Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


LindaleDebateCoach last won the day on March 13 2008

LindaleDebateCoach had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

71 Excellent

About LindaleDebateCoach

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 04/23/1987

Profile Information

  • Name
    Rory McKenzie
  • School
    Lindale High School
  • Location
  • Occupation

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  1. Looking to potentially hire some local judges for Harvard. If you're interested, email me (don't PM me on here cause I won't check it often enough). (Looking for all events.) mckenziera @ lisdeagles .net
  2. Well, it's also a challenge to make debate more inclusive and provides a stark reminder that our online communication is important. What we tolerate is important as well. The article is about specific LD events, but I'd imagine that the warrants are applied for every form of debate.
  3. http://vbriefly.com/2014/10/05/protecting-all-of-the-children-in-the-auditorium/ This could probably be placed in other threads as well...
  4. If anyone with housing/transportation already taken care of still needs a spot to judge, DM me or email. mckenziera [at] lindaleeagles . org
  5. Thanks for the response. I agree that oral critiques are infinitely educational (minus the 5% of the time I explained originally). Personally, I'm in favor of them. But I would still err on the side of the tournament director's wishes. Also, I still don't see why this has to sacrifice for a well-written ballot (so that education can continue after the round as well). I accomplish both without much issue (it seems as though you do as well). Ultimately, again, tournament official. As a point of solution/compromise: I tend to put my email address or contact information on ballots when my oral critique is limited or I wish to provide a more educational experience. With regards to disclosing, again I err on the side of the tournament host. I don't have a problem with it personally and if allowed, I usually do. Still, I don't see the need to disclose. Sure, good orals often reveal who won. Still, if the point of an oral critique is to provide education, I don't know that the W or L has to be included. I'm less opinionated here, because I don't personally care. What bothers me is when the tournament director explicitly puts in their invitation that they will not be allowed (often providing a warrant with it) and the instruction is blatantly not followed. If you're a tournament hired judge, you're breaching your contract. If you are a school-hired judge, you're not representing that school appropriately. I think we need to see judging more as a "job" that requires professionalism than an easy way to make a buck and behave however you please. All of these impacts from orals/disclosure can be accomplished with just a little more effort on the part of the judge. The judge can put contact information on the ballot. They can find debaters after ballots are turned in. They can track down a coach and give other messages. But, again to clarify. I don't mind oral critiques or disclosure (actually, possibly prefer them). But I always defer to the tournament director's wishes and would hope that everyone would adhere to that. Again, thanks for the dialogue.
  6. I wouldn't be surprised by a lack of people responding to this thread. Cross-X.com isn't exactly the most "friendly" environment for a dialogue about such heavy ideas and pedagogy. It's great that you want to have this discussion. But, I'd encourage you to have the discussion via a more neutral and professionally appropriate channel. (I wish I had a suggestion.) The problem is that you're critiquing the very foundation of many of these professionals. Even if it is not your intent, it's hard not to see that as an attack (which I genuinely understand is NOT the intent). You're also asking a bunch of professionals (many of whom are not members of this forum and probably don't like being backed into a corner) to come and play on your terms. Again, I get what you're trying to do, but just wanting you to see that perception. Also just a few notes. I've skimmed this thread and I don't debate (or coach) in West Texas, so take all of this with a grain of salt. The premise behind the thread confuses me. Can you clarify it once more, with these questions in mind? Is the goal for the thread to convince "West Texas" to shift to more progressive debate pedagogy? (In other words, should all judges be tab? Is it "wrong" to be a stock issues judge? Etc...) Is the goal merely to address evolving debate practices (including but not limited to spreading, Kritik reading, disclosure, post-round critiques, etc...)? Is the goal, as one poster alluded to, to create a more homogeneous sampling of debaters and judges? Or, are differences among coaches, debaters, judges acceptable? With a "mission" like yours (which certainly has its merits), I'd just be 100% clear on what you think ought to be gained from it. I'd argue that it's important to recognize that debate is (and ought to be) a heterogeneous sampling of participants at every level. There may always be a "norm" of debate, but I think that each debater ought to be empowered to express her- or himself in a way that fits by the "rules" (which are actually very few all things considered). When students ask my paradigm, I generally always say that I want my debaters to explain how each argument functions (both in the round and in the argument -- ballot implications). Lots of debaters ask me about adaptation and I actually think I'm better served as the adjudicator of the round if I adapt to the debaters. While that can be confusing, I think it ought to be up to the debaters to limit my role in the debate. This paradigm, in my humble opinion, allows debaters to express themselves in numerous ways while empowering them to learn and self-discover. But, I don't think that every judge ought to agree with me, necessarily. I respect the difference of opinions that many of my colleagues have. I would never want to shame or embarrass them into changing their ideas. I'll also respect (and try to take their perspective and give every bit of my attempt to understand) their paradigms and teaching styles. With regards to tournament practices, I really would caution you to re-think some of these comments and attempt to understand what it's like in the minds of a tournament director. Policy debate is expensive to run. Minute for minute it's the most time consuming event (Congress is a close second) so there's usually the expectation of higher pay for judges, it requires the most knowledge (e.g. you're dealing with a limited talent pool), it can easily get behind in the schedule (if oral critiques and disclosures happen), and it requires a great deal of room space which many tournaments cannot hold (hence the potential reason behind limiting the CX pool of participants). Several tournaments are looking at (and have begun to) cutting policy debate all together. As a tournament director, sometimes you just try to get through the day. Many judges for policy are college students and (speaking from experience) can be extremely flaky. It's a really frustrating process. Any solution to these "problems" would need to keep these realities in mind. (Also, it seems really fallacious to say that "if UT didn't have to accelerate to keep the weather in mind, other tournaments shouldn't either." As a coach, I have to respond to parents when I get home after midnight or when I risk lives in dangerous travel concerns. Many times the higher power administration makes the call about student safety.) I will always respect a tournament director's rules regarding start times of rounds (impacting pre-round prep), disclosure, and oral critiques. I'd encourage everyone to do so as well. Although this number is decreasing, many tournaments try to allow for cross-entry in public speaking events and policy debate. When this occurs, a schedule is vitally important. Try schedule six rounds of debate (three prelims and quarters) and three rounds of extemp (prelims, semis, and finals) that can coexist. The two hour cushion and time to disclose and oral critique sounds like an easy fix, but it may not be a reality that can work. Again, tournament director discretion. They should weigh the pros and cons and make that decision for themselves. Having done it both ways, fiscally I often elect to allow cross-entry and limit disclosure and oral critiquing. On the question of oral critiques: there are many programs that are coached by one coach with no assistants or college-level helpers. My program is one of those. While I 95% agree that oral critiques are exponentially beneficial (the 5% difference being because many judges, typically college-aged students, lack the professionalism necessary to discuss debate with 14-year-olds), as a coach, I want to be able to read those critiques. I prefer the ballots to have more than just "Oral" or "RFD" with a single sentence. I want to see as much of a play-by-play of the round as possible. Then, I can reinforce some of the things I read with my students. I don't have to rely on the "words" of my students to tell the whole story. I have something to go back to them with. For novice debaters (and even young varsity) this is crucially important to help them understand the round. My advice for all judges: write as much as you can. If there's wifi at the tournament, resist the urge to Facebook or cut cards. Fill out your ballots as completely as possible. Even if you're "going to say everything that you wrote in the oral critique" it will still help that coach and will still help to reinforce your ideas to the students. I think a lot of judges forget that they are being paid for a service. There is more expected than simply to "show up". Professional decorum is extremely important. Call me old-fashioned for that, but I don't see any compelling argument for NOT adhering to norms of professional interaction with high school students. In an age where debate programs have to fight for financial support, it does little to that cause for students to come home and repeat unprofessional encounters that turn off financial backers (community, administrators, etc...). (Or for those backers to witness it themselves.) I hope that my contribution is helpful and lays some useful parameters for discussion. One final thought. Although it's not impossible (Hunter indicated he learned a lot through Facebook), many students venture into the opportunities of "better" debate by spending money. Much education occurs at debate camps and many perspectives are broadened by this experience. The problem is that while some camps are affordable, many are not. The "elite" camps are several thousand dollars. I know the answer to this argument, and I would reiterate it to my students as well: "there is ALWAYS a way around it" OR "there's always a way to earn and make this a priority". That's true. But it still speaks to the cause of such division in policy debate. Even the higher level tournaments have more expensive entry fees and often require travel. The norm now also seems to include numerous "assistant" coaches. I'd encourage everyone to do some looking into other states (or encourage others to chime in). Policy Debate in Texas is just different. The number of circuits and the sheer size of the state make it so. UIL began with policy debate over 100 years ago. They have continued to support policy debate as an inclusion to the UIL Spring Meet. This support necessitates other schools to participate. Administrators see the requirement of UIL and are more willing to fund it. Policy debate would not exist in places like West Texas without UIL. I don't know that I making much of a point with this last paragraph. Just continue to go forward by taking the perspectives of others. Hopefully this will be a positive dialogue.
  7. http://debate-central.ncpa.org/announcing-free-workshops-for-2012/ Two workshops are being held in the Dallas area for the upcoming debate seasons. These workshops are sponsored by the National Center for Policy Analysis, which typically has a close working relationship with UT-Dallas. The Skyline (Dallas) workshop date has been changed to September 8. But, the Royse City (east of Dallas on I-30) workshop is scheduled for August 25. These are completely FREE (and they feed you). CX and LD instruction is provided. The August 25 workshop is before the season really starts, and since it's free it's worth attending. PM me for more details or follow the link and email someone at NCPA.
  8. http://debate-central.ncpa.org/announcing-free-workshops-for-2012/ Two workshops are being held in the Dallas area for the upcoming debate seasons. These workshops are sponsored by the National Center for Policy Analysis, which typically has a close working relationship with UT-Dallas. The Skyline (Dallas) workshop date has been changed to September 8. But, the Royse City (east of Dallas on I-30) workshop is scheduled for August 25. These are completely FREE (and they feed you). CX and LD instruction is provided. The August 25 workshop is before the season really starts, and since it's free it's worth attending. PM me for more details or follow the link and email someone at NCPA.
  9. I'm looking to hire some additional judges for a TFA tournament at Royse City (about 30 minutes northeast of Dallas on I-30) on February 4th. I'm offering full-day contracts for a minimum of $100 (which may increase based on the judge fees I take in) from 7:45 until 9:00 (should be the latest). Or, if you're only available for part of the day, I can contract for $10/round. I would love to have you. Email me at school: mckenzier@rcisd.org. Should be a good day and good food!!! I'm hiring all debate and IE judges in addition to policy debate. Thanks, Rory
  10. Coaching for a novice debate class are there any online video debates on the space topic? I'd like to show them a more elementary debate (slower speed etc). Any ideas? Thanks!
  11. It is in Dallas. It's not at a school either. The whole competition is going to be at the Dallas Sheraton downtown near Fair Park.
  12. Is there anybody out there who is wanting to judge at NFL Nationals and needs a school to judge for? Preferably someone who has lodging and transportation situations locked up already. Please email me: mckenzier@van.sprnet.org.
  13. For the record, the 4A championship was an EXCELLENT round. Two VERY talented teams put on a real showcase. It was a pleasure to judge and an unfortunate task to pick a winner. Congratulations to Mercedes and to Austin LBJ (and their coaches).
  14. Rich Edwards' software has a tell. I'm not sure if it applies for the powermatched rounds in prelims, but in elims, if you put the rooms in numerical order, that is correct order. Then, the team on left is the higher seed (unless it's a preset round because they met in prelims).
  • Create New...