SuperSatellite ||

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its public health assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa.

So, yesterday I agreed to spend some time up at Pittsburg High School judging for their debate tournament. It’s something I tend to do often when I can, and it’s generally an okay time. Especially when judges’ lounges are well stocked. Being well fed and coffeed up can make a big difference in any activity. Sadly, the “Starbuck’s” coffee that was offered up was the worst coffee that I have ever had. Anywhere. Ever. I don’t know if it came straight from Starbuck’s, or if they just bought the beans and brewed it there or what, but it was downright awful. It was like drinking liquid hate.

Anyway, I wish I knew what it was, but debate now is only a shadow of what debate was when I was in high school only seven years ago. We fought tooth and nail for the rounds that we won. Now, the open teams that are breaking are on par with good novice teams of a decade ago. It makes me sad. And it isn’t new. I’ve discussed this situation with a number of people over the past years. I am being told that the new crop of novices are showing more promise than normal. Here’s hoping…

For instance, there is no such thing as an existential inherent barrier. No matter how hard you want it. You can neither prove, nor mandate through an existential problem in a debate round. Procedural or attitudinal, those are your two options. Pick one, define it, and go. Don’t make crap up just because you want to run a squirrel case. And for Buddha’s sake, signpost your damn arguments so I know where they need to flow. By the way, naming a solvency take out a “negative position,” and flowing it off case is ignorant. Flow it under Solvency and fricking run it as what it should be. The easiest way to beat a case down is straight on, full ahead attacking it. Trying fancy arguments you don’t know how to run and creating “cool” off case takeouts just frustrates me and makes you look dumb. Last but not least, the 2AC is not a place to be extending case with additional advantages. Learn the meaning of Prima Facia.

And why do people give up so easily? I’m already burning my Saturday to be there, the least they could do is give a full five minute rebuttal instead of giving up and sitting down after one. That’s the fast lane to a 4. Even if you are losing, there are points to be scored for standing up and fighting with some confidence. Who knows, maybe the other team will drop the argument and flow it to you.

The crazy part is, probably the best case that I heard was a canned case a novice team ran. When I say best, I don’t mean they were the best debaters of the day or anything. But their case idea was so nice and simple, and would create such nice clash. Send 1,000,000 additional aid workers to Africa. Simple, concise, topical. Sure, lots of attack angles for the Negative, but that makes for a good round. And the idea would be an easy one to find plenty of support on. It’s better than the Plumpynut case an open team ran. Not because the idea was horrible, but because there is no such thing as a self sustaining plan. Nice try though. You have to spend money to make money. They were also the existential inherent barrier people.

Even then, I fault the negative team for not trying to attack it from a more generic malnutrition angle. These kids need to work on some critical thinking skills in a big way.

All told, it ends up sorta frustrating, but I’m glad the kids do it anyway. Debate teaches very valuable skills that come in handy in college and work. I guess I’m just a sucker for the torment, heh.