• Home
• About
• Def DB
• Event Info
• Evidence
• Research
• Tournaments
• Videos

Sunset Cliffs – Open Field Report

The Sunset Cliffs Invitational, hosted by Point Loma Nazarene University in sunny San Diego is now just a week away. As of Sunday afternoon, there were 40 teams representing 14 schools from eight states. This is truly a phenomenal field – by far the largest and most competitive in Southern California this year. I’ll start the pre-Super Bowl festivities off with a little field report.

Read the rest of this entry »

New Book on Gridlock

Here is a new book on transportation policy. If you’re looking for some good cards and a qualified source this may be a good pickup before the spring tournaments.

Gridlock presents a wide range of innovative ideas and policy recommendations for creating an effective transportation system—improvements that will increase our mobility and pay for themselves, whether it’s cars, buses, planes, or trains. At the center of O’Toole’s solutions are three core principles: those who use transportation facilities should pay for them; negative effects should be dealt with in a cost-efficient manner; and new technologies that will increase mobility at a low cost must be embraced. In Gridlock, Randal O’Toole brings energetic and unconventional thinking to transportation strategies that have, until now, only driven us into the breakdown lane.

RANDAL O’TOOLE is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who has written three previous books and numerous papers on transportation, urban growth, and public land issues, including his most recent book, The Best-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future. Described by U.S. News and World Report as a researcher who “has earned a reputation for dogged legwork and sophisticated number crunching,” he has been a leader in innovative thinking on environmentalism, natural resources, and urban land use.

2010 Southern California LD Championships

Registration is now open for the 2010 Southern California LD Championships to be held Sunday, Feb 14, at Cerritos College. This tournament will feature competition in both NFA-LD and parliamentary-LD debate. Please note that the parli-ld division is limited to students with remaining phi rho pi eligibility (this division is offered mainly as a warmup for our CA community college state tournament).

The NFA-LD division, however, is open to all 2 and 4 year students.

The invitation is available herewith more information. Note that in order to complete the tournament before the school closes on Sunday we will be limiting the break to quarterfinals regardless of the entry size. Even if one division has 100 entries we will only hold three elimination rounds. This also means that the championship will have a “champion” this year as opposed to the Bronze/Silver/Gold from previous years.

Last year the tournament featured 14 schools and 48 entries in NFA-LD debate. Co-Champions of the tournament (due to being unable to hold an additional elim round) was Justin Harris from Moorpark and Lilian Cavalieri from El Camino.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me or leave a comment – I hope to see all of you at the tournament!

Season Sweepstakes – Update #4

This update includes Fall Champs. As always, all errors in tabulation, spelling, etc. are entirely my own. Let me know of any mistakes and I’ll fix them right away.

Reminder: We will have at least 3 LD Tournaments this semester (Pt. Loma, LD Champs, Spring Champs) which means that all debaters and teams will need 3 tournaments to remain qualified on these rankings after the LD Champs.

2010SeasonSweeps-Update4

One Small step for… NFA-LD?

Alright! Our first poll is finished at SoCal-LD.net and our community topic for next year that we’ll submit is on Space Exploration.

Here are the requirements for the brief due by Jan 31 – so we have about two weeks.

In order to be accepted for consideration, the topic area must be in the form of a 1-2 page brief which includes:
1. A statement of the significance of the topic area in current events;
2. A statement of why the topic is interesting, challenging, and/or provocative;
3. A statement of the perceived educational value of the topic area for debaters;
4. A brief bibliography of selected readings (5-10) that capture the nature of the controversy surrounding the area; and
5. Contact information should the committee need further clarification.
Remember, in order for a brief to be accepted, it must meet all of the above qualifications.

I think the best thing we can do now is start searching for the 5-10 readings that capture the nature of the controversy in space exploration right now. Once we have those 5-10 we should be able to craft 1-3 pretty easily. Nick has actually already done a lot of the work in his comment to the poll post. Remember that you are limited to 1-2 pages so this needs to be brief rather than exhaustive.

I know that the high school topic in 1990-91 was “Resolved: that the United States Government should significantly increase space exploration beyond Earth’s mesosphere.” That year, if I remember correctly, the topic was amended after it was announced to add “mesosphere” because the literature base was just too much without “beyond Earth’s mesosphere.” But remember that at this step we’re not proposing a resolution – just a topic area.

If you find a particularly good article regarding space exploration please post it in the comments.

Freight Mobility Case

Here is another case idea that I’ve come across – a case surrounding freight mobility. While the article is rather light on specifics I imagine if you did a little bit of research you’d be able to find some policy recommendations.

Panelists discussed the need for a national freight vision as critical to the future economic health of the country given that the Gross Domestic Product is expected to double over the next 20 years. That has been forecast to happen with a concurrent increase in freight expected in the Gulf of Mexico region by 2020 due to the widening of the Panama Canal. Congestion is a growing concern because it drives up the cost of goods and has a direct effect on the consumer.

Next Year’s Topic

OK – we had three submissions for possible topic areas that we can concentrate on.

Nick recommended space exploration
Mat recommended indigenous people
Shantal recommended education in the middle east.

I think we should approach this as a community. We’ll have a poll and whatever topic area get’s the most votes we’ll rally behind. We’ll then have two weeks to write the topic paper (whoever wins is responsible). As a community we can recommend research to include and help revise/redraft the topic area. We can then be sure it’s ready to be submitted by Feb 1.

The poll will close on Friday night.

Please feel free to justify your decision in the comments section people to try and persuade others

Introduction to Debate

From talking to lots of coaches in Southern California it seems that some programs are approaching NFA-LD as a “spring semester” event – with the idea that we get our students warmed up in the fall and then do a big push to get the event ready for state/nationals over break in the spring. While I think it’s harder to jump onboard the moving train, I definitely respect that position. It looks like it’s how Rio Hondo will be participating in the event this year – we should have at least 2 NFA-LD debaters at the SoCal Champs!

For any of the new debaters who are just picking up the event I thought it might be helpful to offer a broad introduction to the world of NFA-LD debate. If you’ve done individual events or parliamentary debate you’ll have a nice framework to integrate NFA-LD into your events. If you’ve never done anything consider this a primer.

NFA-LD is a one-on-one policy debate event. By policy debate I mean that there is a single resolution for the entire season centered around a possible course of action a specific actor can or can not take. This year, the policy topic is centered on the United States Federal Government (often abbreviated USFG) reforming transportation infrastructure. So throughout the year debaters present arguments for or against reforming our transportation infrastructure. This is different from parliamentary debate that includes a variety of debate case styles (fact-value-policy) and changes resolution for each debate. In NFA-LD you’ll be debating the same resolution at every tournament in every round.

Now that may seem like it will get really boring really fast. But the beauty of the topic is that it’s sufficiently broad (some may say too broad) to allow some freedom for debaters to pick what area of transportation reform they will defend. For this year’s topic, my interpretation is that debaters can choose from reforming roads, rails, air, or the port systems. So while you may be debating “transportation reform” each round the specific action you debate can vary tremendously.

The other significant difference between parliamentary debate and NFA-LD debate is that debaters are expected to research and present quoted evidence (called cards since they used to be presented on 3×5 index cards). Since you know the topic ahead of time you are afforded the opportunity to research and prepare arguments that rely on published quotations from experts. Thus, while parliamentary debate generally focuses on a debater’s own reasoning, NFA-LD asks that debater’s substantiate that reasoning with qualified evidence. That’s not to say debaters in NFA-LD can not make their own arguments (often called “analytics”) but just that for the most part, if two debaters present arguments and one is backed up with quoted evidence and the other is only an analytic, usually the quoted evidence carries more weight.

NFA-LD debate is also highly structured with very specific rules. These rules are an attempt to create a level playing field for all debaters – create a shared expectation of what the event will look like so all debaters are prepared. The rules also set out a vision for the event as a communication oriented debate format. In contrast to other debate formats which place a strong emphasis on argumentation alone, NFA-LD debate tries to be different. For me, this is the strength of the event. You will learn different, equally important skills, by competing in NFA-LD as opposed to other formats of debate. While CEDA/NDT may emphasize the quantity of evidence, NFA-LD emphasizes the balance between argumentation and presentation.

The first step I recommend when beginning the event is to start reading as much on the topic as you can. You could just type “transportation infrastructure” into google and have fun with 102 million results. You can also go to the research tab above and click on any of the topic specific sites which can guide you into understanding the debate topic. The next step is to decide on your affirmative case. What do you want to do to reform transportation infrastructure? You need to come up with your plan – and build your case. You can ready more on that process here.

If you’re here at this site it’s likely because you will be competing in NFA-LD in the near future – congrats! I think you’ve made a great decision to improve your argumentation, public speaking, and critical thinking skills. I’ll be trying to post at least twice a week on this site to help promote NFA-LD so I hope this will become a valuable resource. Please feel free to add your voice in the comments section of the posts – we’d love to have a diverse set of opinions – it is, after all, debate =)

Looking for Hired Judges? Want to be a hired judge?

I’m happy to announce my next project is ready to roll out as a beta site for the Spring 2010 semester – JudgeHarmony.com

JudgeHarmony solves the #1 problem tournament directors and coaches face – finding enough judges for upcoming tournaments. The site is available for middle school, high school and college tournaments.

We also solve a common complaint among potential hired judges – finding tournaments. Through a complex algorithm coaches and judges are matched making it easy for coaches to find potential judges and potential judges to find tournaments to judge.

If you are a potential judge the site is totally free – there is no charge for registering as a potential judge or to receive emails matching you up with coaches. Currently, 22 judges are registered with the site!

For the spring semester it will be free for coaches/tournament directors to send out a request – in the fall I’m likely going to start charging $4.99. If you are a potential hired judge it will be free to be added to the database. Part of the appeal is that potential judges can enter their zip code and distance willing to travel (ie, 100 miles) and receive only announcements that match their preferences. My hope is that it will thus help both coaches/tournament directors find judges and judges only get announcements they are likely to fulfill.

If you are currently a judge – sign up on the site – it’s free and easy and could make your life easier getting hired for future tournaments. If you are currently a college student – sign up on the site – high schools are always looking for more judges and you may gain valuable experience from the other side of the ballot to help you in your LD rounds.

If you’re a coach – consider using the site this semester to try and find hired judges for your tournaments – it’s free right now so there is no risk…

Case Idea? Require broadband…

Not sure if this would be topical or not but it sounds really interesting – require any new construction to install broadband telecommunications cables.

My initial thought is that this is a perfect example of reforming the infrastructure. Currently, highways are not required to have broadband – this reform will require them which will greatly boost internet speed and access.

This seems like a perfect case to “break” in outrounds to try to sneak past an opponent =)

Any thoughts?

Writing a Disadvantage

So on this year’s topic you should have a wide range of generic positions to run against almost any case. Because the affirmative could, realistically, run a new plan every single round, it’s going to be very common for you to debate against cases you have little to no evidence against.

In that instance you must rely on your generics to win you the round – especially disadvantages. One side benefit is that you may know your generic positions much better than the affirmative debater knows their new case of the week – so it gives you an advantage. Of course, you’re going to have an uphill battle on the link – but if you can establish the link you’ll at least have one position in the debate with evidence as opposed to all analytic positions.

Here is a disadvantage I’ve been mulling over in judging some rounds this year and thinking about the topic - increased congestion. I want to kind of walk through the process of writing the disadvantage as opposed to simply posting a file for you to use. As I mentioned on the affirmative case construction lecture, I’m a big believer in getting something done now and then improving it. I’m not worried at this point if these are the best possible cards on this topic. The disadvantage can always be improved later. The important thing now is to get the disadvantage written.

Step 1: Coming up with a shell.

The first thing I recommend when writing a disadvantage is to write down a rough shell of where you think the disadvantage is going. This is where if you do parliamentary debate your skills of coming up with positions on the fly will serve you well. Here is what I came up with:

Thesis: their plan will make congestion worse on freeways

Uniqueness:
Currently transportation policy focused on adding highway capacity to reduce congestion

Link:
Their plan reduces (a) focus on highways (ie, rail cases, port, air) (b) reduces funding for roads (ie, shift money from roads to rail, public transit buses)

Internal Link:
Decreased funds means worse roads and more congestion

Impact:
wasted money, deaths from accidents, bad economy

Step 2: Research

I then started doing research on congestion and found these two great sources:
Texas Transportation Institute Urban Mobility Report 2009 and the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Congestion and Reliability Report from 2005.

Step 3: Cutting Cards

I quickly started cutting cards and ended up with these 17 cards. The CardCutter is still available on the site although I’m going to be working on improving it this summer. Remember that you’ll want to include as much of the citation as possible since the first time you read the card you should include the full author, his/her credibility, and title/source.

Step 4: Coming up with a shell

Placing them into the shell I get this quick and dirty disadvantage that took me probably about 1 hour to finish. The internal link is atrocious but that can be improved. The idea is that I now have a foundation to work off. As I keep up on research and reading about transportation policy I’ll probably find better cards to take the place of this evidence.

You also now have something to run against many possible cases. It may not be the best position but it’s something and judges will appreciate that effort.

Here is the disadvantage:

A. Uniqueness

Congestion is being dealt with in the status quo – at least
stabilizing
Schrank & Lomax 2009
[David; Tim | Texas Transportation Institute Urban Mobility Report 2009, p.online | 07/01/2009 |
Accessed 01-02-10 ~ http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility_report_2009.pdf !DJC]
Congestion, by every measure, has increased substantially over the 25 years covered in this report. The most recent two years of the report, however, have seen slower growth or even a decline in congestion. Delay per traveler – the number of hours of extra travel time that commuters spend during rush hours – was 1.3 hours lower in 2007 than 2005. This change would be more hopeful if it was associated with something other than rising fuel prices (which occurred for a short time in 2005 and 2006 before the sustained increase in 2007 and 2008) and a slowing economy. This same kind of slow growth/decline over a few years occurred in the early 1990s when spending and growth in the high- tech and defense sectors of the economy declined dramatically. The decline means congestion is near the levels recorded in 2003, not exactly a year remembered for trouble-free commuting.

B. Link

1. Their plan focuses transportation policy on one area of _[say area]_
2. Congestion solutions require balanced and diversified approach
Schrank & Lomax 2009
[David; Tim | Texas Transportation Institute Urban Mobility Report 2009, p.online | 07/01/2009 |
Accessed 01-02-10 ~ http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility_report_2009.pdf !DJC]
We recommend a balanced and diversified approach to reduce congestion – one that focuses on more of everything. It is clear that our current investment levels have not kept pace with the problems. Population growth will require more systems, better operations and increased number of travel alternatives. And most urban regions have big problems now – more congestion, poorer pavement and bridge conditions and less public transportation service than they would like. There will be a different mix of solutions in metro regions, cities, neighborhoods, job centers and shopping areas. Some areas might be more amenable to construction solutions, other areas might use more travel options, productivity improvements, diversified land use patterns or redevelopment solutions. In all cases, the solutions need to work together to provide an interconnected network of transportation services.

C. Internal Link

Efforts to reduce congestion limited by funding
Chester County Planning Commission, accessed 2009
[Highway page, p.online | no date given | Accessed 01-02-10 ~
http://www.landscapes2.org/Transportation/transIssuesHigh.html !DJC]
Efforts to reduce traffic congestion and improve highway safety are limited by the availability of funding. While funding levels have actually increased in recent years, the buying power is less because of dramatic escalation in construction costs. The construction cost index has increased 100% since 1996. Funding levels have not kept pace with the rate of material inflation. The effect of this funding shortage has been a backlog of capital projects, higher priorities to system-maintenance, increased pressure to scale back capacity-adding highway projects, and increased interests in alternative financing including roadway tolling and asset privatization.

D. Impact

1. Congestion costs us 4.2 billion hours and 87.2 billion dollars

Schrank & Lomax 2009
[David; Tim | Texas Transportation Institute Urban Mobility Report 2009, p.online | 07/01/2009 |
Accessed 01-02-10 ~ http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility_report_2009.pdf !DJC]
Congestion is a problem in America’s 439 urban areas, and it has gotten worse in regions of all sizes. In 2007, congestion caused urban Americans to travel 4.2 billion hours more and to purchase an extra 2.8 billion gallons of fuel for a congestion cost of $87.2 billion – an increase of more than 50% over the previous decade (Exhibit 1). This was a decrease of 40 million hours and a decrease of 40 million gallons, but an increase of over $100 million from 2006 due to an increase in the cost of fuel and truck delay. Small traffic volume declines brought on by increases in fuel prices over the last half of 2007 caused a small reduction in congestion from 2006 to 2007.

2. Congestion hurts economic growth

Federal Highway Administration 2005
[ | Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Traffic Congestion and Reliability, p.online | 09/01/2005 | Accessed
01-02-10 ~ http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion_report/congestion_report_05.pdf !DJC]
The nation’s local, regional, and national transportation systems play a vital role in creating access to goods and services which sustain and grow our nation’s economy. Planners and economic development experts recognize that congestion is an economic development issue because it thwarts business attraction and expansion, and reduces the quality of life for residents.

Any thoughts on the Disadvantage? Anyone running something similar? Have any research or articles to improve the cards?

And the winner is

Our first contest is over for SoCal-LD.net and I’m happy to announce NKM with a guess of 25,000. was the winner! From August 1 to Dec 31, SoCal-LD.net had 26,802 total hits for an average of 5,360 hits per month! That means the difference was 1,802 for NKM – the closest of the guesses.

Since the blog was launched in 2006 the site has pretty much doubled its hits each year. In the first full year of 2007 we had a total of 7,475 hits, 2008 had 14,608, and 2009 had 39,980.

Coming up locally is the Pt Loma tournament (one of the biggest national draws in Southern California – a good warmup for NFA), the Glendale tournament, the SoCal LD Championships in February (details soon), and Spring champs. Then the CA State Championship for 2 yr schools and of course NFA. I hope we can get some more CA participation out at NFA this year!

Thanks for making the site one of the largest NFA-LD sites in the country. I hope the spring semester brings some more great debates!

Copyright SoCal-LD.net | Theme by DailyBlogTips