul Loupe's in-state camp may help a great deal. As a coach, I am considering attending so that I can get a bit updated. That might help ME keep one or two teams, but it will take more than that. How do we get new coaches to even consider offering CX. How do we get old coaches who have ceased to coach CX, like Davis, to reconsider offering the event? How do we keep the event alive?

 

If the only way to grow the event is to travel to other states, like Kent, Cherry Creek, Denver East, and even Moffat County, then there won't be much growth -- some of us can't afford the trip or the time to travel. If the only way to grow the event is to bring in "outside experts," such as former NDT college debaters, I don't see lots of coaches jumping on that opportunity.

 

So how do we increase the local circuit. Or will CX fade to being done only by those teams who can/will travel?

 

As you participate in this discussion, remember that eliminating another event is not an option. The popularity of PF won't go away. The popularity of LD won't go away. No one is going to give up another way to get to the national tournament. Also, remember that we're talking about increasing CX participation in the state, not necessarily increasing the competitiveness of CX debaters on the national circuit or at non-regional tournaments. Also, keep in mind that any "solution" that requires kids to pay money (camps, travel) won't go over well with many coaches who really believe that all events should be available to all students, regardless of financial ability.

 

Thanks for your ideas. As this discussion unfolds, I would be willing to take any interesting ideas to the coaches at Vail in September.

Edited by tpeters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Colorado Policy Debate Institute. It will be hosted at a University Campus in the Denver Metro Area June 8-10 (Beginning and Intermediate Session) and June 15-17 (Advanced Session).

 

Won't the advanced session interfere with nationals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no set date right now. Loupe is waiting to hear back from the site director for better dates. All the dates are speculation.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there is no set date right now. Loupe is waiting to hear back from the site director for better dates. All the dates are speculation.

I was able to e-mail paul and got some answers about dates. I just wanted to make sure he was aware of the conflict.

Thanks

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...