|
I've been thinking about this for a bit. I've decided I'm going to blog about my debate experiences. What with new TL debate thread thing and some discussions on Shady Sand's blogs (read thembtw they're awesome), I figured that there might be some interest here, after all we have several debaters/ex debaters (I think incontrol and/or DJWheat did forensics :O)/ forum kiddies who like to talk in General.
A bit of background: I'm in high school in Texas. This is my second year of HS debate, and I compete in Public Forum Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking.
Public Forum is basically a 2v2 debate format based on current issues. It's supposed to be "pure" debate, meaning its the closest to what the average layman thinks of when he thinks debate. There's less debate jargon and framework based junk, and more focus on delivery and quality of arguments.
Extemporaneous Speaking is a public speaking event where you're randomly assigned a topic. You prepare for 30 minutes using whatever magazines/articles you brought with you to the competition, and give a 7 minute speech about your topic using no notes/paper/etc.
Extemp is divided into 2 categories, Foreign and Domestic, regarding the topics. I'm "better" at Foreign/international extemp, but I love the domestic style topics.
last year's results + Show Spoiler + 1. 5th PF, didn't do extemp 2. 3rd PF, didn't do extemp 3. 2nd PF, 3rd Extemp (sigh, we closed out PF finals and conceded to our buddies) 4. 1st PF, didn't do extemp 5. didn't do PF, 6th in Extemp 6. didn't break in PF, semis in extemp
As a second year, I'm still fairly new/bad/whatever.
So we're heading off to an unsponsored tournament Friday (i.e, we have to pay our own way) Because of this, my partner and I are only competing in PF.
The topic is Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
|
As a former PF debater, my biggest piece of advice is to not think that because you're only a second year that you are by any degree inherently worse than others, you just have to work a little harder and speak just a little more persuasively. Part of coming off as a competent speaker is believing that one can speak well, and it shows in delivery. Out of curiosity, have you considered focusing on a single event? I double entered into only a few tournaments and even then only in Impromptu in addition to PF. Having to prepare for both Extemp and PF sounds like a lot.
|
I used to do the following 4 events quite steadily--
LD Debate FX (sometimes DX, but not often) Impromptu Student Congress
I did those 4 because those events were mutually reinforcing--I usually wrote our school's Congress bills, and I'd usually write them to fit with whatever research I had to do for that quarter's LD resolution or FX current event hotlist. FX and LD both taught me how to compose logical speeches on the fly. Impromptu was where I could go to blow off steam from the other events and have a little fun.
I tried PFD out and found out one important lesson: trying to manage multiple events while you have a partner to coordinate with is infinitely harder than doing it alone. That being said, PFD teaches you more, since you learn how to work on team/in groups much much better than the lone wolf events do. If you really want to stick with PFD, I'd recommend focusing on that as your main and only one other event to burnish your "uninterrupted speaking" skills (e.g. extemp, or even oratory). You owe it not only to yourself, but also your partner as well.
|
I was 3rd nationally in PF my senior year based on that elo graph that the public forum wikipedia links to. I loved that shit. Enjoy it, college debate sucks in comparison.
|
I liked debate in HS, but all the debate blogs on TL seem much more structured than what I did. I'm from New England, and "debate" was synonymous with "parliamentary debate", and it was 2v2 off-the-cuff with topics ranging from super serious to completely nonsensical.. + Show Spoiler [Format of parliamentary] +The first key feature uniting various formats of parliamentary debate in the US is their spontaneity. The resolutions alternate each round and are typically announced 15–20 minutes in advance. APDA is somewhat of an exception in the respect, with "loose link" rounds allowing the affirmative to run a case of their choosing, dealing with virtually any topic.[25] The second key feature of parli is a ban on quoted evidence. Debaters may not bring in any material that was not prepared in the 15–20 minutes of preparation time and consult it during the round. APDA, Worlds and high school parli debate styles tend to take a more lay-friendly approach to debate, ensuring that debates are easy to understand no matter the audience member's expertise of the resolution. NPDA is more diverse, with some teams engaging in a more academic and specific-knowledge style borrowed from Policy debate. Resolutions typically focus on current events, though the entrance of the Kritik to NPDA, and, to a lesser extent, to some high school circuits, introduced a philosophical element to parli.
This style consists a two-on-two debate, between the affirmative team, known as the Government or the Proposition, and the negative team, referred to as the Opposition. Debater role names are borrowed from the British Parliament, with the judge being referred to as the Speaker. The round consists of six speeches, as follows:
Prime Minister Constructive (PMC): the first affirmative speaker presents the affirmative case Leader of the Opposition Constructive (LOC): the first negative speaker presents the negative case and answers the PMC arguments Member of the Government Constructive (MGC): the second affirmative speaker upholds the affirmative case and responds to the LOC arguments Member of the Opposition Constructive (MOC): the second negative speaker upholds the negative case and responds to the MGC arguments Leader of the Opposition Rebuttal (LOR): the first negative speaker summarizes the round. New arguments are not allowed. Prime Minister Rebuttal (PMR):the first affirmative speaker summarizes the round and responds to any new arguments brought up in the MOC/LOC Opp block. New arguments in the PMR are not allowed.
Specific rules and speech times vary slightly between organizations. NPDA,[26] APDA[25] and OSAA[27] use the 7-8-8-8-4-5 format, CHSSA[28] and the ASU Invitational[29] use the Claremont 7-7-7-7-5-5 format, the SCU Invitational uses the 6-7-7-7-4-5 format, and Yale high school tournaments use the Osterweis 4-5-5-5-2-3 format.[30] PHSSL borrows its 8 speeches 6-6-6-6-6-6-3-3 format from World Schools Style debate.[17]
Most variations of the style do not include a specialized cross-examination period, but allow debaters to make parliamentary points. Points of Information (POI) are questions or statements the opposing side can direct the speaker who has the floor. The speaker has an option to recognize or decline a POI. In most styles POIs cannot be made during the first and last minute of each speech (known as protected time) or during rebuttals. Points of Order are made when the speaker is introducing a new argument during a rebuttal speech, or grossly mischaracterizing arguments. During a Point of Order, official time (usually kept by the judge) is to be stopped while the judge listens and considers the point raised. Points of Personal Privilege are made when the speaker makes offensive claims or personal attacks.
I was dimly aware that things called policy debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate existed, but never saw or heard of them actually being done. A regional thing, I guess? Any other parli debaters out there? I personally would have hated "prepared" events -- the whole point of debate for me was the ability to deliver a coherent, compelling speech on any topic whatsoever with 5-10 minutes preparation, and to dismantle your opponents case on the fly. Edit: formatting.
|
I was a state champion policy debater (won 1 year [senior year when I had a stellar partner]). I went to "debate camp" at Auggie. After leaving HS I couldn't really leave the debate scene. There were too many awesome people and great memories, so I began judging and coaching a team for LD debate (this particular school was known for LD and didn't even have a policy team). I judged/coached for about another 3 years before I finally chose gaming over debate. I never really pursued debate in college mostly cause I was lazy and too into gaming. I was happy with what I had accomplished, but more than anything, I'm extremely thankful for the skills that debate honed for me.
|
On September 06 2012 23:11 djWHEAT wrote: I was a state champion policy debater (won 1 year [senior year when I had a stellar partner]). I went to "debate camp" at Auggie. After leaving HS I couldn't really leave the debate scene. There were too many awesome people and great memories, so I began judging and coaching a team for LD debate (this particular school was known for LD and didn't even have a policy team). I judged/coached for about another 3 years before I finally chose gaming over debate. I never really pursued debate in college mostly cause I was lazy and too into gaming. I was happy with what I had accomplished, but more than anything, I'm extremely thankful for the skills that debate honed for me. In one of your casts, could you spread/spew for us? You're probably pretty good at it if you can take state.
|
Under your results could you put what the resolution was for that tournament? Also what would you say was your favorite resolution to debate over the last two years?
|
On September 07 2012 00:44 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 23:11 djWHEAT wrote: I was a state champion policy debater (won 1 year [senior year when I had a stellar partner]). I went to "debate camp" at Auggie. After leaving HS I couldn't really leave the debate scene. There were too many awesome people and great memories, so I began judging and coaching a team for LD debate (this particular school was known for LD and didn't even have a policy team). I judged/coached for about another 3 years before I finally chose gaming over debate. I never really pursued debate in college mostly cause I was lazy and too into gaming. I was happy with what I had accomplished, but more than anything, I'm extremely thankful for the skills that debate honed for me. In one of your casts, could you spread/spew for us? You're probably pretty good at it if you can take state. THIS THIS THIS! I want to hear some djWheat Policy spread, and I demand that you speak from a podium of plastic file boxes
|
On September 06 2012 16:25 aRyuujin wrote: The topic is Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
Not that I doubt you, but this really doesn't sound like a PF resolution to me. The word "should" screams LD at me; it's just so vague and open to interpretation, and it seems to me that it demands an answer in the form of a "standard", much like LD requires values (Which are also called standards in some debate circles). What criteria are we using to determine whether or not Congress should do anything? That seems like the necessary starting point, but that is the way an LD case starts out. In my (limited) experience judging PF, the same isn't true for PF cases, so I don't really know how PFers are going to approach this very LD-in-spirit resolution.
It's a weird trend that I've noticed; PF resolutions are starting to become more LD-esque, and LD resolutions are starting to become more PF and Policy-esque.
|
On September 07 2012 02:42 Kasha_Not_Kesha wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 16:25 aRyuujin wrote: The topic is Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
Not that I doubt you, but this really doesn't sound like a PF resolution to me. The word "should" screams LD at me; it's just so vague and open to interpretation, and it seems to me that it demands an answer in the form of a "standard", much like LD requires values (Which are also called standards in some debate circles). What criteria are we using to determine whether or not Congress should do anything? That seems like the necessary starting point, but that is the way an LD case starts out. In my (limited) experience judging PF, the same isn't true for PF cases, so I don't really know how PFers are going to approach this very LD-in-spirit resolution. It's a weird trend that I've noticed; PF resolutions are starting to become more LD-esque, and LD resolutions are starting to become more PF and Policy-esque.
LD never uses "should" - it strictly sticks with "ought," which implies a moral connotation. "Should" is standard policy language. http://www.nflonline.org/StudentResources/PastPolicyDebateTopics
On September 06 2012 23:11 djWHEAT wrote: I was a state champion policy debater (won 1 year [senior year when I had a stellar partner]). I went to "debate camp" at Auggie. After leaving HS I couldn't really leave the debate scene. There were too many awesome people and great memories, so I began judging and coaching a team for LD debate (this particular school was known for LD and didn't even have a policy team). I judged/coached for about another 3 years before I finally chose gaming over debate. I never really pursued debate in college mostly cause I was lazy and too into gaming. I was happy with what I had accomplished, but more than anything, I'm extremely thankful for the skills that debate honed for me.
Cool! Awesome to see that you did policy/coached LD. Out of curiosity - what school did you coach for LD?
|
iNcontroL did parli in college. I did congress-->ld/parli in HS and then parli in college. Enjoyed college parli much much more.
|
|
|
|