LD
Today, at about 4 in the morning, I arrived back in San Marino after an all night bus ride from San Fransisco where I was attending a debate tournament. Needless to say, I am now tired.
At this tournament (MLK Invitational at Logan High School) debate is generally characterized by bad (as in lay) judging. Riding my newfound eloquence (two years ago I was about the fifth worst speaker at this same tournament, based on the points that the judges assign; this time I was third) I made it to the Tournament of Champions bid round (if I win, I get my first bid ever to the prestigous TOC). This round actually had experienced judges, so my opponent spread me out. Anyway, the round made me somewhat sad about the game that Lincoln Douglas debate has become. The game is about speed, lots of arguments, and exploitation (my opponent ran abusive arguments and when I called them as such, his response was that I never said why abuse was bad or not allowed). I'm no expert on policy debate, but it seems to me that the two are becoming more similar to each other. I appreciate policy for what it is and the specific skill set that it fosters but I would like a more wholistic, big picture alternative to that skill set.
I am not bitter, as I won't even have another opportunity to get another TOC bid (you need two to qualify). But, I do miss actual conceptual debating and more than ever want to be in college (or back at TASP).
Also, I think I am visiting the Northeast the weekend of February 26.
At this tournament (MLK Invitational at Logan High School) debate is generally characterized by bad (as in lay) judging. Riding my newfound eloquence (two years ago I was about the fifth worst speaker at this same tournament, based on the points that the judges assign; this time I was third) I made it to the Tournament of Champions bid round (if I win, I get my first bid ever to the prestigous TOC). This round actually had experienced judges, so my opponent spread me out. Anyway, the round made me somewhat sad about the game that Lincoln Douglas debate has become. The game is about speed, lots of arguments, and exploitation (my opponent ran abusive arguments and when I called them as such, his response was that I never said why abuse was bad or not allowed). I'm no expert on policy debate, but it seems to me that the two are becoming more similar to each other. I appreciate policy for what it is and the specific skill set that it fosters but I would like a more wholistic, big picture alternative to that skill set.
I am not bitter, as I won't even have another opportunity to get another TOC bid (you need two to qualify). But, I do miss actual conceptual debating and more than ever want to be in college (or back at TASP).
Also, I think I am visiting the Northeast the weekend of February 26.
posted by Ben at 1:12 AM
1 Comments:
I must confess that I am guilty of spreading my share of helpless LDers (some times, we don't go to tournaments that offer poth policy and LD, so, since the head coach is an LDer, I adapt). One LD quarterfinal I saw was preceded by a competitor, in all seriousness, asking the panel of judges "what do you think of topicality, kritiks, and counterplans." One of the judges, an assistant coach from my school, added "you're forgetting DAs."
Sorry to the nonaffiliated, this post was totally unintelligible jargon.
Post a Comment
<< Home