10 Things, Princeton, Topics, etc. (Kenan Anderson)
#1 – Roslyn on the Rise
I’m always excited to see a newer circuit program succeed. One such school, which I had the pleasure of judging three times this past weekend, was Roslyn High School. In fact, Roslyn’s Andrew Goldberg won the tournament, making history as the first Roslyn debater to bid in LD! I attended camp with a few Roslyn upperclassmen before my senior year and was really inspired by their efforts to build a solid and sustainable program. It’s so cool to see their hard work pay off. Based on what I know, they’ve gone from not having LD to consistently advancing several students to outrounds at bid tournaments in just 5 years! That’s amazing!
#2 – The Genetics PIC
The Genetics PIC was surprisingly common. I think the negative ran this position nearly every round where there was plausible competition (i.e. the affirmative didn’t spec asset disclosure). This position is fascinating and raises a lot of questions. It reminded me of a lot of the literature I read on the human enhancement topic I debated at camp before senior year.
While I think this PIC had the potential to be very strategic, however, it was often executed poorly. Debaters seemed to assume the affirmative forced disclosure of genetic information and did little in the NC or CX to set up competition. This often left open the door for a strategic (though theoretically questionable) 1AR perm or shift argument that explained why the affirmative didn’t disclose genetic information in the first place. As the next topic is only more likely to be loaded with PICs, I hope debaters invest a little more into their competition and mutual exclusivity arguments.
#3 – A shift towards small countries
Princeton was my first bid tournament on this topic since the Minneapple; the meta seemed to have shifted from my earlier observations. Disclosure issues and the smaller sample size of Princeton dissuaded me from collecting hard data, but based on the 15 rounds I judged, the number of affirmatives that specified small or fringe countries was much higher than I expected. These included everything from an affirmative about Malta, a Spain/Catalonia aff, and even an aff about Sierra Leone (which, for the record, is almost certainly not a democracy). These affirmatives were often good ideas but varied in their quality. I should also note that I suspect my reputation as a LARP debater (or perhaps as non-theory, non-phil debater) may have also influenced the debaters who pref-ed me, so perhaps these affirmatives were not as common among the broader pool of competitors.
#4 – Jan/Feb is really Dec/Jan/Feb
We have a new topic! If you want to hear about what this topic is and can be check out Bob’s awesome post here. This is a “dislike” not because of the topic itself but rather its timing. Jan/Feb has started to morph more and more into Dec/Jan/Feb. Three of the largest tournaments held in December (Blake, CPS, and Strake) all use Jan/Feb. While I understand the inclination for TOC debaters to get a jumpstart on the topic, this really limits the run of Nov/Dec, especially in certain regions. Every year there are a few top debaters who skip out on Nov/Dec altogether! In a year where the Nov/Dec topic is well, horrible, a quick shift to Jan/Feb may seem appealing. But it would be better if we got two full months to debate Nov/Dec for two reasons.
First, several schools attend bid or important regional tournaments on Nov/Dec the weekend of the 7th (such as Dowling or MN Nat Quals) and then debate Jan/Feb the next weekend. This is an intense turnaround and often created a lot of stress on my team when I was debater. The transition would be smoother for many schools if it coincided with winter and holiday breaks at the end of December.
Second, we would have much better debates at Blake/CPS/Strake. While I have only ever attended Blake, it is notorious for debaters running poorly thought out positions or simply winning off of affirmatives that come out of left field. This forces heavy reliance on generics and theory. I suspect debates on the Nov/Dec topic would be much more developed and show more nuance and topic mastery.
#5 – Tournament Logistics
Tournaments can definitely do better on the logistics front. At Princeton this past weekend for example, the LD rounds were scattered around campus sometimes as far as 20 minutes from each other! That combined with the generally poor signage of the campus created a lot of commotion when, for example, I was trying to meet up with my students quickly before an elimination round. And while I obviously am not an expert, it felt like lots of buildings that did have rounds were not at capacity, and more could’ve been done to consolidate the various events to reduce the need for wandering around campus. Alternating flights of varsity and novice LD provided large breaks, but also drew out the day.
One aspect of Princeton’s scheduling surprised me. Due to the large gaps between varsity rounds, the tournament could’ve reasonably had the rounds paired about an hour before the round, and yet, on several occasions, it felt as though they released prelim pairings with only 15 or 20 minutes before the posted start times. While I think an hour of pre-round prep might be overdoing it, more time with pairings before rounds would’ve been nice (especially given the often long walks to rounds). I’m interested to see what others think though. How much time do you think debaters should have before round to prep?
#6 – Creative Topical Affirmatives
Too often debaters looking for a niche or innovative topical affirmative rush down the rabbit holes of various specifications, e.g. financial disclosure affs, specific countries affs, medical records affs. While these affs can be good, I wish debaters would spend time looking for other ways to differentiate themselves from generic whole-res affirmatives while still gaining strategic advantages. A perfect example is the Cap AC that Harrison MR (as well as other Harrison debaters) read at Princeton. Their affirmative focused on the right to know, not as a positive right requiring disclosure of information, but as a negative right preventing government censorship of public knowledge. This is a really clever way to interpret the topic that address the key controversies and issues in a fresh light. It also provides some unique strategic opportunities. I hope more debaters will pursue strategies like this as the season continues.
#7 – Adapting to the panel
At Princeton I was on several panels that featured more traditional and/or parent judges. Many debaters balk at having these judges, but in many cases, there is room for a strategic edge, and traditional debate is valuable in its own right. Unfortunately, the rounds I judged hardly differed because of these judges’ presence. I expected debaters in both rounds would make a noticeable shift in strategy or presentation to appeal to more traditional judges on the panel. But, other than one slightly slower than normal 2NR, the debate remained the same. None of this is to the say the students were unskilled or necessarily made a mistake; perhaps a more traditional approach would’ve opened the door for a 1NC spread out, or 1AR up-layering from which they couldn’t recover. That said, I do hope debaters recognize the benefits that can come from traditional debate, and how a slight change in strategy can improve one’s odds in front of a more traditional panel.
#8 – “Highlighting” good debate tips
In quarterfinals I saw Byram Hills’ Lindsey Perlman flowing with both two pens and a highlighter! While it might seem small, using a highlighter was such a good idea that I had never seen before I thought it deserved a shout out. There are so many rounds from my career where I forgot in the middle of a speech to make a critical argument or answer a critical case turn, and I’ve judged a number of similar debates as well. A simple highlight of a card or analytic on one’s flow could be a game-changer! Debaters who flow on paper should pick up on this trick! (Or maybe its common already and I’m just completely oblivious).
#9 – Disclosure: Wiki vs Messenger/Email
One recent trend I’ve noticed is a misunderstanding of the value of disclosure. Several debaters have recently argued that sending a copy of their case to their opponent is the equivalent of disclosing (and they say in notes on their wiki they will send their arguments). While this (if carried out promptly) mitigate arguments like pre-round preparation, it misses two key benefits of wide-spread disclosure. One is that thirty minutes before the round, especially at the highest levels, is not nearly enough time to do meaningful research on an aff. Being able to browse the wiki before the tournament and see what the dominant positions is very important for guiding prep, especially for students who aren’t as connected on the circuit and attend fewer tournaments. And perhaps more importantly, the wiki as source of research and evidence would greatly deteriorate if debaters transitioned to private messages instead.
#10 – We Need a New Circuit Debater
As many of you probably know, wikispaces.com was shut down earlier this year and with it went circuitdebater.wikispaces.com, a site where debaters, generally after the end of the season, would open source their prep (often with notes or guides) as a resource for the community. While the increase of open source disclosure does abate some need for this, I think a new site that was focused people disclosing positions after their career, aimed at younger students learning, might attract teams or competitors who don’t currently open source disclose. I could be wrong; perhaps circuit debater is simply replaced by the wiki and should be consigned to history. But if anyone is interested in talking about what a new, better, CircuitDebater 2.0 might look like, let me know.
