Jump to content
PKennedy

The status of debate in Kansas

Recommended Posts

Is that true? how did you find out about their GPA's? What were their ACT/SAT scores?

EDIT: Turns out this story was probably hearsay. I won't delete the posts since I think the debate over the beneficial effects to recruitment for debate nationally and its relationship with national circuit debate has potential relevance but I personally apologize for spreading what was apparently a rumor.

 

You're saying this like it is a good thing?

 

If I was running a college program there is no way I'd recruit a kid with a GPA that low, I don't care how talented he/she is. It is not difficult to maintain a 3.0 GPA in high school, you get like a 2.5 for just showing up.

My point isn't that kids should go to the ToC and get a 2.1 GPA but that debating on the national circuit and working hard enough to do well on it pays off INCREDIBLY well and at more than just state colleges in Kansas, Missouri, and Texas.

Edited by Felix Hoenikker
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several tournaments, including mine at one point, have made concerted efforts to offer the style of debate that people are requesting in this thread. By and large, teams don't enter, and the judges who express an interest in this kind of debate can't be bothered to show up unless it's a tournament with an established reputation. This is why coaches like me, who have no particular aversion to contemporary debate, stop offering it at our invitationals.

 

Maybe my experiences are just a bit different since I floated around Flint Hills land where its very normal for kids to return and judge at home tournaments for at least the first 3 years after they graduate. It might also be the high number of 6A schools near where I graduated, but I think the above probably isn't typically true everywhere.

 

From talk with friends that do a lot of judging for national circuit stuff, I know that the way they avoid this pitfall is that there's an expected level of experience with judges provided. I also know that pref systems sorta call out pretty quickly schools that aren't bringing fair enough levels of experience with them. Unfortunately, I also know that the norm for those is that schools have to ante up some pay for judges that often digs a bit into travel budgets. Afterall, your fees rise a bit if you gotta bring 15 rounds of judging and only have 2 coaches.

 

It's fairly unfortunate. The nature of Kansas makes it so as well. For instance, every debater from Overland Park that ever goes to KSU will probably not go to every KC tourney to judge, even if 'champ' or 'insert college kid bug zapper label here' division is offered.

 

I don't necessarily think there's a real solution either. I can't really condemn programs for being ok with large number of community judges - it's a lot more convenient than badgering schools to hire out. I know that my criticism with tournaments was that there was a limited number of judges with experiences that tab didn't keep track of. I think an improvement that could happen is for tab to be aware of what it's ideal experience pools are selectively place those judges in break rounds, and during prelims in lower division rounds so they can serve as panels in higher division outrounds, etc. My experiences with some Topeka tournaments reflected this prioritization. You'd also be surprised how often I would have stuck around for outrounds at some tournaments if simply asked, even if on the initial call from debaters, I declined.

 

I think it's all about making an incentive for the judges you want to be there. If free food is enough to get them out of the woodwork, go for it. If making them feel special than they really are is a trick, why not? People I've talked to show hesitance for judging at tournaments because they don't really want to watch a lot of lower rounds. Selfish? Probably. A barrier to the diversity of judging that Kansas is supposed to be so down with? Probably.

 

I think it's really easy to say "those judges suck if that's their perspective on debate." But is there an option outside of that?

Edited by dziegler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the defense of the kids listed by Alex, they were in private schools. I doubt you get a 2.5 just for showing up there.

 

Glenbrook North is a public school, but this discussion is tangential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To highlight the sarcasm of my earlier post, I offer you the following:

 

From your KS threads.....

 

Facist because of No TOC-April 2008

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=983410

 

We are Doomed—No TOC---November 2007

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=979134

 

Champ Debate is Dead---September 2007

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=977787

 

Deskboy Banter about the 500 mile rule turns even more ridiculous---August 2007

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=977120

 

A discussion on judge adaptation, and why KS debate is dying---November 2006

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=967912

 

Funding Spec is killing debate (not relevant, just funny) October 2006

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=966778

 

Oh holy crap, no laptops---April 2006

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=962043

 

Another nat circuit discussion---November 2005

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=958244

 

Gasp another 500 mile Rule thread---August 2005

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=953684

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's actually a hell of an interesting article. The hard facts presented are new to me, and put KSHSAA in a position that one would think would be hard to defend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huh. Seems like the story for a lot of high schoolers is bad GPA's, then get to college and the different learning environment benefits them. I can say this is true for close to 20 of the kids in my graduating class alone. But maybe my high school is different than others.

 

In the defense of the kids listed by Alex, they were in private schools. I doubt you get a 2.5 just for showing up there. Your criteria also seems to exclude a near majority of college freshman.

 

Also, a lot of schools near UDL districts recruit a majority of their kids from the very pockets you'd never recruit. Just because kids had a rough time in high school doesn't mean they shouldn't be recruited. <shrug>

 

The majority of college freshman have 2.0 GPAs? Really? This is news to me. How many kids that go to schools like Emory or Northwestern have 2.0 GPAs? I'd have a hard time committing scholarship money to kids that have a difficult time balancing academics, activities and whatever else. If a kid has a hard time in high school there is a pretty good chance they'd wash out at a school of that caliber. There could be some extenuating circumstances that caused the low academic performance and those certainly have to be considered.

 

UDLs are a whole different ball game, no question. I support their efforts to promote the activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My quick 5AM thoughts:

 

--I don't think this is fundamentally an issue of national circuit travel; that old argument seems to miss the core of the debate. At best, even if national travel were encouraged, this would affect a minority of teams in the state. As such, the nature of this thread should redirect towards the fundamental issues presented by Patrick in the first post.

--Personally, I see this as the issue presented: debaters in Kansas need to understand the technical "game" aspect of the activity as well as the communication/persuasion aspect.

--The solution isn't the ToC, it's not travel, it's not hosting champ divisions, it's not disclosure, it's not destroying f-spec (sorry, Dubois). The solution is to judge, like a few already have said. Don't tell me you can't because you aren't called to judge, don't tell me that you can't because there's no tournaments around that need judges, and don't tell me it interferes too much with your social life (don't lie).

--"I can't because I'm not called to judge." So what? Call them. I judged every single weekend my freshman year, and I certainly wasn't called every weekend and asked to judge. Only once was I ever told they did not need my services as a judge, and there was another tournament that same weekend that did.

--"But coaches are the problem, they discourage technical debate!"

1) Technical debate IS persuasion to you as a judge. So you have a round you consider terrible because no one understands impact calculus. So explain it to them -- you have a rather sizable piece of paper on which to provide your input. People don't tend to learn much from wins, they learn from losses. Every team that loses your ballot should learn why and how to do it better next time.

2) Blaming coaches is a worthless endevour. If coaches exist that disagree that highly technical debate has value, you're not going to convince them to change. Your best path is the ballot.

--"Champ circuits aren't offered!"

1) So what? Pick a top-bracket open team, hell, pick ANY team that can't learn at least something from your ballot.

2) If you're ultra-concerned about these divisions being offered, why not travel to DCI-bid tournaments to judge?

3) There won't be a viable "champ" circuit unless teams are interested. Teams won't be interested if they don't know how to debate technically. Some teams may miss out on chances to learn in-round technical debate by being judged by community judge X instead of you.

 

 

 

The tl;dr version: Go judge. Those that adapt, win. Those that lose, learn to adapt.

 

 

 

 

My usual disclaimer: it's late/early, I'm tired, sorry if this is incoherent rambling.

 

EDIT 1, re: travel: Interesting debate happened a few months back here: http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=987256. You can skip directly to the first post by Michael Antonucci. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with anything posted on that thread, but it is a very interesting read.

Edited by Carpe Noctem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess i will pursue things outside of the realm of cross-x and see how that goes hopefully we can traverse the barriers
If you take a look here at what NASSP requires in order to place an event on their National Advisory List of Student Contests and Activities, you will discover that it isn't merely a matter of convincing someone at UK to fill out a couple of forms. There are any number of requirements that might be problematic for the TOC folks, in particular Program Standard F ("Contests and activities should be held on non-school time. Those involving extensive or multiple day travel will be evaluated in terms of educational benefits to the students measured against the loss of instructional time.") One reason the NCFL Grand National and NFL Nationals have an easier time getting on the list is because neither of them requires students to miss much (if any) school time...

 

In any event, it is obviously the case that the folks at UK have decided that it isn't worth the candle. That state of affairs isn't going to change any time soon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No its a secondary source story but I've confirmed from members of both the Northwestern and Emory squads that their GPA was definitely that low if it wasn't that precisely. As for ACT/SAT scores I have no idea but they're probably very good as Stephen and Matt are both very very smart people.

 

 

My point isn't that kids should go to the ToC and get a 2.1 GPA but that debating on the national circuit and working hard enough to do well on it pays off INCREDIBLY well and at more than just state colleges in Kansas, Missouri, and Texas.

 

I don;t really have much business posting here but I thought I just correct some stuff. I'm not sure of stephen's exact GPA, but I know it was for sure above 3.5 and probably quite close to 4.0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To highlight the sarcasm of my earlier post, I offer you the following:

 

From your KS threads.....

 

Facist because of No TOC-April 2008

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=983410

 

We are Doomed—No TOC---November 2007

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=979134

 

Champ Debate is Dead---September 2007

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=977787

 

Deskboy Banter about the 500 mile rule turns even more ridiculous---August 2007

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=977120

 

A discussion on judge adaptation, and why KS debate is dying---November 2006

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=967912

 

Funding Spec is killing debate (not relevant, just funny) October 2006

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=966778

 

Oh holy crap, no laptops---April 2006

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=962043

 

Another nat circuit discussion---November 2005

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=958244

 

Gasp another 500 mile Rule thread---August 2005

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=953684

 

You add zero value to this thread. Yes these discussions are recurring, but then again so are vacuous "deskboy" inside joke threads. How about you stay out of the discussion until you provide more than just unentertaining sarcasm? If you don't want to read this thread, then don't do it. I'd probably be happier if you didn't. This thread has actually, unlike all prior threads, facilitated action. I know this because I know someone who is actually in the processing on contacting many individuals regarding particular changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The majority of college freshman have 2.0 GPAs? Really? This is news to me. How many kids that go to schools like Emory or Northwestern have 2.0 GPAs? I'd have a hard time committing scholarship money to kids that have a difficult time balancing academics, activities and whatever else. If a kid has a hard time in high school there is a pretty good chance they'd wash out at a school of that caliber. There could be some extenuating circumstances that caused the low academic performance and those certainly have to be considered.

 

UDLs are a whole different ball game, no question. I support their efforts to promote the activity.

 

Good strawman. My post was a far cry from saying a majority of college freshman are below a 2.5. I was just saying if a freshman who had a poor high school GPA has debate potential, squads should still recruit that debater, even if there isn't a bunch of money being thrown at them. I know too many people that were terrible high school students that turned it around in college to ever believe that colleges, especially public ones, shouldn't be giving debate opportunities to students that appear 'at risk.'

 

My point was also that most institutions should still recruit. Alas, you just changed the premise of your first argument to put yourself in the shoes of a coach at Emory/other big private college. My post also wasn't about directing large scholarships, but still recruiting (e.g. hey - it'd be cool to travel you! Keep the grades up, we might give you money).

 

 

I'm going to get out of the sinkhole of this thread while I still can. I can make two fair observations about the thread so far that I think most can universally agree on:

 

1) A lot of the args for TOC/national circuit/champ tournies are whines at best. As alluded to in my post in response to Dubois, if you're concerned about raising judging standards, get your coaches to start the process. If it's a norm to require a certain level of experience at tournaments, schools eventually cough it up - literally every debate circuit in America proves it.

 

2) The "coaches" response to this is disappointing at best. I asked what standards the TOC might have issue with for not signing the Principals Assocation and some basic things that tournaments could do to make them more appealing to former high school debaters like myself to judge, and I'm strawman attacked, not given real answers to questions of legitimate inquiry, and told that my suggestions are all bred out of laziness for not judging enough. As expected, Dubois is the only person that can give an upfront, honest response without coming off as completely cocky and unprofessional.

 

I was actually nice in this thread too! Both sides of this debate could probably tone down sarcasm everywhere - I really can't tell the emotional or intellectual difference between coaches and students at this point. Yall just want a troll war. Whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don;t really have much business posting here but I thought I just correct some stuff. I'm not sure of stephen's exact GPA, but I know it was for sure above 3.5 and probably quite close to 4.0.

Ah my apologies then. Posting hearsay isn't acceptable I'll make corrections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I asked what standards the TOC might have issue with for not signing the Principals Association...and I'm strawman attacked, not given real answers to questions of legitimate inquiry...
Scroll up a couple of posts, my brother...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To highlight the sarcasm of my earlier post, I offer you the following:

 

From your KS threads.....

 

Facist because of No TOC-April 2008

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=983410

 

We are Doomed—No TOC---November 2007

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=979134

 

Champ Debate is Dead---September 2007

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=977787

 

Deskboy Banter about the 500 mile rule turns even more ridiculous---August 2007

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=977120

 

A discussion on judge adaptation, and why KS debate is dying---November 2006

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=967912

 

Funding Spec is killing debate (not relevant, just funny) October 2006

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=966778

 

Oh holy crap, no laptops---April 2006

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=962043

 

Another nat circuit discussion---November 2005

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=958244

 

Gasp another 500 mile Rule thread---August 2005

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=953684

 

Just because I think this is endemic of the problem I'm talking about, I will make one final response- a warrant is the reasoning the supports your claims. In this case, you would need a reason to support your implied premise that this thread is about the "death of kansas debate," in that there will literally be no more tournaments. That is not, nor will it ever be, my argument. Rather, the argument is about the quality of argumentation. In that regard, you have actually posted another thread that supports my point- this thread about funding presses winning ballots. Asking a question is not an argument, but our debaters are acting like it is. Worse still is when a team can't even figure out how to answer this so-called argument. THAT is the main problem, not whether Washburn Rural will continue to host its invitational.

 

EDIT: This sounds a bit sarcastic, but I'm quite serious, this is what I'm talking about.

Edited by PKennedy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One last note- I will say again, I judge at every tournament I can. However, I still debate, so that makes it fairly difficult for me to judge as much as I would like to. For example, last year I went to 13 tournaments. I couldn't judge at NFL, CFL or State, so those were also out. That left pretty much the weekends I did judge. Just for the record, I do really try to do my part here, and I know there are quite a few other people who try. But it certainly couldn't hurt, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One last note- I will say again, I judge at every tournament I can. However, I still debate, so that makes it fairly difficult for me to judge as much as I would like to. For example, last year I went to 13 tournaments. I couldn't judge at NFL, CFL or State, so those were also out. That left pretty much the weekends I did judge. Just for the record, I do really try to do my part here, and I know there are quite a few other people who try. But it certainly couldn't hurt, no?

 

 

In retrospect (3pm.... I'm awake again) my post looks like it's directed at you or other specific individuals. That wasn't my intent -- I know you and a large majority of people who post on CX get out and judge at just about every opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good strawman. My post was a far cry from saying a majority of college freshman are below a 2.5. I was just saying if a freshman who had a poor high school GPA has debate potential, squads should still recruit that debater, even if there isn't a bunch of money being thrown at them. I know too many people that were terrible high school students that turned it around in college to ever believe that colleges, especially public ones, shouldn't be giving debate opportunities to students that appear 'at risk.'

 

My point was also that most institutions should still recruit. Alas, you just changed the premise of your first argument to put yourself in the shoes of a coach at Emory/other big private college. My post also wasn't about directing large scholarships, but still recruiting (e.g. hey - it'd be cool to travel you! Keep the grades up, we might give you money).

 

 

I'm going to get out of the sinkhole of this thread while I still can. I can make two fair observations about the thread so far that I think most can universally agree on:

 

1) A lot of the args for TOC/national circuit/champ tournies are whines at best. As alluded to in my post in response to Dubois, if you're concerned about raising judging standards, get your coaches to start the process. If it's a norm to require a certain level of experience at tournaments, schools eventually cough it up - literally every debate circuit in America proves it.

 

2) The "coaches" response to this is disappointing at best. I asked what standards the TOC might have issue with for not signing the Principals Assocation and some basic things that tournaments could do to make them more appealing to former high school debaters like myself to judge, and I'm strawman attacked, not given real answers to questions of legitimate inquiry, and told that my suggestions are all bred out of laziness for not judging enough. As expected, Dubois is the only person that can give an upfront, honest response without coming off as completely cocky and unprofessional.

 

I was actually nice in this thread too! Both sides of this debate could probably tone down sarcasm everywhere - I really can't tell the emotional or intellectual difference between coaches and students at this point. Yall just want a troll war. Whatever.

 

How is it a strawman exactly? You said:

 

Your criteria also seems to exclude a near majority of college freshman.[/Quote]

 

I pointed out that it is absurd to say that a "near majority" of college freshman had 2.0 gpas in high school... Then went on to clarify my position. I agree that some kids can go to college with bad GPAs and go on to do great things, I just wouldn't commit any scholarship money on them their freshman year because of the risk involved. We have a difference of opinion, no big deal. I also understand that you came from Highland Park High School so your perspective might be different from mine, I respect that. No one is attacking you. No one is singling you (or anyone else) out for not judging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because nearly every debater who has gone to an out-of-state institute knows that EVERYONE there has one goal--go to the TOC. Every instructor at that institute has one goal for their squad--go to the TOC. Students gauge success based on one thing--performance at the TOC and/or TOC qualifiers. The entire national circuit culture is centered around the TOC. Once you become a part of that culture, there is no going back. Telling a kid not to worry about the TOC who goes to a camp geared towards steep improvement is like telling the Chiefs not to worry about the Super Bowl. This is a cultural difference. Pretty much everyone here who has reiterated their lack of understanding for why the TOC is so important has one thing in common--they haven't debated in years.
Mapes! If I didn’t know better I would think you are trying to goad me into a debate that we’ve had before and can’t be won due to personal feelings! All I’m going to say is that I’m not a fan of the culture that you are referring to. For me to attack it would be to attack anyone who has embraced that culture, and I don’t want to do that because those people are still good people, just that I disagree with them.

 

That being said, I disagree that going to camp automatically makes TOC your top priority. 1st, obviously it matters the camp. UMKC, KU, KSU, and Rockhurst do not instill TOC as the goal because they understand their region’s interests. 2nd, Kansas is not the only state that has travel restrictions and does not go to TOC. I’m sure kids from other areas go to camp and aren’t allowed to TOC and thus it is not an option for a goal. 3rd, Harvard is not an option either, but I bet kids at camp talk about going to it. Or MBA, or any of the other tournaments that are more than 500 miles away. 4th, every year when my kids come back from camp we talk about goals. And my kids go to the big name camps too. Never has a kid come back and said their goal is TOC. You know why? It isn’t an option. They knew that going to camp, they told their friends at camp, and they knew it coming back. Have I had some kids interested? Absolutely! And if they could have gone, we would have taken them. But it wasn’t ever their goal because they knew it would be a self defeating goal.

 

And when the Hell did I become an older coach???? Aaaaaahhhhhh!

You bastardized what Patrick was saying. His point was that colleges recruit based on the POTENTIAL for success in an NDT style debate. In the context of
Kansas, they do not recruit based on how many Mommy's gave you unjustified 30's because that number would probably be through the roof. They are forward looking.

 

Also, Bricker supports Patrick's argument. He competed in the "champ" division in many of the KS tournaments while also participating in traditional KS debate. This merely underscores the importance of "champ" debate. Plus, success stories like him probably would've won the NDT if they had not debated in KS. Allowing them to compete at the TOC only could've added value, not diminished any.

I hate using Bricker as an argument. The dude deserves better than that and he is a person who more than can speak for himself. However, let me point some things out. Bricker did debate the “champ” division in Kansas, which means you can be successful by debating in Kansas. Second, ask some of the “older coaches”, there have been several other very successful debaters in college who came out of Kansas and some of them even debated for top programs. But most of all, Bricker didn’t go to TOC. All of which shows that you don’t have to go to TOC or do anything more than go to the DCI bid tournaments, and you can be very successful.

 

And I don’t think I’m changing Patrick’s point. Major programs do not evaluate kids solely based on winning TOC. They look at a variety of factor. And I would venture to guess most programs know of the strength of debate in Kansas, and if they didn’t then people like Bricker are opening their eyes (all without changing the SQ)

 

This has got to be a joke. Democracy? How many coaches sit their whole squad down before a tournament and say, "So how many of you want to compete in the champ division and how many of you want to compete in the other divisions?" You really think that kids get to completely choose what division they can participate in?
No joke. I think you’d be surprised by the number of kids in Kansas that have no interest in circuit style debate. I’ve had kids threaten to quit debate because they thought we were going to ask them to debate circuit style and they preferred more traditional. I’m dead serious when I contend that the number of kids who embrace the “Kansas culture” greatly outnumbers the number of kids who pick up and embrace the circuit culture that you talk about. Note, I'm not saying you or anyone else is wrong, just outnumbered and haven't taken other perspectives into mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Second, ask some of the “older coaches”, there have been several other very successful debaters in college who came out of Kansas and some of them even debated for top programs.

 

I'm younger than you (and not really a coach) :) and I can add: Mike Gottlieb from Northwestern, arguably the greatest college debater ever (2 time NDT Champion, NDT triple crown winner) was coached by Mr. Steve "Deskboy" Wood at Lawrence High School.

 

I'm not pointing this out to make (or endorse) any sort of argument.

Edited by t-money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mapes! If I didn’t know better I would think you are trying to goad me into a debate that we’ve had before and can’t be won due to personal feelings! All I’m going to say is that I’m not a fan of the culture that you are referring to. For me to attack it would be to attack anyone who has embraced that culture, and I don’t want to do that because those people are still good people, just that I disagree with them.

 

That being said, I disagree that going to camp automatically makes TOC your top priority. 1st, obviously it matters the camp. UMKC, KU, KSU, and Rockhurst do not instill TOC as the goal because they understand their region’s interests. 2nd, Kansas is not the only state that has travel restrictions and does not go to TOC. I’m sure kids from other areas go to camp and aren’t allowed to TOC and thus it is not an option for a goal. 3rd, Harvard is not an option either, but I bet kids at camp talk about going to it. Or MBA, or any of the other tournaments that are more than 500 miles away. 4th, every year when my kids come back from camp we talk about goals. And my kids go to the big name camps too. Never has a kid come back and said their goal is TOC. You know why? It isn’t an option. They knew that going to camp, they told their friends at camp, and they knew it coming back. Have I had some kids interested? Absolutely! And if they could have gone, we would have taken them. But it wasn’t ever their goal because they knew it would be a self defeating goal.

 

And when the Hell did I become an older coach???? Aaaaaahhhhhh!

I hate using Bricker as an argument. The dude deserves better than that and he is a person who more than can speak for himself. However, let me point some things out. Bricker did debate the “champ” division in Kansas, which means you can be successful by debating in Kansas. Second, ask some of the “older coaches”, there have been several other very successful debaters in college who came out of Kansas and some of them even debated for top programs. But most of all, Bricker didn’t go to TOC. All of which shows that you don’t have to go to TOC or do anything more than go to the DCI bid tournaments, and you can be very successful.

 

And I don’t think I’m changing Patrick’s point. Major programs do not evaluate kids solely based on winning TOC. They look at a variety of factor. And I would venture to guess most programs know of the strength of debate in Kansas, and if they didn’t then people like Bricker are opening their eyes (all without changing the SQ)

 

No joke. I think you’d be surprised by the number of kids in Kansas that have no interest in circuit style debate. I’ve had kids threaten to quit debate because they thought we were going to ask them to debate circuit style and they preferred more traditional. I’m dead serious when I contend that the number of kids who embrace the “Kansas culture” greatly outnumbers the number of kids who pick up and embrace the circuit culture that you talk about. Note, I'm not saying you or anyone else is wrong, just outnumbered and haven't taken other perspectives into mind.

 

too long to respond to. too tired. corporate world blows but pays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unemployed so I can cover part of this for you Danny.

 

That being said, I disagree that going to camp automatically makes TOC your top priority. 1st, obviously it matters the camp. UMKC, KU, KSU, and Rockhurst do not instill TOC as the goal because they understand their region’s interests. 2nd, Kansas is not the only state that has travel restrictions and does not go to TOC. I’m sure kids from other areas go to camp and aren’t allowed to TOC and thus it is not an option for a goal. 3rd, Harvard is not an option either, but I bet kids at camp talk about going to it. Or MBA, or any of the other tournaments that are more than 500 miles away. 4th, every year when my kids come back from camp we talk about goals. And my kids go to the big name camps too. Never has a kid come back and said their goal is TOC. You know why? It isn’t an option. They knew that going to camp, they told their friends at camp, and they knew it coming back. Have I had some kids interested? Absolutely! And if they could have gone, we would have taken them. But it wasn’t ever their goal because they knew it would be a self defeating goal.

Obviously kids know they can't that doesn't mean its not a desire thats instilled in them. And sure people talk about Harvard and MBA but largely because they're huge, fun, and prestigious tournaments. Also the reality you pointed out that they can't go to that either doesn't support your argument its another disad to it. And last but not least while the the tournaments obviously have their own intrinsic value they're ultimately just another stop in the road on the way to the ToC.

 

I hate using Bricker as an argument. The dude deserves better than that and he is a person who more than can speak for himself. However, let me point some things out. Bricker did debate the “champ” division in Kansas, which means you can be successful by debating in Kansas. Second, ask some of the “older coaches”, there have been several other very successful debaters in college who came out of Kansas and some of them even debated for top programs. But most of all, Bricker didn’t go to TOC. All of which shows that you don’t have to go to TOC or do anything more than go to the DCI bid tournaments, and you can be very successful.

Also doesn't answer Danny's argument. His argument was that Bricker was just good enough at adapting and learning new styles of debate and generally being a badass that he was able to win the NDT in spite of not because of the environment he debated in in high school. Since no one here is arguing that opening up Kansans to the ToC would destroy the local community (rightly so because the argument makes no sense) you're basically PICing out of their advocacy but you don't have a net benefit and have conceded a disad to the CP. tl;dr version - You haven't answered the argument that opening up can ONLY help.

 

And I don’t think I’m changing Patrick’s point. Major programs do not evaluate kids solely based on winning TOC. They look at a variety of factor. And I would venture to guess most programs know of the strength of debate in Kansas, and if they didn’t then people like Bricker are opening their eyes (all without changing the SQ)

Still haven't answered the argument that teams outside of the Kansas, Missouri, and Texas state schools don't really recruit out of Kansas because they basically don't see those Kansas kids because they aren't the teams they see on the national circuit when they go out to judge. Even if the kids in Kansas got the skillz to pay the billz minus the exposure and experience you get out there almost no one outside that triad is going to give you an offer.

 

No joke. I think you’d be surprised by the number of kids in Kansas that have no interest in circuit style debate. I’ve had kids threaten to quit debate because they thought we were going to ask them to debate circuit style and they preferred more traditional. I’m dead serious when I contend that the number of kids who embrace the “Kansas culture” greatly outnumbers the number of kids who pick up and embrace the circuit culture that you talk about. Note, I'm not saying you or anyone else is wrong, just outnumbered and haven't taken other perspectives into mind.

Considering this isn't a zero sum game I don't know why they should have to take the other perspectives in mind. Some people want to put in the extra work and effort to do national circuit debate and I'm not sure why they should be denied that.

Edited by Felix Hoenikker
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also doesn't answer Danny's argument. His argument was that Bricker was just good enough at adapting and learning new styles of debate and generally being a badass that he was able to win the NDT in spite of not because of the environment he debated in in high school. Since no one here is arguing that opening up Kansans to the ToC would destroy the local community (rightly so because the argument makes no sense) you're basically PICing out of their advocacy but you don't have a net benefit and have conceded a disad to the CP. tl;dr version - You haven't answered the argument that opening up can ONLY help.
It has been a long time since I was a 1N and had to defend the SQ, but I do recall some theory that if I’m defending the SQ I don’t have to advocate change. If all else is equal, then we stick with what is known. I haven’t provided a counterplan. I’m going old school, arguing case, showing the harms are imaginary and overblown and that the SQ solves. My partner will bring up the DA’s in the 2NC…

 

Seriously, I’m not going to bash on the TOC. That won’t do any good. You guys clearly think it is more prestigious and more important that I would ever agree to. I have my reasons to dislike the culture that surrounds the TOC. To that, I agree with Patrick the most. There are good things and bad things about the circuit, and we have imported much of that bad without much of the good.

 

And beyond that, I’ve said I would happily take my students to TOC if they were allowed to go. Since they are not, it is a moot point.

 

Still haven't answered the argument that teams outside of the Kansas, Missouri, and Texas state schools don't really recruit out of Kansas because they basically don't see those Kansas kids because they the teams they see on the national circuit when they go out to judge. Even if the kids in
Kansas got the skillz to pay the billz minus the exposure and experience you get out there almost no one outside that triad is going to give you an offer.
Okay, I’m really not trying to be the jackass I normally am, but this silly argument has gone on long enough. Recruitment is not magic and doesn’t just happen to you. I’m sure you are going to give me a counter example, but enough is enough. If you didn’t contact any of the coaches at any of the major programs then you have nothing to say here. You didn’t try. And if you did, and the coach at Northwestern or wherever said she/he didn’t think you were good enough for her/his program due to not winning TOC, then I will retract everything I’ve said. Otherwise quit your complaining! If anything whining about not getting recruited probably proves you shouldn’t have been recruited. And what the heck are you saying about your current situation? Are you saying, “I should by at ______, but I had to settle for here because Kansas screwed me by not letting me go to TOC?” At least you were recruited regionally. I’m just not that impressed with all these claims that TOC is the Mecca of scholarship money and that Kansas’s are considered heathens by the outside world for not going to TOC. Okay, deep breath!

 

Considering this isn't a zero sum game I don't know why they should have to take the other perspectives in mind. Some people want to put in the extra work and effort to do national circuit debate and I'm not sure why they should be denied that.
I was surprised that as a son of a debate coach that you didn’t know it is a zero sum game. Every hotel room we have to rent for a trip to Iowa is 12 entry fees that we could have paid for kids to go to BVN’s tournament. Budgets mean sacrifice. Add in airfair and taking 4 kids to Kentucky for a week is the easily equal to taking an entire squad out to every tournament for the entire season. So we do fundraising. But is it really fair to ask 50 kids to fundraise so 2 to 4 kids can do something that only that 2 to 4 kids are even interested in? In a world of unlimited economic resources, then I would be more inclined to at least consider it, but in the real world the sacrifice by the majority is something very real to consider.

 

And before you say, “We’ll just pay for it ourselves”, think of the message that sends. That the rich get to go to TOC but the poor have to stay home. At least our current system is equitable.

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...