2009 RCC Championship Round

Thanks for the video, Danny. This is immensely useful as an educational tool. Thank you for not trying to charge people money for it(a la a certain individual who has taped many NPTE rounds over the years).

That is what “second jobs” are designed to do!

On behalf of 20 students and three coaches at Glendale (CA) College, many thanks. I can’t think of a better way to teach debate than to go over “game film” speech by speech, and this made that possible for us. And a big shout out to Travis and Alex (and their hard-working and underpaid coaches) for a fine debate.

P.S. No T! argument? AMAZING!!

Hey Michael, I very much appreciate and honored that you are using the RCC round to teach your debaters (Then again what competant coach wouldnt =]). If it is ok with you, Id like to inquire what you and your debaters thought of the round. It would be valuable to know what my peers and critics thought processes are. Especially for someone like me who is relatively knew to this activity. And I imagine it would be very helpful to all newer debaters as well.

I think this round confirms my belief that practices disliked by some like speed and shortened citations probably lead to more deep debates. I mean…the issues debated by the debaters in this round are so painfully simple and basic that it barely seems like a debate. Maybe I’m an elitist who wants to destroy the activity…but I just can’t get excited about debate that’s barely more involved than a dinner table discussion.

Im sorry my round didnt stimulate your brain. I had a tough time getting through your post. The complaining was so painfully simple and basic it hardly seemed like valuable note of information.
I had 3 critics in my round who probably didnt want to hear my Time Travell Nietsche Affirmative. However much it pains me, (being from UNR), the purpose of LD is to get away from the practices from policy and parli. Why do you feel its necessary to insult the practices of this activy and critics/debaters who uphold it? This style of debate provides the same education of any “straight up” round does. Although I would rather go much faster then I did, I did what any good debater does, adapt.

PS Noone asked for you to get excited =]

I don’t blame you, and i didn’t say that it was a bad LD round.

I just think that it confirms to me that the practices of the activity probably encourage shallow debates.

I doubt anyone wants to hear your “Time Travell(sic) Nietsche(sic) Affirmative” no matter what activity you do.

I don’t want NFA to become parli and quite frankly it cannot and has not ever come close to policy, but I wonder if the rules and norms of the activity threw some of the baby out with the bathwater.

I understand that you were adapting. I think it is good to adapt. I am just questioning if that is the kind of debate that we want to encourage.