Yearlong Sweepstakes
I’d like to take this opportunity to lay out the details of the yearlong sweeps, for the purpose of either confirming them or adjusting them before our first tournament. While everyone is more than welcome to add their $.02, only the members of the Executive Committee (currently Myself, Michael Miller, Robert Maxwell, David Saulet, Danny Cantrell) get an official vote.
I will lay out the Yearlong Sweeps as it existed last year, and then I’m thinking in the next week or so we’ll call a vote via e-mail of those committee members.
There are three divisions of awards. As of last year, novice and senior distinctions are not made because coaches are expected to put competitors in their correct division, making the competition theoretically equal for everyone. The argument is that enough tournaments disallow very experienced debaters to enter Novice divisions to make coach abuse (putting senior level debaters into novice) negligible.
The first division is the Lincoln Division, which goes to the school with the highest percentage of wins. This one is the toughest to describe. Prelims are simple in that each competitor simply has their wins divided by the number of prelim wins. For example, a debater that goes 1-3 at a four prelim tournament would have a 25% winning percentage for the Lincoln Division. Final rounds become more complicated. In order to prevent punishing debaters for losing percentage points for breaking, all final rounds in which a debate competes are assumed to be 3-0 wins. If the debater does not progress beyond the first elimination round, only the initial 3-0 round is tabulated. For example, Debater A went 2-2 in prelims, and did not break. Debater B went 3-1 in prelims and lost according to all three judges in the first elim round. Debater C went 3-1 in prelims and won on a 2-1 in the first prelim, but lost 0-3 in the second prelim. According to the current tabulation system, A would get a 50% (2 wins, 4 rounds), B would get an 86% (6 wins, 7 rounds), and C would get 90% (9 wins, 10 rounds). To illustrate why this system was used, if we went strictly by wins and losses on every ballot, A would still get 50%, B would get 43% (3 wins, 7 ballots), and C would get 50% (5 wins, 10 ballots). As you can see, that system would sometimes lower someone’s percentage for breaking. The current system argues that prelim losses are important, but debaters are rewarded for proceeding to the next elim round by a higher win percentage. This division is designed to reward smaller teams who have more quality debaters.
The second division is the Douglas Division, which describes the number of adjusted wins. This is similar to the above calculation, but ignores the number of rounds involved. Every team simply gets a win for every prelim win, and 3 wins for each appearence in an elim round. This division is designed to reward larger teams who choose to support the activity with larger squads and participation.
The third division is similar to the Lincoln division, but for individual debaters as opposed to teams. The third division awards the SoCal-LD Debater of the Year award.
All three divisions are restricted by participation, and to be eligible a team or competitor must compete at a minimum of 33% of possible tournaments. Recall that only tournaments that take place in Southern California are tabulated, though schools from outside Southern California are tabulated. Last year, no school from outside the region went to the requisite 33% of tournaments (which turned out to be a minimum of three).
Last year, I tabulated the results. I felt comfortable including my own school in the award lists, since the data from which the results were drawn are publically accessible and transparent. I certainly don’t have to do the tabulation, but am willing to do it again. It really wasn’t too hard, once I set up the spread sheet to produce the proper document I posted at various intervals last year.
So, there it is. Can we make this better?
Szasz….
Well…. any negative debater who doesn’t bring up Szasz… in every debate…. may be giving up a trump card on this topic. While I’ve only so far brushed upon the topic it seems pretty persuasive that the entire concept of “mental illness” is a fiction to deem some behavior inappropriate in society. It may be very hard to find an affirmative that in some way does not link to Thomas Szasz’s argument.
Although I wonder if cases which do not lead to involuntary lockup would be immune from the main line of attack – that seems to be his principal complaint.
His “Manifesto” from 1998 is a good introduction:
“Myth of mental illness.” Mental illness is a metaphor (metaphorical disease). The word “disease” denotes a demonstrable biological process that affects the bodies of living organisms (plants, animals, and humans). The term “mental illness” refers to the undesirable thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of persons. Classifying thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as diseases is a logical and semantic error, like classifying the whale as a fish. As the whale is not a fish, mental illness is not a disease. Individuals with brain diseases (bad brains) or kidney diseases (bad kidneys) are literally sick. Individuals with mental diseases (bad behaviors), like societies with economic diseases (bad fiscal policies), are metaphorically sick. The classification of (mis)behavior as illness provides an ideological justification for state-sponsored social control as medical treatment.
The site has tremendous resources available to understand the argument in more detail. I especially found the “DebatesDebates” interesting.
This comment from Tiger has a great resource (large PDF) from CATO to introduce you to his central argument.
Here is a quick introduction and some good questions that will probably come up in CX from the man himself:
As I’ve said before – I do not think this can only be brought up in a debate framed as a kritik of the affirmative debater. I think it could go a long way on solvency – if the “harm” is merely a rhetorical fiction then the policy will go no where to solve the harm.
Now that I think of it I may have stumbled upon the one case that will not link to Szasz – a Szasz affirmative – substantially reform the provision of mental health services to the chronically mentally ill by getting rid of all mental health services to the chronically mentally ill! That may be a bit extreme.
Whatever you do – please make sure to have some answers to Szasz frontlined and ready to go for your affirmative rounds. I’d be surprised if it didn’t come up 99% of the rounds this year.
While each case would require different answers anyone have any suggestions for affirmative debaters to avoid losing to Szasz every round?
2010 NFA-LD Coop Evidence Now Available
Hey folks,
The LD Coop evidence has been released by John Boyer for general consumption. You can download the full set at this link: http://www.net-benefits.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=439&d=1283189995
I attended the camp, so I’ll just give a little overview of the evidence. But first, a word of caution.
This evidence is released by John Boyer and the camp so that the debate community can see what we have been doing. Under no circumstances should this evidence be used as a substitute for original research. If you use camp files for the entire year, well, frankly, you’re not going to succeed competitively. Why? Well, first of all, you’ll have a hard time beating me, because I have read every last card in the file and can easily clobber you with your own evidence. Second, the best debaters will be cutting things that these files aren’t going to have responses to. And third, the best way to become acquainted with your own evidence is to cut it yourself. If you’re just reading files that other people handed to you, you’re not going to understand the evidence and you’re not going to know how to use it in a manner that maximizes their utility.
You should use this evidence only to supplement what you have already done, but even then, not before you have extensively read through and highlighted it. And I will promise you this – if I catch anyone reading exclusively camp evidence after the first few tournaments of the year, my first response in a round will be to call you out on it. Research is not particularly hard. Try some.
Without further ado:
Read the rest of this entry »
Great Resource
I’m starting to get intrigued by my college mental health case – and will likely post a sample case in the next few days to give those who are new to the topic an idea of what a case should look like. Also, if you have questions about what your first affirmative constructive speech should look like you can view my lecture on the subject or see samples from past seasons.
I came across this list of really good resources from the Consensus Project. A few of their really good articles:
- Mental Health Courts: A Guide to Research-Informed Policy and Practice
- The Advocacy Handbook: A Guide to Implementing Recommendations of the Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus Project
- The Cost-Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Diversion Programs for People With Serious Mental Illness Co-Occurring With Substance Abuse
You can view the entire list here. Good luck with case ideas! And of course, remember, that you will also be negative, so start thinking of negative strategies against these cases even if they are not your cup of tea.
Possible Case Area? College Mental Health?
Just got my first email with Mental Health news from Medline. Saw this interesting article that could be a good case. I haven’t researched it yet but a case dealing with the mental health of college students could be really interesting!
Good Introduction card
More cases of severe mental illness are being reported among college students than a decade ago, as more young people with mental health issues tackle a post-secondary education and are open to getting help when they need it, a new U.S. study shows
Possible harm?
The use of prescription medications by students to treat psychiatric illness has also risen significantly over the past decade, the research team noted.
Your thoughts?
Qualified Judging in a World of Specialization
There’s been a lot of discussion about the nature of judging vis-à-vis Michael Miller’s previous post, found here. I’m not going to talk about speed, at least not in-depth; my feelings on this were made pretty clear in my comments within the aforementioned post. But I’d like to use the discussion as a jumping off point for something that I’ve been think about for awhile. Here is the question, in all its awkwardly-worded glory: what is the minimum standard of qualification for a debate judge?
First, I think it is important to consider the role of the judge within the debate round. He or she determines who wins the round, obviously. But there’s more to it than that, I think. Every judge has his or her preferences and worldviews regarding debate. Good debaters will adapt the content of the round to match those worldviews. Like I was telling Danny the other day, if I happen to have the pleasure of debating in front of him some day, I will deliver a persuasive, rational speech advocating policy arguments that appeals to his ideal conceptualization of debate, happily and without complaint. But in front of a judge like, say, Zach Moss, I will delight in breaking out Foucault and ranting about biopower at 300 wpm. (And Zach, if you’re reading this, I promise to be clear! I promise!)
Read the rest of this entry »
Congressional Background
I did not know this until today but…
According to 44USC1333, the Library of Congress is responsible for preparing compilations of pertinent excerpts, bibliographical references, and other appropriate materials relating to the annual [high school debate] topic. The compilation is then printed as a Senate document and disseminated by GPO. The following is a listing of the compliations that have been disseminated since 1996.
Source
They have the link still for the 2002-2003 topic background available here (warning – large pdf).
Now, how can we get this for NFA…
Breaking Down the Resolution, Pt 1.
Before we start debating or writing cases I think it’s important to break down the resolution to understand where we are going. I’m going to cover everything except the last phrase (chronically mentally ill) here and finish up in a post in a few days.
The 2010-2011 resolution is:
Be it resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially reform the provision of mental health services to the chronically mentally ill.
For me, this can break down to:
- Be it resolved:
- the United States Federal Government
- should
- substantially reform
- the provision of
- mental health services
- to the
- chronically mentally ill
That’s 8 key definitions that topicality debates may or may not revolve around this year. Here are some initial thoughts on each part.
Be it resolved:
Not much of an issue to me – basically just requires the affirmative to defend the rest of the resolution. You could imagine this as a different phrase “Maybe:” and the burden on the affirmative would be much less.
the United States Federal Government
Policies should have the USFG as the actor. This of course brings back the States Counterplan – and with the Medicare (warning – large PDF) issue it’ll be an interesting debate. It does seem from some of my initial research this subject area functions similar to last year – the Federal Government gives many states money to implement policies. I think this topic will follow last year’s topic where you want to find an area that the Federal Government clearly has an involvement and reform that part of mental health services – perhaps the military?
Medicare, however, is different from Medicaid. For
example, Medicaid is:
a state administered program and each state sets its own guidelines regarding eligibility and services. Read more about your state Medicaid program. (See Related Links inside CMS at the bottom of the page.)
So we need to be careful what we’re talking about when reforming and whose program it is! The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid has lots more information.
should
Requires us to examine the world of what should happen not necessarily what will happen. For more see my post on fiat.
substantially reform
Same wording as last year’s topic so pull out all those topicality backfiles on what it means to substantially reform something. For me, this requires a big change from the status quo – minor changes to this or that don’t pass muster. After the 1AC I always want the impression from the aff’s case that wow – they are really reforming the system.
the provision of
Provision means providing. The FreeDictionary online defines provision as:
pro·vi·sion (pr-vzhn)
n.
1. The act of supplying or fitting out.
2. Something provided.
3. A preparatory action or measure.
4. provisions A stock of necessary supplies, especially food.
5. A stipulation or qualification, especially a clause in a document or agreement.
tr.v. pro·vi·sioned, pro·vi·sion·ing, pro·vi·sions
To supply with provisions.
So in context of the resolution it’s providing people with Mental Health Services. So we’re not talking about abstract policy but the actual delivery of services to people. This may have implications for cases that revolve around funding – much like last year.
mental health services
The dictionary provided by Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration from the US Dept of HHS defines mental health as:
How a person thinks, feels, and acts when faced with life’s situations. Mental health is how people look at themselves, their lives, and the other people in their lives; evaluate their challenges and problems; and explore choices. This includes handling stress, relating to other people, and making decisions.
Service should then probably mean anything that effects Mental Health – like medicine, treatment, etc… Does anyone have a good definition of the whole term?
to the
Again, in context with the other words in the resolution, it seems clear that the policy reform must center on what services people actually receive. This, of course, brings up the financial debate we had last year on the transportation topic. One implication of my initial reading would be that funding cases would not be topical since they are not the provision of services to the “chronically mentally ill” but instead are effects topical. So if the only thing your case does is increase funding for a program than that would not change mental health services to the chronically mentally ill since it would only change the dollar amount allocated to the services. The treatment would stay the same and so your plan would be non-topical.
I’m not sure if I’m totally convinced on that point – your ideas? I have to admit, writing this post has gotten me more confused – good thing tournaments don’t start for awhile!
Here are some thoughts of my initial reaction to the topic – have any of you come up with different definitions in your research? Please post your thoughts!
A Good Place to Start
One of the reasons I support NFA-LD debate is that each year I get to learn so much about the particular topic being debated. Whenever anyone brings up Greater Horn of Africa, renewable energy, Cuba, transportation, etc… I feel so knowledgeable and almost always can engage in a discussion regarding possible policy solutions and their advantages/disadvantages.
However, that requires us to come up to speed on the topic, the resources available on the topic, and where to find quality material. In addition to Google Alerts and any databases available at your school’s library, the National Institute for Health (a division of the US Department of Health and Human Services) will likely be a good place to mine topic information.
Specifically, they have a MedLine Plus section specifically dedicated to Mental Health Services. You can signup to get mental health updates by email and have some great introductory material. Before we jump into case writing it’s helpful to have a solid background on the topic.
Beyond those already posted here by Michael, any good sites you’ve come across so far?
New Evidence for Inherency
As anyone reading this blog should know, a NFA-LD debate is, at least according to the official “Paradigm for Judging,” supposed to be argued and decided on “traditional stock issues.” One of those traditional stock issues is “inherency.”
Moreoever, the “Paradigm for Judging” identifies proving inherency as one of the Affirmative’s “three initial burdens.” (Put another way, proving inherency is an essential element of a prima facie Affirmative case.)
Unfortunately, the “Paradigm for Judging” does not define inherency in any way; and in this Post, I am not going to delve into the procedural intricacies of structural inherency/attitudinal inherency/existential inherency/and-or operational inherency. Instead, I’m going to provide a very general framework for arguing inherency. Then – I hope – I will provide some links which will give the readers new Negative inherency evidence which should be applicable to a wide variety of Affirmative cases.
Framework:
(a) The “status quo” (SQ), also known as “the present system” = all of the “policies” – eg., Constitutions, laws, regulations, court opinions, etc. – which are in effect, on-the-books, etc. at the moment the debate round commences.
(b) In order to “prove inherency,” the Affirmative must, by a preponderance of the evidence and argument, prove that the “harms” cannot be eliminated and/or that the “advantages” cannot be obtained, and/or the “goals” cannot be attained without a change of policy.
With that framework in mind…
Why is there a need for “new” inherency evidence? The answer is very simple: In March of 2010, when “The Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act” (aka “Obamacare”) went into effect, the SQ for mental health services in America was changed in a huge number of different ways! Ergo, any Affirmative inherency analysis and evidence that comes from before the enactment of Obamacare is highly suspect.
So what Negative need now would be evidence defining and praising all the improvements made to the SQ since last March.
Try these.
“Mental Health Care & Health Care Reform”
by Ezra Klein
http:voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/mental_health_and_health_care.html
American Psychological Association, “Health Care Reform Activities Update”
http://www.divisionofpsychotherapy.org/american-psychological-association-health-care-reform-activities-update/
“Obamacare for Mental Health”
http://www.psychiatrytalk.com/2010/04obamacare-for-mental-health
“Mental Health Experts Applaud Focus on Parity” by Sarah Kershaw
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/health/30mental.html
“The Health Insurance Reform Bill and Psychiatry: A ‘Huge Step Forward’” by Stephen Barias
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/print/article/10168/1568806
The Bazelon Center
“Health Care Reform”
http://www.bazelon.org/Where-We-Stand/Access-to-Services/Health-Care-Reform.aspx
Have a great weekend! See you Monday! 
Survey for possible LD Camp
Hey everyone! As the season nears many of us are sitting in anticipation, cutting cards (hopefully), waiting for the Lafayette camp evidence to come out so we can start getting some practice rounds in. Seeing to the fact that we will all have this evidence in the next week or so, Zach Moss and Matthew Swanson forwarded the idea of having an LD camp this month. Unfortunately, RCC is not holding an LD camp as they did last year. We are currently in talks with a few DOF’s to see where we would be able to host one. Ideally, the camp wouldn’t be very long, perhaps two or three days, and would primarily consists of research-gathering and practice rounds. So, it would be of great assistance if all debaters interested in attending an LD camp use the comment section to suggest dates/locations. I for one, really want to make this happen, and I’m sure many of you do as well. In addition to posting dates and locations, it would he helpful to contact your coaches to see if they may be available to provide assistance at the camp (lecturers,lab leaders, judges for practice rounds, etc.). Let’s make this happen guys!
2010 Winning Topic Paper
As discussed earlier this year when we tried submitting a Southern California Topic paper each participating school in NFA-LD has the ability to submit potential topic papers for the next year’s topic.
Here is the topic paper that was submitted for this year’s topic. I’ve copied/pasted from the PDF so you can view it here:
E. U.S. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: Submitted by Creighton University
A statement of the significance of the topic area in current events:
Mental health services are important because an individual’s mental well-being is important to their general well-being, and the well-being of other individuals in the person’s life. A variety of challenges exist for current mental health services like overcoming the existing stigma of mental health issues, providing adequate services, making the services more accessible to demographics like the homeless, and improving the effectiveness of mental health services.
A statement of why the topic is interesting, challenging, and/or provocative:
Mental health is an important facet of the public’s health with significant social and economic ramifications for individuals who experience psychological issues. On the other hand, there are several difficulties surrounding the provision of mental health services; Mental health services are only one of many social services that states and the federal government distribute, often on very tight budgets where an increase in one services decreases the availability of another. The provision of mental services is controversial politically, and significant changes could alter the political landscape that states and the federal government currently navigate. Last, increasing the federal role in the provision of mental health services can further complicate an already confusing variety of services available and muddle the relative responsibilities of the federal and state governments.
A statement of the perceived educational value of the topic area for debaters:
This topic area has considerable educational value in two areas: First, mental health issues are heavily stigmatized today, and learning about mental health allows debaters to develop informed opinions that reject the stigma surrounding mental health. Second, mental health services give debaters the opportunity to learn about the specific challenges mental health services experience, and the general area of domestic social service policy, while keeping the topic area manageable.
A brief bibliography of selected readings (5-10) that capture the nature of the controversy
surrounding the area:
“Adequacy of the Mental Health System in Meeting the Needs of Adults Who Are Visually
Impaired”
http://www.afb.org/JVIB/jvib001313.asp
Although the article focuses on the difficulties the visually impaired face in mental health
services, the introductory description of the current state of the mental health service system
clearly explains the systems current systemic shortcomings.“Disparities in Mental Health Treatment in U.S. Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups:
Implications for Psychiatrists”
http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/56/12/1600“Inadequate Mental Health Care Plagues Rural America”
http://www.cfra.org/newsletter/2009/06/inadequate-mental-health-care-plagues-rural-america“Prison Mental Health Crisis Continues to Grow”
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/41/20/1.1.full
National Institute of Mental Health
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/index.shtml
National Mental Health Information Center
http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/Contact information should the committee need further clarification.
Landon Ross
Creighton University
[email in original]
Hopefully this gives you a few ideas on the topic.
Now, an interesting area of debate theory topic papers bring up is the idea of “Framers Intent.” I’ll explore that in a future post but here is a Law Review Article for the idea behind framers intent outside of debate. Essentially, does what the author of the topic paper, or the framer of the topic (NFA-LD Committee), intended carry any legitimacy when discussing what the topic means? More on that later…