my life 2007

Win in Rome...

Rome, Georgia, that is. And we didn't win, but we did okay. The Academy doesn't recruit for forensics, so any level of competitiveness with schools that do recruit for forensics is respectable.

I've never done forensics, as I spent most of my academic career strenuously avoiding anything which would require me to demonstrate my lack of articulateness (izzat a word?) as well as anything which may require me to stand in front of a group of any sort. Oh, the irony....

So I came down with USAFA's team of qualifiers and their coach. My duty here is only to judge. However, they apparently established no limitations upon what I might judge. I spent most of my time attempting to decipher Lincoln-Douglas debates ("LDs"), but I got to judge After-Dinner Speaking (ADS), Prose Interpretation, "Duo" (which is a two-person prose interp), Impromptu speaking and Extemporaneous speaking. Of them all, the ones I enjoyed the most were the Duos, but the ones which simultaneously bored and impressed me the most were the extemps--by far.

LDs were just annoying. More on that in a minute.

Most of the judges are forensics coaches themselves, which makes them capable of listing pros and cons of each debate/performance, and of understanding the lingo (in the LDs). They knew how long each event must be and how and when to give hand signals. Me? I just wrote on the card if I thought something was cool (in the case of performances) and decided who had the more convincing case (in the LDs), when I could understand enough to decide. More on that in a minute.

First, let's talk about extemporaneous speeches. This was my first time even seeing an extemporaneous speech. It works like this: the contestants have files of information from various sources on all sorts of political/world issues. They are given a choice of three questions to address in their speeches 30 minutes before the round begins. They take about 15 minutes doing research and creating the speech, then 15 minutes practicing. Then they walk in and deliver a perfect speech addressing the question of their choice. The time limit for the speech is 7 minutes, and they usually hit it on the nose. I judged semifinalists at the national tournament, so I got the cream of the crop: they didn't reference notes at any point. They hardly even paused or stuttered. Each speech must reference 8 to 10 outside sources as support. What I saw was the epitome of how I want my freshmen to write their papers:

1. Short, entertaining and topical intro with a segue into the question and its answer.
2. A "roadmap" of main arguments that support the answer.
3. Flawless transitions and verbal signals so the audience always knows exactly what the speaker is discussing/supporting now.
4. Perfect topic sentences with sub-"roadmaps."
5. Clearly indicated sources of supporting information.
6. Concise yet clear discussion of how the quoted information supports the sub-point.
7. Regular repetition of the thesis.
8. Clear summation of the thesis and main points at the end.
9. Return to intro in some sense providing the audience a sense of closure.

Alas. I finally got my freshmen to write a clear thesis sentence with a "roadmap" (a friend of mine calls it "signposting," so whatever works for you), and most of them have figured out how to write topic sentences, although many of them experience an inexplicable shift of focus between the thesis sentence and the topic sentences. I frequently see transitions from a thesis sentence such as "Government involvement is the best solution to ending the spread of cholera in Angola because it allows more medical organizations accessibility to the region, provides cleaner drinking water, and provides more funding" to a topic sentence that says "In order to stop the spread of cholera in Angola, it is vital for the government to ensure medical organizations are present throughout Angola." The student here shifted focus from an argument about the best way to solve the cholera epidemic (what he should have been discussing) to a discussion of background information about how much Angola needs medicine in the boonies. It's good information, but it isn't on target. There's a difference between arguing that government involvement is key because it can bring medicine to the needy and discussing the fact that medical help is vital for Angola (which is exactly what he ended up discussing).

So needless to say, I was quite impressed with the abilities of the national competitor extemp capabilities. Audra (our debate coach) said she plans to get video copies of the final rounds. I can take a sample in and show it to future freshmen as an example of exactly what I want to see on their papers. Just follow the formula. How hard can that be, anyway?

I will probably add that these are contestants from various state and private institutions, none of which fancy themselves equivalent to the ivy leagues, like the Academy does.

So. Lincoln-Douglas debate. It begins with a resolution. This year's resolution is: The US federal government should adopt a policy to significantly increase the production of energy from renewable sources.

Whoever has the affirmative ("aff") position presents a plan to meet the needs of the resolution. The plan must address how it will resolve current harms and/or provide advantages over existing plans/technology. The affirmative must show inherency, meaning they have to show how the problem being corrected won't self-correct. When the aff's time is up (I think he gets 4 minutes), the negative ("neg") stands and cross-examines him. Then the neg takes prep time (4 minutes for the entire debate, which he can use however he wishes). Then the neg provides his rebuttal, also in a 4 minute period. Aff gets a cross-ex, a prep, and a 4-min rebut. Then neg, then aff again. That's it. Seems easy enough, right?

No.

There are two things that make these debates almost unintelligible for the layman: speed and argot. First, debaters feel the need...the need for speed. They want to get as much information in that they possibly can in their allotted time slots, so instead of opting for economy of expression, they talk faster than auctioneers. Much faster. I'd say over 600 words per minute, average. Second, they use debate shorthand and jargon throughout, which is only so much meaningless blather to a layman like me.

After my first two debates, I discussed the problem with Audra and learned that I can tell them I'm a layman and order them to slow down, and then they should adapt to their audience. Ah! The second day, I tried that, with limited results. They'd still test me. The third day, I told them to think of me as the congressman they're trying to sell their plan to and adapt accordingly. If I don't understand them, they can't win an argument.

That seemed to do the trick.

As well organized as this tournament was (one would hope!), the organizers provided no judging guidelines for laymen like me (and I was not the only one, by far). As far as oversights were concerned, I think this one was rather egregious, considering that this was a varsity national tournament. You know? When it came to LD, I felt sorry for the kids who had me as a judge. It just didn't seem fair to me that, even though they might be very good, I didn't thoroughly understand the rules of the game and thus may have dropped really talented debaters out in preliminary rounds based on my ignorance alone.

So. I still have about 15 more papers to grade in order to stay on my academic schedule. Sadly, I've squandered my afternoon checking email and blogging.

Self-discipline is key to success, aye?

d