Kitkats and Impromptu: I'll Flow Your Case

 Here's something awfully neat my friend Hadley from Kitkats and Impromptu wrote up. Give it, and all her blog, a read. She's going places in the debate world, folks ;)

Just like Hadley, I don't hold the views expressed in her parody. It's satire. :)

Kitkats and Impromptu: I'll Flow Your Case: So I've decided to venture out from Disney parodies and try my hand at a Taylor Swift song. I do not hold the views expressed in this pa...

Team Policy-ers Switching to Lincoln Douglas: Four Things You Need To Know

Congrats! You're taking the plunge. You're officially switching from the toilet paper (Team Policy) debate to the big leagues...only kidding!! I do have to say, though, you're in for an adventure.

You've probably taken Lincoln Douglas classes and watched rounds. No matter how well-versed most converts seem to be, however, they always make these four mistakes:

(And it annoys the heck out of LD purists.)


1. Over-Emphasis on Evidence
 See all that glorious evidence you just looked up? Chuck it out the window. Most of it anyway.
Again, kidding.
But my point is, yes, it's still great to have applications and examples for your points. But evidence will not win you the round.

Depending on the resolution, and who you're debating, you might get sucked into what LDers call a "example war". Its when two people try throwing as many examples as they can at each other to try to prove that their side is correct. Somewhere along the line, the values, criteria, and logic are forgotten and the debate becomes 'who's applications saved more lives etc' and you might even start formulating a plan in-round as to how we can uphold the value. 

That's great and everything, but that's not what Lincoln Douglas is. It sounds nice and easy, with all your experience in Team Policy and all, but as soon as a seasoned LDer says, 

"Look judge, we can keep coming up with more and more examples, we could have millions of different applications. But as you can see, the logic behind my case is more sound. I've proved through my contentions that my value should be the one to be upheld. In fact, because of the ideas behind my points, I've proven how we can solve most of the problems presented in both our sets of applications."

You've put yourself in a very tough position.

Some times we can wrapped up in where and when evidence comes from.
 In fact, one of the most irking things is claim that your opponent's point doesn't stand because their evidence is dated, is from a weird source, or doesn't absolutely technically in a ridiculously specific way fit the resolution. If your opponent says "nine million Jews died during the Holocaust" your job is not to ask where they got that information and when it was published. It does not matter. In the least. It does not matter if it was actually eight million or ten million Jews. The point is, let's say, due to a disrespect for human life and blatant racism (disrespect for human dignity) millions of innocent people were brutally murdered and lives destroyed. If you ask them the technicalities about their evidence, you are wasting your time.
Now, if your opponent says that we never actually landed on the moon, and they're using that as a point, then okay break out your casual interrogation abilities. Just make sure you don't just disprove their application but you disprove the point behind their application. Because if their point behind it still stands, and they point that out, you haven't helped yourself much.

2. Lots of Jargon
I've made this mistake once too many times. TP is filled with many more fancy terms than LD. LDers have adopted relatively simple language to make up for the fact they have little time to explain terms due to such a short round. That, and that LD is confusing enough without throwing in Solvency and Inherency.
Experienced judges might be more forgiving, in fact go ahead and break out those mad TP skillz if you have a six-years-experience TP alumni who hates LD. But in general, most of your vocabulary abilities should be exercised in the realms of ideas and morals.
I know LDers get excited every time they use phrases like socio-economic impact, inherently valuable rights, or relative moral standards. They have their fancy vocab faults, too. But they should be making it simple, too. Intelligent, well-researched, but easily understood and adhering to common sense.
Bright line is cool...just don't call it Bright Line. Supererogatory is a no. It'll make the judge understand you and your opponent breath easier.

3. Asking for Opponent's Case
You should be able to flow everything down, but sometimes you can't. It's one of the hardships of LD. They usually cover this right away with transfers in-club, but I've seen it happen a few times. Your opponent most likely won't have an extra copy of your case, either, and it's unfair to make them look bad in front of an unexperienced judge.  Clarify in CX if you need to. Getting every detail, quote, and date down perfectly isn't necessary in LD.

4. Over-Emphasizing Dropped Arguments
Most experienced LDers know they have to say things like, "I'm grouping x, y, and z together." or "Since I de-linked a; b, c, and d do not stand." Often, though, we forget. Saying "my opponent dropped my third contention, which was Public Forums are Important, therefore it still stands, and the impact is..." Yeah, that's cool, that's encouraged." But saying, "My opponent dropped my third contention, my first second third and fourth applications definition and counter-argument number eight under that contention." and then not explaining the impact of those points individually? It doesn't work as well and tends to be a time suck. Especially if your opponent used on of the above mentioned disclaimers.

Overall, experienced TPers make some of the best LDers. I know plenty of seasoned competitors in TP who switched over one year and absolutely dominated. Some people switch over because they're made to, or because they couldn't find a partner. Whatever the reason, you're about to embark on a journey through my favorite event in forensics (next to DI).

Have fun and work hard!

Kylie

Success: Because Advice, Plus That's What Happened Today

Sooo...normally I don't brag about things. But today I placed 5th in Lincoln Douglas Value Debate and I'm already qualified for Nationals. I also earned a 7th place Debate Speaker award and 4th place in Dramatic Interpretation. 
 But the best part undoubtedly was my friends and learning to better represent the message of Christ our Messiah. I love my community (and my freedom of speech. Bum dum tish for my Stoa LD buddies ).

I wasn't the only one in my club that did well. My best friend Gloria kicked some pants in Apol, broke in LD, too, and yet another award in speaks. My favorite bro Jamie got a LD checkmark, too, and outbossed everyone claiming 3rd in HI. His sister Cailey and my sistah from another mistah broke in OI. And my Parli partner's sister Becca broke in Impromptu. So, so proud.

Now, chances are if you've made it this far you skipped all of that. Or you're my mom. (Lie: she doesn't read my blog ;p)

So here's that advice I was promising in my long title that would never be an acceptable debate tag:

#runonstentences

Anyway.
Ahem.
My readers ready?
My computer?
I'll begin.

ITS NOT ABOUT WINNING.

I know, I know, but hear me out. It's not the same message you've heard before. Not exactly, anyway.

You have four years of speech and debate. Six if you started in middle school. If you live for even eighty years, that's 5% of your life.
You will spend the rest of your life living out your talents, your purpose, your ambitions. You will continue to touch people and make decisions and arguments.
This time is not for you to succeed. Seriously. This time is to prep you for success. This is to prepare you for the other 80% (you probably spent some time as a little kid before debate...unless you did Juniors).
That's right.
You heard me.
Speech and debate is just prep-time.

You are here to perfect your speaking, thinking, and presentation ability. You're also here to learn humility, grace, bravery, and hard work. You are here to make friends and gain mentors. You are here to learn and grow.
You are not here to get trophies.
Now, of course, I've just been bragging about my trophies. They are great reminders of how far we've come, of our potential, tokens of our hard work. It's like I always say, something I partially stole from something Anne Hathaway said during one of her acceptance speeches,
"Trophies are just blunt objects we use to fight the monsters of self-doubt."
But you are the one doing the fighting. With or without a trophy, you are the one fighting the self doubt. Whether you do it by gazing at that trophy on your shelf or by gazing at that spot where you want that trophy to be, keep fighting.
But the trophies are only blunt weapons, tokens, representations of progress.

So every time you don't get a trophy, a medal, a certificate, or a green checkmark you have still gained progress. You are still learning, You are still living out the purpose of speech and debate.

In fact, if the greatest thing you ever did was win a trophy and peak at fifteen, that's kinda sad. But you won't. Trust me.

 So be happy. Smile. Encourage and congratulate others. Read those ballots. Work harder. Be honest. Fight fair.

You are so much more than the trophies you hold or don't hold. And you will be so much more than a first-place-speaker.

Briefs: Why They Are Underappreciated in LD and How To Write One

My fingers are getting type-crazy. Let's put aside the fact it's NaNoWriMo (Nationals Novel Writing Month) and I'm writing 1.7k words a day novel-wise. No, they crave to write something else.

Briefs.

No, not:

I mean when you analyze another person's case when not in-round, find all the flaws, and write notes for when you debate them again. This is mandatory for every TP debater and absolutely useless for Parliers. But people under estimate the power of the brief in LD.

Imagine going into a round knowing exactly what your opponent is going to say, everything, values, criteria, contentions, and even applications. And then imagine under each of those were arguments in detail already arranged in IRAI format (Identify, Refute, Analyze, Impact) and complete with case-specific potential CX questions.

Heaven.

How do we achieve such knowledge? The idea is everyone in my club is supposed to turn in their flows to the "flow box" or copy down at least their opponent's case, their name, and what side they were debating onto supplied paper and put that in said box that way, later, we can either individually or as a group destroy those cases. Now, there are three main problems with this system.

1. Some People Have Trouble Flowing
I swear, I'm not trying to make you feel bad. I understand that this is something the most experienced debaters struggle with and it has a lot to do with learning style. It was just something I caught onto quicker. My struggle is more with reading the flow and not skipping crucial arguments do to unorganized thought processes. When I started student coaching I heavily emphasized working on flowing and set apart a week just for that with the LD newbies, with practices with the whole club weekly.
Sometimes, though, neglected flowing happens because debaters are lazy. They don't "need" to flow, they think. But You can't complain about your opponent "falsely" accusing you of dropping arguments when you didn't flow half of them.
 I absolutely abhor getting flows back from debaters with 3+ tournie experience (that's at least eighteen rounds) that look like this:

AC
V-Security
Cri (they remembered to label but for whatever reason didn't write it down)

That's it. No Contentions, No Applications, no RA, VLs, RtPs. Just that. Sometimes, they add:

C1-America

C2-Food

C3- (again unlabeled)

Well, at least they spaced their arguments properly. But how is that supposed to help the club? so-and-so's contention three wasn't "Food". It might have been "Undervaluing Freedom of Speech Increases Poverty Rates" but it probably wasn't "Food". I'm glad they got the main point, though, and I'm glad maybe their listening too intently to flow (happens to me allll the time).

Again, not talking about newbies. Cause that's exactly what my first couple rounds worth of flows looked like. Perfectly normal. I'm talking about people with 3+ tournament, sometimes 3+ years experience who think they've "got this", don't need flow, and don't care enough about their club to give them the information they need in case they debate that person next round.

Here's one of the biggest debate tips anyone can ever give you: flow. Take the time to learn how to flow rounds, flow rounds that aren't yours, always watch the flight before or after you. Care about debate and doing well. Never be cocky thinking you don't need to flow. Because even if you opponent is a scared newbie in their very first round and all they say is "Freedom is good. Genocide is bad. Vote Affirmative." and then run back their seat crying. (It's happened to be before.) Take the time to write down in that column, box, bubble, however you flow "C1. Freedom Is Good C2. Genocide is bad." Because you need the practice and they need the respect.

Anyway, the best thing ever is when I get something back like this in the flow box:

Opponent: John Doe (His Neg Case)
NC
John Adams quote on justice
*insert his defs here*
RA/Burden Scope
V-Justice
Def- Everyone getting their just due
Vl- Freedom creates justice
Vl2-Community standard's uphold bias and inhibit justice
RtP- Justice enables us to achieve all other values, it is a gateway
RtP2- Upholds Human Rights

C1. Justice Is Absolute
Lotr quote
App-Court system.....

And so and so forth. It's cool, really. On to the second problem with the flow box system:

2. Nobody Turns In Their Flows

They throw them away.  This just has to do with brief under-appreciation, which as you can I'm out to fix. And three:

3. I Am Only One Who Likes Briefing
The exception is when an epic debater has smoked everyone in my club. Then I can usually rally them together to create a Brief of Awesomeness, combing all of our logic prowess. Their motivation is usually based off of envy, though. With the exception of a few really good sports in my club, who share my excitement.
But no one else can seem to understand why I would brief all six of my flows and everyone else's I can get my hands on. They just think I'm a nut biscuit. Okay, yes, the fact that I looove my separate brief folder with briefs arranged by competitor's last name with their Aff first that I can just flip open and viola, does make me a bit of a whackadoodle (aren't we all?). 

I love the feeling of walking into a round where I know I'll be debating a tournament-winng first-placer legend and pulling out this uber-organized "cheat sheet" I spent three hours and breathing.

 And you should see the look on some people's faces when I walk in with one of those briefs. Or anyone in my club, 'cause they know how I am.

So how do you write a brief?

Simple.

Now, I have a reputation in my club for being a super OCD and a perfectionist. But the real truth is I have severe ADHD and in order to keep myself in line I must remain organized, simplified, and clear. Otherwise everything looks horrible and confusing.

This is my personal style. First I take the other debater's point and leave it in regular font on my laptop. Then, in bullet points underneath (in italics, to separate things more visually), I brainstorm counter-arguments.

Let's take my John Doe case from earlier.

Opponent: John Doe (His Neg Case)

NC
John Adams quote on justice

•   Here we would make any comments on said quote and maybe google for a counter-quote by John Adams that overrides this one or find the context in was used in and see what happens. Most of the time, though, quotes aren't a big deal and can be skipped.

*insert his defs here*

• Here we note any unusual definitions and whether a good definition debate would be worthwhile. Good to know pre-round before you get sucked in. Also, if this is just for you not for club use compare these to yours and note if you disagree/agree with them. Include your argumentation. Continue to do this with all points.

RA/Burden Scope

• Whether or not you accept the burden scope is usually case-dependent. Since this is a Negative case, you probably won't see a Burden Scope proposal, though. Pick apart their RA. 

V-Justice

• Here we might say somethings like:
• Justice, when absolute, applies to everyone and we each must pay for the things we do wrong.
• CX Questions, are we talking about absolute moral Justice? Or just Justice in the law? Then those who do immoral things within the law are justified? So it's not complete justice? Are all laws just?
• Justice conflicts with human rights. (Such as privacy, freedom, or property). Human Rights is the higher value, this is especially good if your value is Human Rights.
• CX Questions, Is it ever good to be merciful? Don't mercy and justice conflict?
•   Justice cannot be measured.
• CX Questions, what is the proper punishment for stealing one dollar? What about breaking someone's ribs with a baseball bat? Why not five years in prison instead of four? Who decides that? How do we know they are correct? Have they ever been incorrect? (Note to self: staple cases of injustice the US court system to this brief)
• Let's say, briefly, that instead of the below definition we say John Doe used "A fair system that administers laws." as his Justice def. That means Justice is Amoral, not inherently moral.
• CX Question, does the US have any unjust laws (Note: Have those case stapled and ready.) 

• Justice is unrealistic

Disclaimer: I took these arguments against Justice from this amazing blog post by Travis Herche, which you should go read immediately and analyze carefully for even more information. All credit to him.

And so the Brief continues. I had all this material (even stapled-on extra evidence) before I even made it to the value links. You don't have to use all that information. Especially if you are debating an experienced opponent, since all lot of the CX questions will be already answered within your opponent's case and they will have already spiked arguments they see coming.

WARNING: Never become dependent on a brief. Your debate skills should always be able to hold you up during a round. Don't always be looking down, perfect the ability to think on your feet. You are not the voice that just reads the brief, the brief is just that little voice in your ear that says, "Just in case you need an extra point..."

For me, the first tournament is always the hardest and the most exhilarating. There's the regular reasons, trying out new (most of the time lame) cases and realizing you hate (not really) these res's but getting to see friends and, you know, debate. There is an added terror, too, of having no briefs. No idea about what Valor or Invictus, or SONT, or EQUIP, or any other club is running. There's also the added pleasure of attaining all these flows and ohmygosh my addiction has been soothed.

As a concluding point,

If you are in WSDC: Do not feel the pressure to write your own. The minute you see postings, come to me. I can probably help you. Ask anyone who's ever bothered to come to me. I write briefs. Long, over organized briefs that prove I have no life.

~Kylie~

Two Little Definition Things That Drive Me Crazy

Just little things that drive me up the wall...

 Self-Limiting Values

Them: "Freedom of Speech is saying what you want as long as your not hurting anyone. Therefore none of my opponent's examples count, Freedom of Speech could never hurt anybody, I win."

Let me make something painfully clear. The definition you just gave was our Freedoms, relating to speech, as given by the Constitution. You are not talking about our human ability to speak freely. You are talking about the limits but on that right by man-made governments and Declarations. As a whole, this is just an underhanded way to win a debate round. Put it in your RA, make your Criterion the Harm Principle. But building in into your defs is an unfair advantage and not completely logical.

For more information, here's someone (Travis Herche), who can explain it better.

 Other Squirrelly Definitions That Defeat Educational Value

"It's only mitigation if it succeeds, so all my opponent's examples don't apply. I win."

Anyone who debated the 2013-14 LD season in Stoa knows exactly what I'm talking about. Some of you probably even ran this. I'm not judging, I'm just going to tell you why you're wrong. :P It's okay, I became extremely desperate in one round and tried to pull this off. One time, okay?

 I'm basically saying becoming extremely technical with definitions and grammar is unethical, even if you think it creates an "ace in the hole."
 Which it does, I saw one girl get to finals with this argument. She's really nice, too.

This doesn't prove what an epic debater you are, though. It doesn't prove your amazing logic skills, your impeccable presentation, your hard-hitting and to-the point examples. It doesn't win the value debate, it doesn't achieve anything, it just proves somebody else found a flaw in the res and you stole the idea and exploited it.

It actually makes you look like a jerk.

Because instead of having a debate about international relations and moral obligations, you're just thunking everyone over the head with something they already know. For example, of course it's moral to help people in peril. Of course every time we succeed it's a good thing. But closing off the res to where every time we attempt to mitigate an international conflict and fail or make things worse it doesn't apply, well that cuts off 80% of the Neg's possible arguments. The only thing the Neg has left to say is
1. Some lame argument about how governments can't have morals or there's no such thing as moral obligations. Which some people tried and it worked okay, but let's face it, it was a bit easy to defeat and also kind of killed the point of the debate
. 2. They can make the logic argument about we're actually talking about ethics and not morals, which is actually correct and makes a lot of sense, but it will confuse most judges and, yet again, kill the point of the debate.
3 They can say something about the affect on the US's economy and how it harms our citizen's welfare. The Neg will the look like a gigantic, heartless, pathetic bad word next to your pity-inciting examples. The best shot they've got at this point, which is what I did and how I won a few rounds, is talking about sending our American soldiers into conflicts, sacrificing their lives for countries who hate us, having American kids back home with no dads (or moms) because the US decided to fix the conflict between Uzinbekastan and Fleckaboyvockia. This doesn't really work on talented pity-case debaters, though. I know this sounds really mean, and I hate being mean, but it's the truth.

My advice against this sort of thing? Talk about debate ethics. Talk about how the resolution was meant to be debated. How you, your opponent, and the judge will learn so much more if we take your route instead. Talk about why we debate.

Showcase Night 2: Yes That's a Scarf (or Everybody Does Dumb Stuff Sometimes)

For showcase 2014 all the girls were supposed to wear something purple. I own a purple tank top. Tank tops are usually not considered professional wear.

So this, my friends, is a scarf wrapped around me and hidden under a suit jacket.

Iiiiif you're awkward and you know it clap your hands! *clap clap* 

If you're unphotogenic and you know it clap your hands! *clap clap*

If you're nervous and you know then your face will surely show it!

If you turn red when you're nervous clap your hands! *clap clap*

So what's the moral lesson in all this? (I do Mars Hill, I can't help it, okay?)

We're all awkward. We all have those embarrassing photos and dumb speeches and facepalm moments. I do it, you do it, Isaac Summers may even do it. Actually, I can't verify that. I met him once though and he seemed pretty normal for being legendary.

 Take a deep breathe and realize this is an opportunity to laugh at yourself. To feel human. There is something beautiful about being human. 

So maybe you messed up. To make you feel better, here's a list of times I messed up so bad it was a triple facepalm moment. Aka, all three judges probably really wanted to facepalm because of me.

1. I said "Thank you and I respectfully urge a negative ballot at the end of today's round." I was affirmative. The whole audience laughed.

2. I had a  mind blank during Mars Hill. I ended up preaching that Katniss would have felt better during the Hunger Games if she had had the Bible and it would have solved all her moral dilemmas. #no

3. The judge said "Thank you for speaking!" and I said "you too!" 

4. I once went an entire tournament day without nylons, by accident, and I had bruises and mosquito bites all over my legs.

5. My earring fell out during my first ever round and when I stooped down to pick it up aaalll my papers fell out of my debate folder. As a result I accidentally read for my negative case as the affirmative.

And you know what? I survived. I'm okay. I've broken in debate, I've broken in Mars Hill, I've learned how to look judges and the eyes and say "my pleasure!" with a firm handshake. I remember my nylons. I now have my cases separated into different folders.

I would not be where I am today without who I was then.

Dramatic Interprations: The Right Way

I'm sitting in DI finals. The door creaks open. The first speaker walks in. I grip the edge of my seat in excitement. It's like that moment when the lights dim in the movie theater. The judge's set down their pens. They're ready. The timer's ready. She didn't ask, but I'm ready. I'm ready to cry till my face hurts and be scared senseless until those little goosebumps appear on my arms. Let's begin.

I'm not going to give you a play by play of every speech, but this is a few of the endings.

"I was so happy I'd found a friend."
"All was well."
"They cheered for me."

Etc.

No.

No.

NO.

NO.

NO.

This is not DI at all.
This is OI, at the most.
This makes me want to squall.
Do this in front of me and you're toast.

Had a Dr. Suess moment.

Seriously, though.

Let me give you a little history of my own competition in DI, which will help explain my position.

My first year I gave a speech about the death of a military captain due to the actions of their mentally unstable PTSD confidential informant. It was well cut. It was sad. Let's set aside the fact it was my first year and I could not act, pop, or enunciate properly.

Afterwards, I asked my friend Jamie how I did. His response was, well...

"Er...."
"I know it was terrible, now tell me why."
"It was like the old DIs."

This was a reference to the way DI was a long time ago (and me and Qui Gon Jin tried to talk the Federation into cutting them a little slack...) before Jacob Aschmutat.
Jake, my Parli coach, reinvented what DI was. Before him, DIs were all sad Steel Magnolia-esq speeches. By the way, don't do Steel Magnolias. It's overdone.
Then Jake did The Tell-Tale Heart by Edgar Allan Poe.
He made DI's scary.
DI has never really been the same since. He changed the whole thing. I'm not saying sad DIs are bad, in fact some of them are really good. (Watch this one, one of the very very select few sad DIs I like: Mick Harte Was Here. It took 6th place at Nats.)

What I'm saying is DI should not be mellow.

DI is not the mildly depressing chick flick category.

STOP MAKING IT THAT WAY.

It's like my coach Carys was constantly trying to tell me my novice year: Just because somebody dies doesn't make it sad.

This has caused me to form a bias towards scary speeches. Honestly, those are the speeches I'd rather watch. Those are the speeches everyone will talk about all season long. Maybe next season, too.
The best DIs I ever watched were scary. I'll link them here:

WARNING: I would advise not watching these if you are under the age of twelve. They are both quite scary and have actually given people I know nightmares. In fact, my general rule for scary DIs is if you don't have to ask the under-agers to leave the room you're not doing it right.

Christine Reid's The Crucible
Carys Aschmutat's  Sybil

Let me talk a little bit about each of these speeches.

Christine and Carys were friends during their competition years. Carys's was the first DI I ever saw. Afterwards, nothing else seemed to compare. It was like eating expensive dark chocolate on the beach while be serenaded by British Alt Rock stars, and after that being stuck doing Chem homework nibbling on Great Value imposter M&M's. Until I saw Christine's.
 Carys has re-told the story of the Glass Regionals many times. I will now tell it to you:

Once upon a time in NCFCA regionals, all the classrooms had glass walls. This was extremely distracting yet really cool at the same time. 
Carys was standing in the courtyard talking to a friend when she was shocked to see Christine in a speech room through the glass walls, writhing and apparently screaming, twisting a wrenching and throwing herself around the room.
Later Carys found out Christine was just doing a Dramatic on the Crucible, and all was well.
But not really.
Apparently, one of the judges in Christine's room was missionary pastor who had spent a lot of time in Africa and other foreign countries. He had witnessed many possessions. After judging Christine's speech, he rounded up her, her coach, her parents, and the tournament director and insisted Christine herself really was possessed and wanted to do a exorcism. 
According to Christine, she had done extensive research on possession, looking up the ticks, habits, and posture of a person inhabited by a demon to make her DI more realistic, and practiced endlessly, making her blocking perfect. The pastor was not convinced, and when he couldn't convince her parents to do a exorcism, tried to get her disqualified.
Carys assured us all her sweet, kind, Christian homeschooled friend was most certainly not possessed. 
Carys always ended the story saying that she thought that was the greatest compliment to Christine's acting ability she could have received and that that was how good, how scary, you should be when DIing.
I completely agree.

This is a call to all DIers everywhere to step up their game. I want to cry, I want to get goosebumps, I want to feel so freaked I out I want to leave the room.
This is only time I you will probably ever here me say no more mushy sweet endings.

~Kylie~  

7 Non-Traditional Speech and Debate Resources

We all love our Red/Blue book, our coaches, Wikipedia, Fox News, our Black's Law Dictionary, our briefcase. We own twenty different pens each and can't live without our folders, notecards, and highlighters for evidence.
But there's more. A whole new world (I swear I won't start singing) of speech and debate awesome.

 I love using all sort of different weird things to supplement my personal quest of ultimate speechanddebateism. Here are some of my favorites.

1. Pinterest
There are two ways you can use Pinterest for speech and debate.
The first is to create boards of evidence for debate or extemp, or even quotes from movies/books/etc for Mars Hill ideas to then copy down in your notebook. This is for the serious people. 
The second is to pin hilarious s/d related memes that make you laugh. Or make you want sit on the internet just five more hours and pin more  #thestruggleisreal. Shameless advertising: This is a link to my Speech and Debate Pinterest board, which includes mostly funny things but also some good, serious quotes.

2. Youtube
Just type in "Humorous Interp" and prepare to be amazed.

Pros: Seeing amazing speeches from the past and getting ideas, being entertained, becoming awed and inspired. About ninety percent of my youtube history is watching nationally ranked speeches. The rest is Rhett and Link rap battles, Bad Lip Readings, and AVBite musicals.
Another thing I like to do on YouTube for debate is watch recorded debate rounds. I watch the first affirmative constructive, or only AC is it's LD, flowing all the while. Then I pause the video, give myself prep time, and deliver my 'rebuttal' to my phone, which records my voice. Then I play the video and compare the 'real' rebuttal to mine, figuring out what I did and didn't like about both. This is especially helpful for Parli. Recording my voice is so I can listen to it afterwards and rank my own speaks. That way I can say stuff like, "Hey, I didn't realize I sound so robotic when reading my tags. I'll work on that."

Cons: Horrible interps from your newbie years that somebody decided to videotape and now haunt you via the internet. Please, for the love of impact, don't ever look me up on Youtube.

3. Blogs
Yep. Hopefully this one has given you lots of brilliant ideas. I've got more listed in the column to the right listed something like 'Great S/D Resources'. I've also found writing a blog gets my enthusiasm up and the creative juices flowing.

4. Texting
I know, I'm one of those uber annoying stereotypical female teenaged extroverts who things texting is so totally fetch.
Haha, no. All you cynics, listen up, because I'm about to tell you how texting can actually help your debate skills.
You know when you're in semi-finals? No, I don't mean literally breaking to semis, but going to watch semis. Because chances are if you're not in them you're watching them. If not willingly, your coach will probably make you.
Anyway, you have this amazing argument against the neg's third contention that you're mad the aff isn't bringing up (isn't everything so much clearer when you're NOT at the podium?). You have three options. A. You could keep it to yourself and let it die in the recesses of your mind, or maybe maybe maybe but probably not re-read your flow (because you're totally flowing like your coach told you to...) and add it to a brief. B. You could be that really annoying obnoxious person who whispers to the guy next to you during the round. More on the do's and don'ts of whispering in a round in this post.
Or, C. Text back and forth with you're debate partner of BFF who's probably watching, too. It's super fun and non-distracting.

5. Camera Phones
This is gaining popularity like Passenger did after he released "Let Her Go". (#Hipstermoment: I loved them/him--he went solo and kept the name--before that and have every single album).
For non-music-addicts, it's spreading like crazy. The idea is to take a picture of postings so you have your order number or side, room number, floor number, and opponent(s) name(s) at the palm of your hand. If you're like me, you have to stare at postings for five solid minutes and mutter under your breathe all the way there to effectively remember. Even then, sometimes I have to check a third or forth time. Camera phone solves all that.

6. Non-Consumable Travel Coffee Mugs
This can hold:
1. Coffee (duh)
2. Hot tea
3. Soup for on-the-go.
These are amazing to carry around tournie and eat/drink while talking, reciting, judging juniors, or just hanging out listening to that one guy who brought a guitar. There is nothing more boring than sitting by yourself eating soup out of a bowl waiting for breaks.

7. Doubled-Sided Sticky Notes
Never, ever, go to a tournie or a club meeting or anywhere without these. They are self-explanatory.

Whispering In the Round

***The following does not apply to whispering to your partner during a two-man-team debate round in which you are competing. I realize there is a separate set of guidelines for that***

Let me tell you a story.

Once upon a time my friend, Yazmin, who's in my club, broke to Lincoln Douglas quarter-finals.

YAY!!!!

Then she broke to semi-finals.

DOUBLE YAY!!!!

Then, during semis, these annoying guys who weren't in our club started whispering and laughing really loud during the round.
This is sometimes used as a really underhanded dirty way to distract one of the speakers. We don't know if that was their intention or if they were just being rude. Either way, Yazmin was distracted and even stuttered a little bit during her rebuttal. Which was quite unlike her.
She didn't make it to finals. Yazmin, though, is one of those sweet and grateful people who felt honored to make it to semis and just smiled afters breaks and said, "Next time, for sure!"
Now, Yazmin's parents were head of tab that tournie, and there are some pros and cons to that. The pros are you get to know if they're powermatching, randomizing matches, reverse powermatching, going odd-even, or doing the first round/fourth second/fifth third/sixth thing I can't remember the name of and confuses everyone...which is probably why tab does it.
The cons include that after that tournie during the ballot party Yazmin's dad announced WHY she had lost.
It was a 3-2 decision. According to him, he spoke to last judge. They said they noticed how Yazmin got distracted during the rebuttals. This judge says if Yazmin couldn't handle the pressure she didn't deserve to win.

No, just no.

Now, my coach Carys explained that you can whisper and still not lose someone a round. If you're sitting in the back, and you lean over to the person sitting next to you and whisper and quick quip about the round, and not even the people next to you can hear, then you're fine. People do it all the time. I even would encourage discussing the round in-round. But if you're sitting towards the front whispering loudly and laughing obnoxiously to the point where the audience is paying attention to you and not the round, then you're doing it wrong.

In fact, if you're like me and it's physically impossible for you to whisper (I just can't do it, kay?) try texting one another back and forth. Then you can talk all you want. You can even use all caps to illustrate your point. You can lol and rofl 'till the cows come home. Or, if you're old school, pass notes. It's not rude, nobody notices, and if you're talking about the round it's even educational.

But I swear if something like that ever happens to one of my friends again someone's gonna lose their head.

Guess What Time It Is? STRESS TIME.

Guess what? It's...

DUN DUN DUN

OFFICIAL PRE-SEASON.

I started student coaching today, and let me tell you, it was fun.I am also exhausted. I'm ready to settle down for the weekend and blaaaaah the whole time.

Nevermind I should actually attempt editing and, oh, I don't know, memorizing my DI. Or print my cases. Or find new quotes for intros. Research for extemp. Do some leftover schoolwork. But I can't. Because I have schedules and lesson plans to plan for next week. Not to mention I've got to call my partner about Parli tomorrow (which will actually be quite fun), call my best friend on Sunday (also fun), not to mention I might have a friend come down from out of town on Sunday, too. And a football game tomorrow.

I joke about being really extroverted all the time and how I love being busy. I score a sixty to eighty percent extroversion preference on the Myers Briggs typology test. In fact I just finished nodding and laughing at this list of 20 things about extroverts.

However, I'm kind of worn out.

I love school. I'm taking gov and Classic American Lit this year. That's super awesome to a future Literature major. I love people. My friends are everything to me. I love speech and debate. I even write a blog about it, for goodness sake.

We all have those moments, though, when we get worn down. We watch that pile of things to do get bigger and bigger. The sticky notes are flying and the printer's broke an you just want to scream WHY. WHY ME. WHY DO I FEEL LIKE BREAKING.

Why do we feel like breaking?

Because we are human. Because we are breathing creatures who want to revel in God's glory all the time, like we are meant to, one day in heaven.

Right now we are worn.

What we have to do is hold onto those moments the remind us Who we are living for.

When I walk into church and hear the chatter of voices and light streams through stained glass windows onto the cross.
When I run into one of my best friends I haven't seen in four plus months for a quick few minutes after drama class and he pokes fun at me and I listen to him laugh rather than 'lol's on a little bright screen.
When I try out for a solo with my besties even though I can't sing to save my life...just for the heck of it.
When my baby brother smiles at me, holds out a toy, and says "Edaphant!"

Then everything else....it just kind of melts away.
Because in them, I am reminded of God's glory. I might not be able to handle all my problems. But He can.

Showcase Night

Most clubs have a night where they dress up and show off. Some clubs call it I.E. Night or Performance Night. Our club calls it the Showcase. We wear fancy clothes and show off our skills in front of everyone we can convince to show up. So what's the purpose? There's a few schools of thought on the subject:

A few years ago on Showcase night when we were *shudder* newbies. (Jk, love the newbies.)

1. To show off
2. To recruit
3. To raise money for the club
4. To build awareness
5. To have fun
6. To dress up

Well, the answer is no longer the last one in our club. We went to wearing ballroom attire on showcase )night to wearing suits, which we do all the time. I fought, kicking, screaming, and passive-aggressively metaphorically biting, to keep fancy dress. After, the guys are wearing the same thing either way, But everyone thought it was too much hassle. #stillmadaboutthat #nevergonnagetoverit #offtopicagain #ADHD

Anyway, so what's the real answer? I think it's a combination of the first five.

You probably guessed that for yourself. So why am I writing this post?

A. I wanted a chance to rant about fancy dress without actually writing a rant post (Doesn't that look more fun than suits? ->)
B. I wanted to reminisce about being newbies.
C. What I'm about to say right here vvvv

Showcase night isn't really about us. It isn't about making us feel cool or accomplished. Because then all we're doing is standing up and talking at people for our own pleasure.

Funny, that's the attitude some people have about speech and debate as a whole.

Showcase Night is about honoring God and each other, raising money for the club, and encouraging people to join this thing we love.

Without that we're just teenager's in suits. Which despite what people think, isn't that impressive by itself.

What's impressive is the attitude we have and what we do in the suits.

In Defense of the Speech Events In Which We Defend

Note: this is a post from months ago I edited for grammar. Somehow it got bumped up. 

There's this theory going around I don't like. I don't know any better way to look at it the to treat it as a resolution.

Resolved: Apologetics and Mars Hill Impromptu serve no use and actually detract from your ability to relay the Gospel effectively.

I am Negative.

DISCLAIMER: I am not throwing anyone under the bus here. I love Travis Herche, who from what I understand originated this point of view. I read his blog religiously. I love his article in this year's Red Book on logical chronology and writing a good negative. I love all my fellow speech and debaters who hold this view. I just disagree with you on this one thing.

Here's what, from what I've heard, is the Affirmative.

1. Sharing the Gospel is Based in Empathy
Apologetics and MHI isn't very empathy based. It's more like talking at people than to them. Like sermonizing. There's a reason everyone thinks it's dull. It would be more useful if instead you actually sat down and talked to your judges, one on one, about their life and such.
In real life it won't be like this. You won't get chance to speak for six minutes to the person who disagrees with you and throw Bible verses at them. People who should here the Gospel won't be open to it at all this way. You are actually working against yourself.

2. You Aren't Really Learning Anything
Unless you write your own cards, then you get a minimum of knowledge gain. MHI isn't worth much at all, cards or not.

Here's my comeback (Negative):

Observation Point: MHI and Apol aren't supposed to spread the Gospel, or teach you how. The point is to define and defend your faith. First, to learn what you believe (everyone should be aware of what they're living for, I think). Second, to learn to defend it. Not convert people. Defend it in a logical, empathetic manner that relates to the common man. If you persuade people in the process, perfect, you are the ideal speaker. But the idea is to at least make them recognize you aren't a lunatic.

1. Apol and MHI Should Be Based On Empathy
This is where we have an agreement. I have watched too many lifeless, preachy Mars Hill and Apol speeches. Many of them are like that. I understand why others may dislike them. I think Apol and MHI should be different. My Parli coach, Jacob Aschmutat, can say it better.

"There is certainly some value in understanding *what* one believes, which is how the Apol competitors I watched at NITOC approached the event. They discussed the significance of certain aspects of Christianity, albeit on a very basic level most of the time (which is to be expected; you only have six minutes to talk—hardly enough time to discuss the ontological theory for God’s existence). I wanted to go deeper. I wanted to take advantage of Apol for what the very term meant.

'Apologetics' derives from the Greek word “apologia,” which is a noun meaning “defense.” In the Greek judicial system, defendants would attempt to 'speak' ('logia') 'away' ('apo') the accusation. I sought to incorporate the very nature of this concept into every single one of my Apol speeches.
I would do this in multiple ways. First, I would present common arguments with regard to whatever topic on which I spoke. For example, in the omnipotence of God issue, I would discuss the dilemma of whether God could create a rock too heavy for Him to lift. Under the deity of Christ issue, I would respond to the Muslim’s arguments supporting their belief that Jesus was merely a prophet. I would frequently tie these to either personal (I had a close atheist friend who raised in conversation the Rock Dilemma and a Muslim friend who asked me about Jesus’s deity) or external (I would cite popular or outrageous atheist websites and individuals) examples.

My other tactic was to reference or compare specific religions to my own. For example, when discussing the historical accuracy of the Bible, I would compare it with other religious texts (the Quran, Shadow Book of Wicca, Scientology’s Dianetics, etc.). When discussing the nature of God, I would reveal its significance as compared to other gods (Allah, Shiva, Buddha, the Mormon god, the naturalist’s god, etc.). Atheism reared its ugly head often, but I was careful not discuss atheism generally; rather, I would cite modern leaders in atheism and offer responses to their specific beliefs (i.e., Richard Dawkins’s “The God Delusion” is often considered the bible of modern atheism).
With this approach, I gained an understanding of the framework for other faiths and thus learned how to respond to them using the knowledge I had of my own. This also opened up to me a plethora of resources that I continue to utilize to this very day. In conversations with my agnostic friends at law school, I would explain my beliefs and use the sources I cited in my old speeches when asked a specific question. I spoke to people using the exact 'points' I would use in my six-minute high-school Apol speeches!

As far as competitions go, I remember my final round’s speech at the Regional Championship in 2009. There were two pastors and a published theologian judging my round. My topic was to explain the purpose of man, and I discussed the Christian purpose in contrast to the atheist’s and the Muslim’s, especially as it pertained to the afterlife. All three judges in that room granted me a 'first,' (blessing me with the First Place title at the tournament) and all three mentioned how I was the only one in the room to take full advantage of the event of Apol as a means of learning how to defend one’s faith.
If Apologetics is new on your radar, I encourage you to keep it in your sights and take advantage of it, and to attempt competing in it using my 'apologia' method, or at least something very similar. My only regret is that I only competed in it for one year. "

I really couldn't have said it better myself.

~Kylie~

Television Shows in Mars Hill Impromtu

 If you haven't seen this, and you do Mars Hill, you need to.


That's right guys.


Mars Hill now includes TV shows.


Look!!!

(From the official stoausa 2014-2015 MHI rules)

*happy dance*

If you know me personally, you know Mars Hill is my 'baby'. It's the first event I ever made it to nats in. It's what I rant about, cry about, the ballots I read most carefully.

Well, that's a lie. I study each ballot like it's a sacred text from the debate gods. Who are named Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. In our club, anyone who is late or the lastest person if there are more than one, is to be tied to a chair and hit with pool noodles as a sacrifice to Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Okay, we've never actually done that, but it's a running joke and now I'm super off topic...

For those of you in NCFCA or other leagues (*cough* NFLers *cough*) Mars Hill is a limited prep event, like Apol (oh, wait,...NFLers don't get that, either :P), in which you draw a topic from pop culture and have to analyze it and connect it somehow to the gospel. I always like to add how said thing has impacted the culture as my second point in between.

A lot of people hate it. There's an entire body of people who think Mars Hill is useless and actually detracts from your ability to speak the gospel sincerely without 'fakeness'. I've got a separate argument for that, but let's just say I strongly disagree.

Other people hate it because they think it's dull. Well, we all have our opinions.

If you've ever though about doing Mars Hill, or are new, I highly suggest it. It's fun, it teaches empathy and culture/media analysis, and how to make day-to-day life connects to the gospel. If you're a lim prep person, go for it. If your not do it anyway.

The people who already have a deep and profound love of Mars Hill just want me to get to the point.

Here it is. We are getting some of the most amazing classic and modern television shows ever made. Some if not most of which we've all already watched. I can talk for hours with my friends about these. Think of how much fun we're gonna have giving speeches about them. Where judges have to listen to you rant on about how awesome the old Star Trek is compared to the new ones or the complications or plot twist in Once Upon A Time, Downton Abbey, or White Collar.

I'm mean, look at these, and you can't tell me that's not more fun than talking about nuclear power or marine resources:

Are you excited? I am.

1. Pick your topic
2. Rant
3. Learn

That's pretty much speech and debate as a whole.

~Kylie~

Losing (or Winning) Because of a Technicality.

I don't know about you, but the first time I broke I was super excited. Except for when I read my ballots.

I was number eight out of the eight people who broke, but considering it was only my second tournie, I was elated.

Then the ballots came in. It was Storytelling (anybody remember that...a long long time ago in a galaxy far away..Naboo was under an attack...you know, last season?) and I forgot to cite my source in finals.

YES I DID THAT. *horrified face*

And not just in finals every single prelim round, too.

To be fair to my little newbie self, I didn't even know it was a rule, I must have skimmed through it on the website. But I still want to go back and bop fourteen-year-old me on the head and remind her to read the rules properly and practice in club, for goodness's sake.

Some of you think I might be being a little overdramatic about this. However, that medal could have been a trophy.

But, you know what? My coach was hugging me. My teammates were patting me on the back. I was beaming.

So can we please all go back to when we were all novices and we were over the moon just to get a certificate and a handshake? I think that kind of gratitude is awesome. It was that little push that made me want to work harder, to break again, to go to NITOC, to actually do my homework. Which my fellow used-to-be-novices turned student coaches and I are now shelling out.

Sometimes it's the little victories, like not feeling like crumpling to the floor while being cross-exed or never once saying "um" during your limited prep round. Those things can turn an 'I would like to cry now' day into an 'I can do this' day. If you let them.

Now, what about winning because of a technicality?

Sometimes in debate your opponent, or maybe another person in your speech room, does something a bit absent-minded. Maybe they have a definition that actually supports your case better or they say something slightly offensive about a certain minority group (like forgetting to use people-first language or a controversial term for illegal immigrants). These aren't these are rules-based technicalities like my source citing mistake. But they are still pretty "technical" mistakes, the latter more than the former.

Personally, this is my least favorite way to win. Of course, I still prefer to win (>;P), but think about how much you hate to lose based on these sorts of things. If your opponent has great points, better logic, more applicable examples, and a reigning value and you beat them based on a hole-y def —unless it's painfully obvious and case-destroying, naturally—or iffy wording, then it kind of feels like to me like I didn't really beat them. Same thing in a speech round.

Sometimes you get backed into a corner in debate and you get tempted to pull something technical-ish to save yourself. You want to nail them a logical fallacy of which they barely committed or didn't at all.

Do not be that person.

Don't be the person that gets complained about because you accused your opponent of doing things they didn't do.

Instead focus on values, on arguments, on logic, on everything in between. Just don't go below the belt.

But if they ARE committing a fallacy, nail 'em. There is no better, clearer way to win a round. Which is why it burns when you didn't commit one and somebody says you did.

Once I was debating and I basically said "How my opponent's value and criterion links to the resolution is very unclear. Here's why mine are better..." This is a commonly used argument in value debate. Always, always, always give a value link of some sort.

She came back by claiming I had used the logical fallacy of ad hominem. Which is the logical fallacy of personally attacking someone instead of their case. She argued I had attacked her ability to be clear instead of the clarity of the argument itself.

I'm going to act like a I two year old here and say: "I totally did not!"

Don't worry, I didn't say that in the round.

Here's the thing, if you feel like you're backed into a corner and there's nothing you can do:
1. Fight to the death respectfully and logically.
2. Keep your flow and brief the case.
3. Know that you were debating a talented competitor, tell them you think so after the round, and use the experience to get better.

~Kylie~