Jump to content
hylanddd

NFL Nationals - Post Discussion

Recommended Posts

You could be being sarcastic. If you are, it's not obvious.
Yeah, I get that a lot... :D
The voluntary sharing of information among a large group of people.

Using one's personal position to exercise a monopoly on information.

There's a difference.

Not as big a one as you think. I'm not defending folks who abuse their position in tab. Frankly, they're lucky I'm not the one in charge of doling out penalties for such behavior. That said, the sharing of code information is intended to defeat the purpose of the coding system. That a lot of folks participate in this "project" has nothing to do with its ethical implications. "If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing," etc. And NFL's purpose, of course, is to minimize scouting to the extent it is possible to do so. Disagree with that philosophy if you will, but please don't make the architects of its subversion out to be some sort of folk-heroes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I am not inclined to sit by while you bash someone who has twice your positive reputation"

 

"That a lot of folks participate in this "project" has nothing to do with its ethical implications. "If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing," etc."

 

Terrance you have managed to contradict yourself and display your idiocy in an even smaller number of posts than usual. Bravo.

 

 

"Disagree with that philosophy if you will, but please don't make the architects of its subversion out to be some sort of folk-heroes..."

 

Saying doing something against the rules is different from something not against the rules is not an attempt to make someone a folk hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not as big a one as you think.

 

Actually, I think they are nearly diametrically opposed.

1. One is designed to allow for the free flow of information to as many people as possible who wish to receive it, one is an act which acquires restricted information and maintains a monopoly on it.

2. One limits the negative effects of scouting by making it as equitable as possible (regardless of whether scouting is good or bad), as anyone who participates will have the information available (as opposed to the alternative of letting the squad which can afford the most extra people get the most information), and one is an act which maximizes the negative effects of scouting, by placing unreleased, restricted, and private information in the hands of only the competitors whose success directly benefits you (which is very different from code-sharing, as the competitors themselves can decide if they want that information or not).

 

Yes, they are pretty similar in that they are both things you disagree with. But, presumably, you disagree with each for entirely separate reasons, as I believe that I have demonstrated that they are essentially opposites of each other. That you disagree with each end of the opposition does not make them more similar.

 

(If you disagree with them because the "philosophy of NFL" disagrees with them, that's not the same reason for each, as then they become similar only insofar as they are things that the "philosophy of NFL" disagrees with, which would again disagree with each for entirely separate reasons.)

 

That a lot of folks participate in this "project" has nothing to do with its ethical implications. "If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing," etc.

 

It's ethically opposite not because of how many people participate in it, but because it is a project which allows for as many people who want to to participate and is oriented towards making the acquisition of information more equitable.

 

That said, the sharing of code information is intended to defeat the purpose of the coding system... And NFL's purpose, of course, is to minimize scouting to the extent it is possible to do so. Disagree with that philosophy if you will, but please don't make the architects of its subversion out to be some sort of folk-heroes...

 

Regardless of whether I disagree or agree with this philosophy, the actions do not become more similar.

 

However, I think, in the context of the code-sharing system, opposing it in favour of NFL's purpose drastically changes NFL's purpose.

 

If NFL's purpose in using codes is to give people the ability to keep private what school and state they are from, that is preserved under code-sharing, as nobody is required to share.

 

But if NFL's purpose is to prevent people from voluntarily sharing their information despite their wanting to do so, then I think you are required to defend something far broader and more questionable than the practice of using codes.

 

Also, I don't think Batterman is a folk-hero. Just someone who cares about the activity and has organized something which he (and many other participants) believe benefits it. Perhaps that's heroic.

 

Edit: My partner Peter objected to my original post, and would like to note that he thinks Bill Batterman is a hero.

Edited by THodgman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot understand how anyone can think code systems are good for anyone but the big schools. Large, in the know programs will inevitably do what they can via their sizable entourages to know as much as possible about the competition; literally the ONLY way to even the field is to make scouting equitable and public through means such as code sharing and online caselists. Sorry Terrence, I'd like to have small schools like mine have a fighting chance at nationals; as such, I will continue to participate in code sharing and related projects.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people over-estimate the amount of resourcing big schools do at nationals...

Edited by LeeQuinn
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the code sharing system for those who want to opt in, but am not happy with the fact that codes got shared of even those who didn't want to opt in. I intentionally didn't want to share my code nor did I want to see anyone else's code until elims, because I strongly believe in the value of going in against another team without preparation...it levels the playing field since we don't have a policy coach to help prep against other teams affs or whatever, and I feel it's more educational and exciting to have to come up with a strat on the fly. And yet, I hear our code got shared anyway...it didn't end up hurting me at all but it was kind of annoying that someone would share it without my permission, and that that's allowed.

 

Long story short, I think we should be able to opt out of code lists if we'd prefer. Just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the code sharing system for those who want to opt in, but am not happy with the fact that codes got shared of even those who didn't want to opt in. I intentionally didn't want to share my code nor did I want to see anyone else's code until elims, because I strongly believe in the value of going in against another team without preparation...it levels the playing field since we don't have a policy coach to help prep against other teams affs or whatever, and I feel it's more educational and exciting to have to come up with a strat on the fly. And yet, I hear our code got shared anyway...it didn't end up hurting me at all but it was kind of annoying that someone would share it without my permission, and that that's allowed.

 

Long story short, I think we should be able to opt out of code lists if we'd prefer. Just my 2 cents.

 

I think the bolded part is where those of us in the pro-code share camp just disagree with you. I'm simply of the belief that information creates better, and more educational, debates through encouraging clash and research of specific arguments

Edited by theglobalcowboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are also a magnet school focused on a college-prep curriculum exclusively. They have around 2,200 hand-picked students (who must achieve a minimum test score before they can even apply for admission). As I'm sure you know, they competed this season at Greenhill, Valley, UMich, Blake, MBA, Pace, and Emory (in addition to the Glenbrooks and the Northwestern RR, which are in their backyard but hardly cheap). When you said "UDL," I'm sure you meant for folks to infer you were talking about a basically private school that sends kids to elite tournaments all over the place, right?

 

I'm not going to comment on the rest of the post (lol @ defending someone by the amount of cross-x reputation they have though) because I think Thomas did a commendable job defending the code sharing project. I would like to comment on this particular part, because your comment is very troubling to me. There is a general trend of pessimism and negativity in a lot of the "anti-national circuit" crowd (although I'm not as sure that this crowd is as big as Duane makes it out to be) that is very, very frustrating. A common trend I've seen is to try and make every single school that has national circuit success look as elite and incredibly wealthy as possible to try and separate them from "regular" folks who don't do as well at the national circuit. This is problematic because it debases the success of those who are privileged. There are ways to go and make this criticism without it being offensive or making overgeneralized assertions combined with what amounts to ad-hominem attacks (see Michael Antonucci's comments on a similar thread of discussion on the 3NR for an example).

 

I'm not going to try and comment on this trend at length, but I'm going to argue that your comments about Whitney Young are somewhat wrong.

 

Whitney Young is neither a really rich school nor a really poor school. It's one of twelve public magnet high schools in Chicago, and it generally tests the third best out of the public schools in Chicago proper (GBN, GBS, New Trier, Maine East, etc are all in the suburbs). It's in an average neighborhood. It's not as rich as many of the private schools in Chicago (Parker, UC Lab, Latin, etc), but it's not as underprivileged as many of the schools in Chicago, particularly on the South and West sides. I'm obviously not going to post the salaries of my mother or Misael's parents, but I will forward that they are certainly within or below the inner quartile range of the median salaries of Chicago.

 

The school, contrary to your blind assertions, is not nearly a private school. The school is getting hit hard with budget cuts and is firing 22% of the staff and increasing minimum class sizes to 37 next year. The school does not provide most or even a significant percentage of our debate funding. Our funds that allow us to travel almost entirely come from private donations, which we and our teachers and coaches worked really hard, and wrote and campaigned and lobbied furiously to achieve, and the financial support of the urban debate league. Were we lucky? Absolutely, we were very lucky to be successful in our hard work to find private financing, to have two volunteer coaches who dedicated their time (one of whom found us after judging us at a tournament without a coach, and the other of whom was referenced to us by the CDL the director of the CDL saw a hardworking squad with zero coaching our sophomore year).

 

Still, none of it - from the fundraising to the file-cutting - would have happened without our hard work. Misael and I both have been on the team since before any of our current coaches or administrators, and we certainly played a big role in helping build the program. I am proud of that role. Very unfortunately, because Misael and I are leaving, the debate team (although it still has a ton of dedicated debaters, some of whom can't afford to go to camp, some of whom can't afford to go to the camp they'd like to) is not going to be funded nearly as well next year, since we drove a lot of the private donations based on the success we had our junior year. The letter-writing and fundraising campaigns we and our sponsor went through generally appealed to people to personally fund our senior year specifically. We are trying to remedy this problem, and since I love Whitney Young Debate I will continue working with the program both in an argumentative coaching sense to secure money as best as I can from my location. Even so, certainly all of the traveling before our senior year before our senior year and even a lot of the tournaments you mention like Valley and Umich, the vast majority of our travel outside of that was funded by the Chicago Debate League and Chicago Debate Commission. Much (actually most) of our camp tuition throughout our career was sponsored by UDL scholarships. We are indeed a UDL school and proud of it. Without the CDL, the Whitney Young debate team would not have been founded in 1996, and it certainly wouldn't have began to travel nationally with many other schools in the CDL in 2007. This is why we thanked the CDL and NAUDL so profusely.

 

Is Whitney Young better positioned than many schools? Yeah. Than most schools in the country, though? Yeah, probably above average, but that's because it's a magnet school that tries to select kids who are doing better academically than their peers. That doesn't really increase its funding or benefit levels to the level of a private school. In all honestly, the funding level from the school (at least before next year) is probably about or slightly above average for a high school in America. This is certainly still a position of great privilege compared to many high schools, especially in inner cities, even some that are just a few blocks away from Whitney Young in Chicago. I'm not trying to write a sob story here, but I am trying to show you that your comments that portray us as an elite school are misguided. The reason why my post is so detailed is to give you a glimpse of what does actually go on behind the scenes of our program, which you debase by implying we are a bunch of elites born with silver spoons in our mouths (which I wish was the case, as it would have made this year much easier and the future much more optimistic for the program).

 

Moreover, I'd like to echo what my coach, Drew, said earlier. This is a criticism of income distribution of society at large. Although much is being done to remedy this in the context of education and debate specifically (for example, the Urban Debate League network) due to many benevolent and selfless individuals (like Drew), alleviating it entirely is not impossible without far greater work in the future. I plan to dedicate much time and effort to making sure debate reaches even more students, so that many in the future can be as lucky as I was. This summer, for example, both Misael and I are going to be lab leaders at the Chicago Summer Debate Institute, a free camp for UDL students, and we're helping write the NAUDL Core Files.

 

Although this is a results thread, I don't mind the discussion. I think that the dialogue should continue, as this website is one of the best conduits for open public discussion about very important issues facing our community like this. Income distribution (although the differential is not to the extend that you portray it to be) certainly plays a role in tournament results, and I think it's important that we acknowledge that. I think that many of the comments could stand to be substantially less vitriolic, though.

Edited by kevinwy
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shu, Thanks!!:)

 

Billy probably feels the need to harp on me for a split second mistake that I made 5 years ago. A mistake I paid pennance for, and a mistake for which the people in charge - who I consider far more oustanding people and coaches than Billy - forgave me and deemed me rehabilitated. He keeps missing that point - that those particular people forgave the mistake, and that the mistake and the fall out that followed made me a better coach and person. But, you know - subverting the code system is a grey area, maybe not ethical, because it defeats NFL's expectation that the rounds will be coded to protect from judge bias - I didn't have time to think about that yesterday being at work, but yeah - good point, Shu.

 

As for Scotty's hostility to me, I have no idea. He came to like one, maybe 2, WACFL's last year - and I barely know the man. As far as I know WACFL treated him and his teams with respect - and if not, he's free to take that up with the WACFL President (I'm not even terribly sure his kids competed in Policy, maybe once, in Novice..not sure.) I don't recall knowing Scotty when he debated for Lexington or Emory - can't recall him ever having judged any of my kids when we competed at the Circuit level, so he's a complete unknown to me - I mean, I have a copy of Debate Team so I know there was some trouble surrounding his career - from statements made in the movie - but that is literally all I know about the man. So his rancor is baffling.

 

As for Jim - I don't know him to well either. I know he's judged some of my kids, always jduged them fairly (as far as I can tell), and taught them a lot. I have no opinion of him one way or the other - all I know about him is he was a judge and now he's back in college and debating, or something like that anyway. I can't recall ever judging him when he was in high school, nor could I tell you anything about the man other than he is a very good judge. Why he is so filled with venom towars me, I could not tell you.

 

Oh, Shu, by the way - I don't pay much attention to rep..that's so..I don't know..7th grade? I know that I love debate, the people who know me know I love debate, and that's enough for me!!:) I'd rather spend my time helping people get involved in this game, and working hard to have the money to support my team and others who play the game, and working to make WACFL a strong debate league, than debating Billy-Scotty-Jim - who I barely know, and almost never interact with. Although, I guess I'll see some of them in Chicago when I'm out for the wording meeting this August...you know, because i hate debate so much that I pay my own freight to get out to the meeting most years to represent Virginia, and I hate the game so much that I never write topic papers...yeah...LOL....So, those who know me, know, and those who think they know me, just flail around and look odd to the rest of the debate world that doesn't consider the national circuit the end all and be all of life. Thanks, Shu. Next year I'll have the board!!:)

Edited by hylanddd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall knowing Scotty when he debated for Lexington

 

Wrong. Try again.

 

Also let me play Seth Myers for a second here. Really? You two are trying to attack Bill Batterman's reputation? Really? This is the guy who just received an award from the NDCA called Educator of the Year. Really?

 

Not to mention that the second part of your post is just a subtle attempt to indict Jim and Scott's reputations as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait..... I don't remember Scotty when he debated at Lexingon. I have no idea when he debated at Lexington first of all; second of all, if it was in the late 90's, I didn't coach circuit debate in the late 90's - except for one year from 1998-1999 - I just don't recall him. I probably never judged him. Like I said - he came to like 2 WACFL's, that is all I know about the guy. Should I know more about him?

 

I don't know Billy that well. Congrats on his award, that's a good thing! It doesn't make him above reproach though - it's not like you win educator of the year, and that makes you sancrosact. Just makes you a good coach and teacher - plenty of good coaches and teachers make mistakes, screw up, etc. Are you really suggesting that because he won this award, he is somehow beyond criticism? From his blog sites, I can tell he cares a lot about debate, and that he has made numerous sacrifices to purse his devotion to debate, this is good - but it doesn't make him any more worthy of respect than every single debate coach in this country who takes debate seriously, and sacrifices their sweat and time to make sure debate thrives.

 

Uhmm...How? How is stating that I don't know the one man at all, well, barely know him, and that all I know of him comes from a documentary any indict on his rep? I listed the facts about him as I understand them to be. And how did I attack Jim? All I know is he was judging my kids one day, and then later on was debating against them when they go to college - again, literally, that is all I know about the man...no attacks..just trying to show how little I know about these 3 gentlemen, who seem to think that I somehow have done them all grave harm - based on their comments. I mean, based on their comments - it is kind of obvious that they have given much more thought to me in recent years than I have bothered to give to them.

Edited by hylanddd
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As for Scotty's hostility to me"

 

What? This is my only comment to you in its entirety-

 

 

 

"Setting aside temporarily all of Jim/Batterman's points-Duane, most schools won't experience the thrill because, in the words of Connor MacLeod, there can be only 1. Many schools with boatloads of resources never experience the thrill either. I guess I just don't see what solution is pointed to by your comments. Do you think schools that have resources should be stripped of them so that schools who don't have the resources have a shot at NFL?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity why did you stop coaching this activity that you love so much?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait..... I don't remember Scotty when he debated at Lexingon. I have no idea when he debated at Lexington first of all; second of all, if it was in the late 90's, I didn't coach circuit debate in the late 90's - except for one year from 1998-1999 - I just don't recall him. I probably never judged him. Like I said - he came to like 2 WACFL's, that is all I know about the guy. Should I know more about him?

 

I don't know Billy that well. Congrats on his award, that's a good thing! It doesn't make him above reproach though - it's not like you win educator of the year, and that makes you sancrosact. Just makes you a good coach and teacher - plenty of good coaches and teachers make mistakes, screw up, etc. Are you really suggesting that because he won this award, he is somehow beyond criticism?

 

Uhmm...How? How is stating that I don't know the one man at all, well, barely know him, and that all I know of him comes from a documentary any indict on his rep? I listed the facts about him as I understand them to be. And how did I attack Jim? All I know is he was judging my kids one day, and then later on was debating against them when they go to college - again, literally, that is all I know about the man...no attacks..just trying to show how little I know about these 3 gentlemen, who seem to think that I somehow have done them all grave harm - based on their comments. I mean, based on their comments - it is kind of obvious that they have given much more thought to me in recent years than I have bothered to give to them.

 

 

My name is Aaron Davis, I am 1/2 of the first UDL team to ever qualify and attend the TOC in 2005 when i debated at Morgan Park, and until yesterday my partner and I had the greatest success of a UDL school at nationals after being eliminated in either round 12 or 13 after defeating GBN zierring and ROsecrans who are arguably the most successful debate team in recent history. In addition, I have coached 2 other UDL teams to the TOC in 2007 and 2009 when working at PAYton college Prep. That being said this conversation is extremely disturbing

 

Fact - SOme metrics of evaluation in policy debate relegate the under privileged to positions of marginality in this activity. FUnding is intrinsically linked to probability of success as the mere ability to travel to tournaments increases the likelihood of receiving abid- when i debated we received 2 bids but only debated at 3 qualifying tournaments because thats all we could afford- so the pressure and stress was completely different then. OUtside funding and other sources have mitigated a lot of those concerns now but lack of ecomic resouirce still poses significant obstacles for programs that dont have bigger budgets. Additionally, the elevated focus on research has taken a completely different toll. Dont take this the wrong way, research is educational, and good evidence is essential, but i have seen recent teams whose performance in rounds are less than amazing but they continously defeat schools who perform much better from both an analytical and methodological standpoint and stll lose because their programs cannot afford to higher millions of coaches or employ several alumni to produce the politics card from today. Additionally, the hegemonic prioritization of particular styles of argumentation have locked this activity from non-traditional programs for years. We are quick to criticize the anit national circuit crowd for being separatist, but that sentiment spawns out of an outright denialism of the prejudice traditiona circuit debate has for alternative pedagogical practices, namely project teams.l It amazes how many judges insert their own biases for fiat and theory into debate rounds and allow completely unprepared teams to humiliate some of the best project oriented teams in the country simply because they can and the academies behavior has supported it;. That being said, i dont think its right to simply blame debate itself as being intrinsically separatist, but rather isolate the people, behaviors and practices that have allowed it to become shaped this way, When i debated, my partner and I had no coaches but we succeeded by selected a few solid arguments and preparing them very well round after round. We were to afraid to try anything like a project which in 2005 only KCC was doing namely because at the time we were the only four black kids debating at this level other then sean from green hill and matt from mba, and both of them didnnt have black partners, so to two all black teams were always confused with each other. We were so scared of all the hatred and dissonance we saw them experience so we made sure we could be different by being the assimilated black debaters often reading 7 off in the 1nc and a 6 advantage aff.

I use this to illustrate that the climate now is different. There are much more minorities debating now and succeeding at higher levels of debate with a multitude of strategies, but that doesnt mean the work is done. Rather than fighting each other through Cx we should start a coalition to examine some of the real concerns non traditional programs have about national circuity debate. We should begin probes into judge philosopy , toc level debate expectation, funding, diversity in the activity, and determine if the intersection of these things really make it the elitist activity many claim it to be.l

 

I chimed in because so many of you are making commentary on an experience that none of you have actually gone through. Being someone from a UDL that has successfully infiltrated the TOC arena and arguably help pave the way for many of the others after me, i figured my voice was needed here.

 

Good luck to all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I didn't get back to y'all last night, but I got distracted over here... ;)

"I am not inclined to sit by while you bash someone who has twice your positive reputation"

 

"That a lot of folks participate in this "project" has nothing to do with its ethical implications. "If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing," etc."

 

Terrance you have managed to contradict yourself and display your idiocy in an even smaller number of posts than usual. Bravo.

Right back at you. That you think those two points are contradictory says more about your analytical ability than it says about mine. Consider:
  • The reputation system on this website isn't perfect, but it has merit. In the context of Batterman's crack about Duane being a "caricature," I think it is relevant that while Duane hasn't been around this website as long as Batterman has his contributions have resulted in approximately twice as much positive reputation. Keep in mind also that, as I'm sure Duane could tell you, he's gotten a fair amount of neg rep over the years, something that goes with the territory when you speak your mind as he does. Even so, the scoreboard says that users here have found his contributions helpful, more so than Batterman's. That doesn't mean he's right or wrong in this particular instance, but it is evidence that Batterman's "caricature" slam was out of line...
  • The Anatole France reference is a pretty common one in response to vox populi, vox dei kinds of claims. I still maintain that the popularity of the code-breaking effort (which, unlike giving positive rep to Duane, directly benefits the people advocating it) does not establish its ethical legitimacy. As Adrianna's post points out, this effort goes beyond people simply volunteering their own code information; they also reveal other peoples' codes, whether those folks like it or not. So, let's not pretend it is all simply a good-faith effort to make for better debates. It is an effort to make scouting and pre-round preparation easier. I might return to this subject later, but for now I will simply point out that the NFL National Tournament Manual says "The NFL Executive Council strongly discourages debate scouting at the National Tournament." Attempts to disseminate code information, thus, are at odds with NFL's philosophy, which suggests that folks who find such efforts ethically troubling aren't simply a bunch of cranks...

"Disagree with that philosophy if you will, but please don't make the architects of its subversion out to be some sort of folk-heroes..."

 

Saying doing something against the rules is different from something not against the rules is not an attempt to make someone a folk hero.

Except it isn't as simple as that. The original comment of mine to which Thomas was responding was in response to Batterman's comment about folks who violate tab room ethics. I was simply pointing to the irony of someone committed to subverting NFL's expressed philosophy on scouting complaining about others' lack of ethics. That's all. Thomas's reply seemed to assume I was saying the two practices were equivalent. I tried to clear that up subsequently, but am happy to do so again if you had trouble understanding it the first time...

 

And then there's this:

Also, I don't think Batterman is a folk-hero. Just someone who cares about the activity and has organized something which he (and many other participants) believe benefits it. Perhaps that's heroic.

 

Edit: My partner Peter objected to my original post, and would like to note that he thinks Bill Batterman is a hero.

I rest my case... ;)

 

Seriously, I don't have a dog in the code vs. no code fight (except to point out that No Code was a crappy album... ;)), and there is some merit in Thomas's position. But the issue isn't as simple as he makes it out to be, either, and in any event the point is that the folks who disagree with NFL's philosophy on scouting ought to be lobbying the Executive Council, not participating in a blatant effort designed to make a mockery of that philosophy. Batterman ain't Robin Hood...

 

And, finally...

I'm not going to comment on the rest of the post...because I think Thomas did a commendable job defending the code sharing project.
First, congratulations on your achievement! Nicely done...

 

As indicated above, I don't disagree with everything Thomas said, but I do feel he is oversimplifying a bit. I don't really want to get into that issue at the moment, though if this thread winds up going there I may contribute what I can to that discussion. Meanwhile...

(lol @ defending someone by the amount of cross-x reputation they have though)
Out of curiosity: In what way is it odd or ridiculous to point out someone's positive image on this website as a rejoinder to someone else calling that person a "caricature"? Duane is a friend of mine, and a staunch friend of the activity as well. If you don't think his positive reputation here is evidence that Batterman's insult was unfounded, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree...
A common trend I've seen is to try and make every single school that has national circuit success look as elite and incredibly wealthy as possible to try and separate them from "regular" folks who don't do as well at the national circuit. This is problematic because it debases the success of those who are privileged.
I am sorry if you find discussions of privilege troubling, but let me be clear: You won NFL Nationals by dint of your own hard work, talent, and a bit of fortune. No one is suggesting that you "bought" the championship (at least I'm not). Obviously, lots of other schools better situated than Whitney Young were there, and you prevailed. Duane's concern has nothing to do with denigrating your achievement...
I'm going to argue that your comments about Whitney Young are somewhat wrong.
The way to do that would be to point out factual errors in what I wrote, rather than posing straw-person arguments. For instance...
Whitney Young is neither a really rich school nor a really poor school.
Nothing I wrote about WY claimed it was "rich." I simply pointed out that it can afford to travel to some pretty expensive/exclusive tournaments. I did so in response to Batterman's playing the UDL card. I think you would agree that WY isn't the sort of school that leaps to mind when thinking about NAUDL's Mission Statement...
The school, contrary to your blind assertions, is not nearly a private school.
I made no "blind assertions." I stated facts easily gleaned from WY's own website. I'm not talking about where WY gets its budget, I'm talking about the fact that it is a selective institution to which students must be admitted. It is, by definition, not open to all public school students in its area. That's why I used the adjective "basically." On WY's Admissions page, we read: "Whitney M. Young Magnet High School has a long tradition of offering a rigorous college prep curriculum to Chicago's most academically advanced students." All I'm saying is, you folks ain't Kansas City Central... ;)
The school does not provide most or even a significant percentage of our debate funding.
Again, I never claimed WY was a "rich" school. I simply pointed out your travel schedule. Regardless of how you got there, I think you would agree that such a schedule confers benefits which are simply not available to many, many truly "public" high schools...
Still, none of it - from the fundraising to the file-cutting - would have happened without our hard work.
No one, least of all me, is suggesting otherwise...
I'm not trying to write a sob story here, but I am trying to show you that your comments that portray us as an elite school are misguided.
Again, I would simply direct you to WY's own website. Certainly it sees itself institutionally as "elite." There's nothing wrong with that, and there is no reason for you to be defensive about it...
which you debase by implying we are a bunch of elites born with silver spoons in our mouths
I neither said nor implied any such thing, and it doesn't do your argument any good service to suggest otherwise...

Although this is a results thread, I don't mind the discussion. I think that the dialogue should continue, as this website is one of the best conduits for open public discussion about very important issues facing our community like this. Income distribution (although the differential is not to the extend that you portray it to be) certainly plays a role in tournament results, and I think it's important that we acknowledge that. I think that many of the comments could stand to be substantially less vitriolic, though.

I also welcome the discussion. There's more (MUCH more) to the issue of how level the playing field is at NFL Nationals than money. This all started when Duane suggested that 25 years of championships being won by "circuit" schools wasn't necessarily something to be celebrated. His concern (which is shared by many, many coaches, myself included) is that policy debate has become a private preserve dominated by a relatively small handful of privileged (not necessarily affluent) institutions. Someone like yourself who appreciates the value of hard work and overcoming obstacles ought to be more sympathetic to the argument that some obstacles to success in policy at NFL Nationals have become so entrenched that non-circuit schools can basically forget about competing realistically for a National Championship...
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, Shu, by the way - I don't pay much attention to rep..that's so..I don't know..7th grade?
So, you're saying its kind of like your approach to fantasy football? :D

 

The whole rep thing is just a sideshow. Obviously, people around here have valued your contributions to the website over the years, despite Batterman's snark. That's all I was (and am) saying...

Next year I'll have the board!!:)
Don't worry, I will bring MY gear (you know, the stuff I use when I play in USCF tournaments for money... ;))...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rather than fighting each other through Cx we should start a coalition to examine some of the real concerns non traditional programs have about national circuity debate.

 

We agree there is a problem...over a decade (and in some cases more) of experience has taught us that....lets talk solutions and stop bickering...

 

How do you solve the high costs associated with debate? How can resources be reallocated more fairly?

 

I think an association model (either via the NAUDL or NDCA) or partnership model (adopt a UDL program) could work. The reason I mention the association model is because generally its a rising ship that helps all ships.

 

I think if a solution isn't found....UDLs may go the route of middle school debate....toward Parli (because of the low threshold for entry). I believe one prominent UDL has already made the move.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Shuman - I don't have the time right now, but I will respond to your post later. Thanks for the congratulatory words, though.

 

Hey, not on the current topic, but my internet went down about half an hour before the final round, anyone know where i could find a recording of it? I looked on the website and was lost in the endless waves of speech stuff.

 

The broadcast was only available for the live feed. You can purchase the video from the NFL, I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait..... I don't remember Scotty when he debated at Lexingon. I have no idea when he debated at Lexington first of all;

 

 

He didn't debate for Lexington

 

I don't know Billy that well. Congrats on his award, that's a good thing! It doesn't make him above reproach though - it's not like you win educator of the year, and that makes you sancrosact. Just makes you a good coach and teacher - plenty of good coaches and teachers make mistakes, screw up, etc. Are you really suggesting that because he won this award, he is somehow beyond criticism? From his blog sites, I can tell he cares a lot about debate, and that he has made numerous sacrifices to purse his devotion to debate, this is good - but it doesn't make him any more worthy of respect than every single debate coach in this country who takes debate seriously, and sacrifices their sweat and time to make sure debate thrives.

 

 

I'm just not sure what Bill has done that is deserving of reproach? Talk to me when you find the rule that he broke

 

The reputation system on this website isn't perfect, but it has merit. In the context of Batterman's crack about Duane being a "caricature," I think it is relevant that while Duane hasn't been around this website as long as Batterman has his contributions have resulted in approximately twice as much positive reputation.

 

Just putting this out there, this might be because Bill has a whole seperate site that he uses instead of forcing people to dig through the trolls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A huge congratulations to the four debaters in the final round of NFL Nationals...all four = extreme...extreme in talent, hard work, and integrity. Don't let the haters get you down. No matter what the competitive activity is...high school debate, college sports, or whatever...folks will cry foul against those that win for some reason. This same thread happens year after year about national circuit debaters being born with a silver spoon in their mouth. There is not a person that knows the four of you that would disagree that you represent the best of what high school debate has to offer.

 

To Bill, if I was technologically capable of infinitely positively repping you, I would. I can not articulate what you mean to this community. I can even state that there are times that I am jealous at the adoration my kids have for you :)...they know how much you care about objective and educational decision-making as a round adjudicator as well as the well-being of the individuals involved in this activity. I have gotten to know hundreds of debate coaches in my still somewhat young coaching career and I can't think of anyone who exceeds your passion, integrity, and diligence.

 

Perhaps, the root of why people feel excluded in this activity may not circle around resources as others have claimed...it may be due to the simple fact that people are always looking for ways to tear down others. Seriously, our community just crowned a national champion...a community that we love and dedicate our lives, too. Why are we not solely focused on celebrating that moment???

 

Tara Tate

Glenbrook South

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...Tara...I think you can celebrate a championship, and still point out the serious equity issues that exist in our activity. As at least one or two people have pointed out, my remarks do not detract from the championship that was awarded yesterday, they reinforce the notion that there exists in this community a large divide - and if this community is going to thrive, and not continue its slide into being a perpetual backwater, those realities have to be dealt with. We can celebrate the success of WY and RH and still say that 26 years of national circuit hegemonic dominance of the activity is exclusive of other programs that work just as hard, but who lack the resources to truly compete with schools which have the ability to travel the circuit. I'm looking at the widest foundation of the activity - not the narrow base that the Circuit represents. You always need to keep asking what's wrong, how do we make it better, and how do we get there? It seems that some people are very uncomfortable with those questions, as evidenced by the amount of rancor on this thread.

 

Look forward to seeing you in Chicago in August. I'm sure the wording meeting will be great!!:)

Edited by hylanddd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gregg: OK..See...I know so much about him that I even had where he went to school wrong. Sorry about that. I also agree with what he said about working for success.

 

As for Billy - nothing. Just pointing out that awards and stature don't insulate us from criticial discussions about the community. Your point was "are you really daring to question Billy Batterman???" My answer was "Yeah."

 

And, this talk about rep means nothing to me - I don't care what people think of what I say, as long as what I say gets said. (Altough, I do find Shu's explanation of the rep system interesting, and I am glad to know that people, seemingly, understand what I'm talking about.) And yes, Shu - I do pay about as much attention to my Fantasy Football League.

 

Ian: Life has simply intervened and made it very hard for me to concentrate my energy into debate as I prefer to when I coach. Working a full time job coupled to graduate school coupled to my spouse finishing her dissertation coupled to still coaching speech and congress full time, at two different schools, make it very hard for me to focus on policy debate. I plan to go back to policy in a year, and hope to bring the Lake Braddock program back to national prominence...but that's still a bit away.

Edited by hylanddd
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thus:

 

 

"For the 26th straight year, the NFL Championship was won by the rich, elite programs who can afford the expenses associated with traveling around the nation to deabte, while other schools, who lack such means, are effectively shut out of any glory." Just saying...

 

 

is not the same as this:

 

 

I think you can celebrate a championship, and still point out the serious equity issues that exist in our activity.

 

 

one is a useful excercize. What you did is to attempt to diminish the efforts and successes of these kids

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So..you are criticizing my attention getting device, but not the overall message - OK. I respect that.

 

I think the actual cogent conversation on this thread that is pointing toward coallitions as a possibility to erode the barriers we are talking about is an excellent idea. How would these coalitions form? And, more importantly - how are they funded? How can tournaments hold down costs? Can more schools follow the Lakeland model? Can more be done to support mid-regional tourneys? Can more schools follow the Capitol Debate model?

Edited by hylanddd
  • Downvote 1

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...