Affirmative Side Bias
First, I want to congratulate everyone for a fantastic season of NFA-LD in Southern California. The activity is growing by leaps and bounds and there are some phenomenally talented debaters in our area.
I’m going to use this forum to discuss one of the biggest problems that NFA-LD had this year – affirmative side bias.
What is side bias? Simply put, side bias consists of factors which are external to the arguments articulated in a debate that give a debater an artificial advantage based solely on what side of the resolution they are advocating. A good analogy can be found in NFL football. When two teams go to overtime, they use a sudden death format – first to score wins. Hence, there is side bias in that the team that wins the coin flip to determine who gets the ball usually elects to receive the kick, and thus has the first opportunity to score. The rules are biased in that team’s favor.
Critical Thinking
Throughout higher education critical thinking is a central tenant of most college classes. Most students must complete a “critical thinking” requirement in order to get their degree. Debate is certainly one of the best activities to teach critical thinking and is one of the reasons it is my passion to teach and share with other people. I believe that a world full of critical thinkers would be a better world and the more students that I can reach to improve their critical thinking skills the more success I will be as a teacher.
What is Critical Thinking? The Center for Critical offers a few diffferent definitions on their webpage. For me, I think it’s best summed up as the ability to think clearly and rationally. It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking.
A critical thinker is one who, when confronted with a stressful situation, can think through their thoughts and pause before making rash decisions. In debate, it involves not necessarily answering the argument with the most knee-jerk reaction but pausing a moment to evaluate the different options one has in responding to the argument. A good critical thinker understands the interaction of many different arguments with each other. A critical thinker will see where contradictions might happen between different arguments made at different points in the debate.
Secondly, a critical thinker is one who can think rationally during the debate – a person who makes logical arguments that appeal to the audience and offer the most persuasive case for their side. Bill Sparks, former director at Cerritos College, argued that spread debate is the antithesis of critical thinking. That when confronted with a debater using spread (by which I mean, dumping as many arguments as possible in response to position) he immediately wondered if he or she had any critical thinking skills. Rather than employing spread he taught his students to use their critical thinking skills to present the best arguments rather than all the arguments. So rather than respond to a topicality position with 30 answers – some of which may or may not apply to a particular position, choose 5 arguments that directly refute and counter the position. Explain those 5 arguments more in depth and justify the importance of each argument both in refutation of the position being made and the entire debate. That would show the judge much higher order critical thinking than just spewing out every possible answer.
It’s easy to defend the debater using spread as simply being smarter. That rather than coming up with only 5 responses to a position the debater used their critical thinking to come up with 30 arguments. That the debater making more arguments necessarily used more critical thinking to come up with more responses. However, I don’t think that’s true at all. I don’t think it’s hard to come up with 30 answers to any position. It’s deciding which of those 30 answers, in this particular debate round, with this particular judge, are the best answers, that employs the greatest level of critical thinking skills. As a judge I would much rather hear five nuanced and well explained answers to a position than 30 blipped arguments that require me, as a judge, to draw connections between the original argument and the refutation.
One example of this is the lack of signposting when responding to arguments in a debate. As a judge I detest debaters who say “on topicality, here are my 30 answers” and proceed to make all different types of responses to different parts of the topicality position. Answers 1,3,5,19,20-22 all deal with the standards debate, answers 2,4,6,8-14 all deal with the violation, and the rest deal with the voter. Strategically, the debater is likely trying to obfuscate the debate and try to ensure that the affirmative debater misses one of those answers. In the 2AR then, the debater will make the connection between dropped argument 21 and the lack of a response to the 3rd standard. For me, this is bad debating and shows a lack of critical thinking skills. It’s playing the game of debate as we’ve discussed before.
I think the same line of thinking can be applied to running topicality every single round. Sure, there are enough competing definitions of transportation infrastructure that you could probably run it against any case. However, do you need to? Is it in your strategic interest? A critical thinker will examine the situation and choose to run topicality whereas someone who defaults to running it every round is likely just following the script rather than applying their critical thinking skills to the round. Are there alternative arguments that would be a better use of the debater’s time? In front of this particular judge is topicality a losing issue anyway?
Third, critical thinking requires reflective thinking. This is the area that debate trains the best in my opinion. Because we split debates into constructives and rebuttals, debaters are forced to evaluate what is happening within the debate itself in order to give themselves the best chance of winning. You need to be able to take a step back and evaluate the round – what positions am I winning – what positions is my opponent winning? How can my positions earn me the ballot? A big component of critical thinking is the idea that you can examine the different points of view on an issue. Most novice debaters are only able to see the debate through the prism of their own perspective – hence, why so many novice debaters do not understand why they lost the debate. Reflective thinking, on the other hand, enables a debater to see the round from the other debater’s point of view and – perhaps more importantly – from the point of view of the judge. One of the best activities that you can do as a college debater to understand the different points of view would be to judge at local high school debate tournaments. As a judge you will see that the two debate teams often are seeing the round very differently from each other – and from you!
Another way that debate requires reflective thinking is that you must evaluate what is and is not working in your debate rounds. Following a tournament analyze where and how you lost each debate round. Furthermore, analyze where and how you won each debate round. This will give you a good idea where the strengths and weaknesses of your case are to help you in future rounds. If you keep losing to topicality it’s time to write out some better answers – or maybe find a new case?
Finally, critical thinking requires independent thinking. Independent thinking in debate means that you do your own research – pure and simple. When you have research and developed your own case you will be much more successful in the activity. As we’ve discussed before I’m perfectly fine with brand new students using camp/outside evidence for the first few tournaments in order to get familar with the activity and what using evidence looks like in a debate. Beyond that I think students are losing out on one of the most important benefits of the activity – research and critical thinking skills. It does not take much critical thinking to run evidence/cases that someone else has written for you. It takes incredible amounts of critical thinking to find articles, cut them into position, use those in a debate, and win debate rounds. Beyond any trophy that you may win in a tournament that skill will last you a life time and be incredibly valuable.
In sum, critical thinking is one of the most important skills in the 21st century and one that debate can teach extremely well. However, debaters, judges, and coaches must make choices to promote their critical thinking skills in debate. It’s been almost 7 years since my last competitive debate round and I can attest that the critical thinking skills I learned in debate are still valuable today.
Spring Champs Results
Congratulations to the following award winners from last weekend’s tournament. I know Mike will be working on the last season sweeps update….
Very exciting to see 11 different schools receiving at least 1 award this weekend in NFA-LD! Cume sheets available on forensicstournament.net
2010 PSCFA Paul Gaske Spring Champs
San Diego State – Feb 26-28 2010
Final Placing Junior LD
Team Final Result
Pt Loma Wilso (James Wilson) BRONZE
Biola McCur (Stephanie McCurley) BRONZE
OCC Delah (James Delahoussaye) BRONZE
Solano Raybu (Josh Rayburn) SILVER
Biola Frede (Jenna Fredericksen) SILVER
Biola Hensl (Jonathan Hensley) GOLD
Biola VanHu (Corey VanHuystee) GOLD
2010 PSCFA Paul Gaske Spring Champs
San Diego State – Feb 26-28 2010
Final Placing Novice LD
Team Final Result
Irvine Valley Arasa (Jaya Arasalike) BRONZE
Pt Loma Sonod (Jonothan Sonoda) BRONZE
Pasadena City Tyler (Jeff Tyler) SILVER
Cal Baptist Rose (Victor Rose) GOLD
2010 PSCFA Paul Gaske Spring Champs
San Diego State – Feb 26-28 2010
Final Placing Senior LD
Team Final Result
OCC Aly (Mohammed Aly) BRONZE
Palomar Meiha (Michael Meihaus) BRONZE
Pt Loma Sharp (Ian Sharples) BRONZE
Cal Baptist Lamas (Alex Lamascus) BRONZE
Pt Loma Andre (MacLean Andrews) BRONZE
UC Los Angeles Matth (Nick Matthews) BRONZE
El Camino Maxwe (Robert Maxwell) SILVER
Moorpark Laugh (Joe Laughon) SILVER
Irvine Valley Croud (Jason Croudace) SILVER
OCC Towle (Megan Towles) GOLD
Pt Loma Nadal (Daniel Nadal) GOLD
Moorpark Taylo (Ebony Taylor) GOLD
Season Sweeps Update #5
Here is the latest update on the season sweeps. The amazing job that Eric Garcia and company are doing at Biola is not to be overlooked, as they are leading in both divisions! You’ll notice however UCLA is only 1.45% behind, so get on it Nick! 
As always, any errors are my own. You’ll recall from previous posts that the award will cover tournaments through this weekend at Spring Champs. Prelim wins and rounds count normally, all elim rounds count as 3 wins and 3 ballots.
Also, for those who were against the Novice division being included in the individual sweeps, remember that being in novice isn’t always a (relative) cakewalk. This last weekend at Glendale, CBU was the only school who entered the novice division, so my 5 novices (3 of which had never been to a tournament before) went 4 and 16 against open competition. Notice also how the individuals who won rounds in novice early in the year are now in junior and open divisions.
I’ll see many of you Saturday!
Spring Champs
There are currently 52 debaters signed up for NFA-LD for this Saturday at the 2010 PSCFA “Paul Gaske” Spring Championship tournament. 26 in Senior, 16 in Junior and 10 in novice from about 13 schools. Good luck to all the competitors!
Novice NFA-LD entries
Jeff Tyler – Pasadena City College
Jonothan Sonoda – Point Loma Nazarene University
Jason Maves – Rio Hondo College
Shayna Lurya – Orange Coast College
Jaya Arasalike – Irvine Valley College
Victor Rose – California Baptist University
William Fragoza – California Baptist University
Sam Fragoza – California Baptist University
Corey Keirns – California Baptist University
Kamal Lahlou – Irvine Valley College
Junior NFA-LD entries:
Solano Community College – Junior NFA-LD – Josh Rayburn
Point Loma Nazarene University – Junior NFA-LD – James Wilson
Pasadena City College – Junior NFA-LD – Andrew Silverstein
Biola University – Junior NFA-LD – Amy Scofield
Biola University – Junior NFA-LD – Jenna Fredericksen
Biola University – Junior NFA-LD – Jonathan Hensley
Biola University – Junior NFA-LD – Stephanie McCurley
Biola University – Junior NFA-LD – Corey VanHuystee
Biola University – Junior NFA-LD – David Kraiss
Biola University – Junior NFA-LD – Steven Reynolds
Orange Coast College – Junior NFA-LD – James Delahoussaye
Orange Coast College – Junior NFA-LD – Zach Rosen
Moorpark College – Junior NFA-LD – Allison Bowman
California Baptist University – Junior NFA-LD – Rebecca Wurm
Los Angeles Valley College – Junior NFA-LD – Gegam Petrosyan
Senior NFA-LD entries:
Point Loma Nazarene University – Senior NFA-LD – Daniel Nadal
Point Loma Nazarene University – Senior NFA-LD – MacLean Andrews
Point Loma Nazarene University – Senior NFA-LD – Ian Sharples
Pasadena City College – Senior NFA-LD – Nolan Pack
Point Loma Nazarene University – Senior NFA-LD – Ciera Wilson
Irvine Valley College – Senior NFA-LD – Jason Croudace
Point Loma Nazarene University – Senior NFA-LD – Barbara Gausewitz
Palomar College – Senior NFA-LD – Alyssa Sambor
Palomar College – Senior NFA-LD – Michael Meihaus
Palomar College – Senior NFA-LD – Stephanie Sorensen
Palomar College – Senior NFA-LD – Jon Chi Lou
Palomar College – Senior NFA-LD – Laura Ross
Palomar College – Senior NFA-LD – Mark Notarian
Orange Coast College – Senior NFA-LD – Mohammed Aly
Orange Coast College – Senior NFA-LD – Megan Towles
University of California, Los Angeles – Senior NFA-LD – Nick Matthews
El Camino College – Senior NFA-LD – Ashley Graham
El Camino College – Senior NFA-LD – Richard Ewell
El Camino College – Senior NFA-LD – Robert Maxwell
El Camino College – Senior NFA-LD – David “Bear” Saulet
El Camino College – Senior NFA-LD – Mark Faaita
El Camino College – Senior NFA-LD – Shouhei Ichimiya
Moorpark College – Senior NFA-LD – Joe Laughon
Moorpark College – Senior NFA-LD – Ebony Taylor
California Baptist University – Senior NFA-LD – Alex Lamascus
Point Loma Nazarene University – Senior NFA-LD – John Morris
Glendale Breaks
Congratulations to the following 7 debaters for clearing to elimination rounds!
Biola Hensley (Jonathan Hensley)
Biola Reynolds (Steven Reynolds)
El Paso Anguiano (Joel Anguiano)
El Paso Bohannon (Terrell Bohannon)
El Paso Grijalva (Albert Grijalva)
El Paso Klooster (Susannah Klooster)
Mt. SAC Nakama (Jin Nakama)
2010 Glendale Golden Cowboy Tournament
16 debaters are entered for tomorrow’s Glendale tournament – good luck!
February 2010 is probably the first month in Southern California to offer NFA-LD EVERY weekend! Pt Loma, Cerritos, Glendale and Spring Champs – wow, what a month!
We’ll be breaking to semifinals and remember that the final round will be judged by a CA Assembly member!
Biola Hensley Jonathan Hensley
Biola Reynolds Steven Reynolds
Cal Baptist Fachner Tawni Fachner
Cal Baptist Fragoza William Fragoza
Cal Baptist Keirns Corey Keirns
Cal Baptist Kristensen Cassie Kristensen
Cal Baptist Rose Victor Rose
Cal Baptist Wurm Rebecca Wurm
El Paso Anguiano Joel Anguiano
El Paso Bohannon Terrell Bohannon
El Paso Grijalva Albert Grijalva
El Paso Klooster Susannah Klooster
LA Valley Petrosyan Gegam Petrosyan
Mt. SAC Nakama Jin Nakama
Mt. SAC Sherwood Sarah Sherwood
Rio Hondo Maves Jason Maves
Case Idea?
Have your case adopted by the federal government already? Looking for a new winning affirmative after your 1AC went 0-2 last weekend?
Here is an interesting idea that I read about today on the New York Times – roundabouts. It’s pretty clearly topical – I’m not sure how much more reforming of roads you could do. I’m not sure how much it would cost but it seems like a pretty good idea from the article.
Plus, you can build big monuments in the middle!
Anyone running this? Anyone have good ideas on the neg?
Southern California LD Championships – full results
Congratulations to OCC for winning the 4th annual LD Championships!
OCC Towl (Megan Towles) 1st
Pasadena City Pack (Nolan Pack) 2nd
Moorpark Laug (Joe Laughon) Semis
El Paso Boha (Terrell Bohannon) Semis
Irvine Valley Aras (Jaya Arasalike) Quarters
El Camino Ewel (Richard Ewell) Quarters
El Camino Maxw (Robert Maxwell) Quarters
El Camino Saul (David Saulet) Quarters
Cume sheets available at forensicstournament.net!
Southern California LD Championships – breaks
Congratulations to the following 8 debaters for making it to quarterfinals:
El Camino Ewel (Richard Ewell)
El Camino Maxw (Robert Maxwell)
El Camino Saul (David Saulet)
El Paso Boha (Terrell Bohannon)
Irvine Valley Aras (Jaya Arasalike)
Moorpark Laug (Joe Laughon)
OCC Towl (Megan Towles)
Pasadena City Pack (Nolan Pack)
Quarters underway…
4th Annual LD Championships
The tournament is set to begin tomorrow. Here are the entries for NFA-LD. As announced earlier, the tournament will break to quarterfinals which will start at 2:30pm. Good luck. We’ll post updates throughout the day tomorrow.
Round 1 starts at 9:00am
1 Cal Baptist Carp David Carpio
2 Cal Baptist Lama Alex Lamascus
3 Cal Baptist Rose Victor Rose
4 Cal Baptist SF Sam Fragoza
5 Cal Baptist WF William Fragoza
6 Cerritos Voor Shantal Voorwinden
7 El Camino Awak Sydney Awakuni
8 El Camino Ewel Richard Ewell
9 El Camino Faai Mark Faaita
10 El Camino Grah Ashley Graham
11 El Camino Ichi Shouhei Ichimiya
12 El Camino Maxw Robert Maxwell
13 El Camino Saul David Saulet
14 El Paso Boha Terrell Bohannon
15 Irvine Valley Aras Jaya Arasalike
16 Irvine Valley Nabu Nicole Nabulsi
17 LA Valley Petr Gegam Petrosyan
18 Moorpark Bowm Allison Bowman
19 Moorpark Laug Joe Laughon
20 Moorpark Tayl Ebony Taylor
21 Mt. SAC Diaz Carlos Diaz
22 Mt. SAC Naka Jin Nakama
23 Mt. SAC Padi Xavier Padilla
24 Mt. SAC Sher Sarah Sherwood
25 OCC Aly Mohammed Aly
26 OCC Dela James Delahoussaye
27 OCC Rose Zach Rosen
28 OCC Towl Megan Towles
29 Pasadena City Pack Nolan Pack
30 Pasadena City Silv Andrew Silverstein
31 Pasadena City Tyle Jeff Tyler
32 Rio Hondo Mave Jason Maves
Interesting comment
From the Sunset Cliffs post an anonymous person writes:
all the preparation is wasted. opp strategy is always Topicality, procedurals, and counterplans. the debate doesn’t start until the 2nd speech.
at least thats what it seems like.
If true, I think this is a very damaging to both the future adoption of the event by schools and the entire rationale for having NFA-LD debate.
As a school considering adding NFA-LD to my program this vision of the activity is not very enticing. It seems to privilege experience of debate “games” over topic specific knowledge. If true, it wouldn’t matter how much research I did on any particular topic but instead how well I know how to answer a generic more-or-less made up for debate position. It also defeats the point of having a single resolution for the entire season if the research one conducts ahead of the tournament is of little use.
As coaches and judges I think we need to evaluate what paths we are encouraging our students to take when competing in NFA-LD. If the comment is true, by rewarding debaters who ignore the case debate we may be ultimately sowing the seeds for reversing the tremendous growth of NFA-LD in Southern California.
While I never like absolutes given that each round is unique and dynamic, I think debaters who make no pretense of debating case (even with analytics) are avoiding the core of the debate and should rarely, if ever, be given the win. Debate can and should be more than just a robotic answering of arguments and the “flow sheet.” If so, why even have a live competition? Just submit your arguments ahead of time and judges will evaluate what briefs should win.
I think we can also have a more-or-less sliding scale as the season develops – sure, at the start of the year students will have little specific neg evidence but by this time in the year negative debaters unprepared with specific case arguments should be penalized.
What are your thoughts and impressions? I’ve gotten much the same impression as the anonymous commenter on the state of NFA-LD and it’s really making me question my continued support for NFA-LD as a tournament event… I can do only so much as a judge – this is a question not about what individual judges or coaches can do but about the culture of the activity and what is rewarded.
I hope we can keep this discussion civil…