SD Forensics Review

Comments From Some South Dakota Coaches' About 2011-2012 LD Resolutions.

2011-09-07T08:57:00.001-05:00

From Mitch Gaffer
Not a bad crop of resolutions this time. I would suggest the following comments for camp and convention consideration (use comments as you see appropriate):
1. Good resolution framing a key aspect on the war on terrorism. A national debate this country needs to have. Good LD issues come up. National security vs. individual legal rights. Society issues vs. individual rights issues. This should make for good clash, possibly avoiding both sides from claiming the same value. I like this one and will be rating it high in any fianl vote.
2. I like this one. We've debated this resolution before. The resolution contain many 'qualifying terms' that can be used in analysis and debate (such as 'deliberate', 'deadly' force, and 'repeated'.) Both sides may be able to claim the value of justice but what justice is and what is 'right' is certainly debatable.
3. Please, let's not debate gun control. I see more interesting debate in other resolutions.
4. I like this resolution, but could have limited appeal, especially for new LDers. Does set up good clash. State vs. individual. Collective good v.s individual rights. Being a legal issue battled in the courts, eminent domain should have lots of evidence/support.
5. Taxes is not always an interesting issue, especially for newbies to LD. I'm not crazy about this one but can see the clash. I just hope the clash is more than just estate tax policy (How much is fair? etc.) Tax policy can have some good value debate (I.E.- obligation to government, individual choice/freedom, etc.) Still...taxes...really?!

6. I like this resolution. It looks at the purpose of government and its use of budget monies. This can lead to the goals of what government resources and effort can (or ought) to be achieved. Arguments dealing with social fairness and personal responsibility can also be used.
7. Although I could learn to like this rsolution, I don't think it will end up rated highly in the end. This resolution could end being a 'policy-type' look at different energy production methods and what there impact is. Certainly a cost benefit analysis of energy production can yield a variety of value oriented positions, this could degenerate into the harms of oil production vs. the economy. Not exactly where I really want to go in LD.
8. I like resolutions that look at current and tech related concerns. This one does. Being computer related this one can be more appealing to novice LDers. Beyond the good study of some standard legal ideas (probable cause, search warrents and related law), it also brings in issues of computer data, 'remote' searches and how they differ from home server based searches. Besides, anytime we can apply morals to computers, I think we are teaching something valuable to students.
9. Could be a good resolution ONLY if students research beyond the recent Osama bin Laden mission. Only by looking at more; such as other target programs (Pheonix program in Vietnam, for example) or their use by 'evil' authoritarian regimes can this resolution expand into meaningful debate. I like this one and will probably rate it highly...and then will challenge my kids to really go beyond the surface. Let's look at the core reasons behind these missions and use the mission examples for support. This needs to be a debate about the principles of these mission...not just of one particular mission.
10. This one seems to be the same as resolution 6, except from an individual obligation perspective rather than from government. I think I like 6 better...but I'n not sure yet...

From Bob Trzynka

I would agree that, on par, the resolutions aren't too bad. A couple of dogs, but here are my two cents for camp purposes:

1: Good resolution. Should foster good debate, but I would also caution that it could lead to careless and jingoistic debates too. From a camp perspective, it may be a good teaching moments so that the debaters can understand the difference between substantive due process rights and procedural due process rights. Further, the wording of the resolution appears to suggest that the United States does not afford these "due process" rights currently. Most (and by most, I mean virtually all) high court decisions indicate that any person within the jurisdiction of the United States are afforded both procedural and substantive due process rights, absent some limited - exigent - circumstances. A second tack to look into on this resolution would be to consider our international treaty obligations, both from a human rights perspective and a military/diplomatic perspective.

2. I think the mens rea component of this resolution is interesting. Probably a good way to frame this resolution to the kids is the classic trolley logic problem. Probably a lot of clash between telological/utilitarian concepts and a more deontological approach.

3. Frankly, I agree that this is a bad resolution, but for different reasons than Mitch. The court cases currently discussing this topic have concluded that it is an individual right, but they're pretty tortuous to read. Additionally, this resolution has a major judge bias creep problem. Danger, Will Robinson..., danger!

4. While I, personally, love this particular resolution; for high school students, it is a MESS. There is a huge conflict over eminent domain and the limits that the Constitution currently allows. My concern with this resolution is that it will be overly superficial because it would be impossible to even scratch the surface of this topic in the timeframe of a typical LD round. Nonetheless, Locke seems the most logical starting place for folks on this resolution. For an interesting twist, though, you might want to look to the postmodern marxists.

5. Could be interesting, but I think it's too messy. Neo-marxists, util, Foucault, Rousseau, Hobbes would all be good. Could be some interesting perspectives from Aquinas too.

6. Neo-marxists again.... Also, Ronald Dworkin might be an interesting resource.

7. There is a substantial amount of material on this topic in the environmental law area. Several journals dedicated just to this topic.

8. Huge Fourth Amendment pitfalls here. I would suggest focusing, from a pedagogical perspective, on what probable cause actually means and the myriad exceptions to it. Interesting arguments are to be found in the warrantless wiretapping cases before the US Supreme Court.

9. Trolley thought experiment, part deux. Classic util/kant clash. Yawn.
10. This resolution is way too broad. What does "need" mean? Financial, emotional, personal? All might qualify. And, are there some instances of need that obligate and others that do not? How does that affect resolutional analysis? I feel a headache coming on just thinking about it.

From Mike Larson

I also think they are not that bad.
1. I also think that this is a good resolution. I think we had something like it as a nationals topic a few years ago. I do think it provides plenty of good ground on both sides.
2. I would also agree that this one is a good topic. It is nice to have a good morality debate.
3. I also don't like this one. The resolution is a little too simplistic. I think debate is possible.
4. This was a resolution about 6 years ago, and those LDers still love talking about it. I have to disagree with Bob on this one. This is something that is specific to SD with the pipeline debate. The novice debaters can really get into the topic. I highly hope that this will be a Nov/Dec resolution.
5. HATE IT! There are much better ways to focus on tax justice.
6. This is a much better way of tackling economic justice/ free market debate. No a bad resolution, but not a great one.
7. I am okay with this resolution, but not my favorite.
8. I think this one is too lop-sided to the neg. The idea that there is no privacy at all on the web is not a winnable position.
9. This is good to use for the purpose of exploring what is possible in a resolution, but since it doesn't limit itself to the US, I see it getting ugle fast. Don't like it.
10. Good Sameritan debate is always interesting and could actually lead to the inclusion of religious theory, but I think that the wording is too ambigious.
My top 5 are 4, 2, 1, 6, 10

2011-2012 LD Resolutions

2011-06-24T13:39:00.001-05:00

I'll having the LDers at the SDSU debate camp break down some of these, so I'd like South Dakota coaches to give me an idea of which ones they prefer. I don't promise to follow all suggestions, but I hope that we all agree on a few. I willl be using one of the recycled ones for the camp resolution.

Also, leave some comments about what you think of the resolutions. The vote isn't that far off and speech convention has been too late for us to discuss potential resolutions there.

Victory Briefs has started the discussion here and here.

This is the slate of resolutions available for November/December 2011 – September/October 2012.

1. Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens.

2. Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.

3. Resolved: In the United States, possession of handguns ought not be an individual right.

4. Resolved: The use of eminent domain for private economic development is just.

5. Resolved: Estate taxes are just.

6. Resolved: A government has the obligation to lessen the economic gap between its rich and poor citizens.

7. Resolved: A just society ought to prioritize environmental concerns over the production of energy.

8. Resolved: In the United States, law enforcement ought to be required to have probable cause to search data an individual has stored on remote servers.

9. Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.

10. Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

The 2010-11 NFL Topics

2010-06-25T09:31:00.000-05:00

South Dakotat will debate two of the following topics during the 2010-2011 season. One in November-December and the other in January-February. Four students will debate one of these at the 2011 NFL National Tournament. Please leave comments about the pros and cons of each resolution.

Resolved: When forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.

Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice.

Resolved: In political campaigns within the United States, corporations ought to be afforded the same First Amendment free speech protections as individuals.

Resolved: The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives.

Resolved: On balance, internet neutrality is desirable.

Resolved: Progressive income taxes are just.

Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system.

Resolved: The constitutions of democratic governments ought to include procedures for secession.

Resolved: Secular ethics ought to be prioritized over religious ethics in the legislative process.

Some Results of the Speech Advisory Meeting

2010-04-25T18:30:00.000-05:00

This post is going to reflect the mindset of someone reliving a frustrating meeting and recovering from prom supervision. I hope that Mike and Scott will chip in with comments about stuff that I missed.

We did nothing about Sunday competition. The prohibition comes from a Board of Control policy. Adopting the club option that exists for sports seemed counter productive, especially since it limits out of season coach contact.

We added the NFL policy on computers in policy rounds and using cell phones as retrieval or communication devices. We eliminated the "if 14 teams remain and some of them have losses and others don't except on Thursday during a full moon" language. We also voted to prohibit extemp handbook speeches. They will be pulled from the extemp tubs at the state tournament.

We asked Ken to have SDHSAA hired judges fill out the NFL policy and LD judge paradigm sheets. We also asked that he attempt to have the SDHSAA online registration include the form so that judges that schools bring fill it out as well. I know that this change won't ameliorate Tony's and Matthew's concerns. As long as we have schools bring judges, we are limited in the demands that we can place on the judges that they bring.

We deferred action on the pairing procedures and will try to work on them throughout the year. That's all I can remember. I'll leave it to Mike and Scott to fill in the rest.

2010 Speech Advisory Meeting

2010-04-18T13:28:00.001-05:00

The Speech Advisory Committee meeting will be held at Sioux Falls O'Gorman High School on April 23 and 24. The whole agenda is here.

The debate portion includes reviewing "state tournament contest language" and modifying it "for consistency with Joy of Tournaments." I can't speak for the other speech advisory committee representatives of the debate community, but the current handbook seems to be closer to a biology textbook based on alchemy than a usable tournament manual.

I have no idea how the three of us can get the rules synchronized with a computer program on a single Saturday morning. It took a long discussion at a regular advisory committee meeting and a four or five hour summer meeting to develop the current schedule. The language and issues here will be far more complicated.

Therefore, I intend to propose the appointment of a committee of coaches who meet either face to face or online and go through and rework the tournament manual to make it consistent with the computer program That committee should produce a final draft prior to August 1. The proposed changes can get sent out to coaches then. Most coaches are at Speech Convention where the proposal can be discussed face to face. A final version can then be sent out for a vote before the 2011 State Tournament.

The agenda also includes revisiting "the policies regarding the use of computers in debate rounds and in extemp draw room." I don't know if the coaching community has come to a consensus on this issue, and I don't want to cast a vote out of ignorance. I believe that other members of the committee also want to cast an informed vote, so please let us know your opinions.

Although, the agenda lists cell phones as a "retrieval" issue, it seems as if cell phones have been a "disruption" issue. I suspect that a proposal to disqualify a competitor whose cell phone goes off. Please let one of us know your views.

As I said at student congress, I will not be offering any proposals about shortening the debate season, so that discussion should be brief. That being said, it seems imperative for the community to come to a consensus on this issue.

The committee will apparently "explore changing the debate season policy" about starting dates and out of season travel. Once again, I know of no existing consensus on this issue. Please let one of the speech advisory committee members know your opinions. I would love to see a discussion in the comments, but emails will work as well.

Finally, I suspect that there will be a discussion about establishing qualifications for judges who judge the state tournament. At the past tournament, a brief discussion resulted in a suggestion about using nats prep to produce a training video.

Please let one of the speech advisory committee members know your opinions about these issues or other issues that need to be discussed under the all-encompassing "other topics" agenda item by making comments here or sending us emails.

My goal at this meeting is to avoid doing harm through either inaction or ill conceived action. The help of the South Dakota debate community will be appreciated

Shortening the Debate Season

2010-04-05T18:52:00.000-05:00

The SDHSAA Speech Advisory Committee will be meeting on April 23-24 at Sioux Falls O’Gorman High School in Sioux Falls. I would like to make a formal proposal and have a vote on shortening the debate season at this meeting. The agenda doesn’t seem to be online and I haven’t received a copy in the mail, so I don’t know if Ken is planning to have us talk about it; it doesn’t really matter because we can discuss it under other business.

I have some major concerns about going forward without specific feedback from a majority of you.

First, I don’t want this to be my proposal; it needs to be the forensic community’s proposal.

Second, although it seems that we have discussed this to death at two speech conventions, I’m unsure how to exorcise the devil from the details. For example, we are cutting one invitational tournament and one conference weekend from the schedule. No one has told me “we’re willing to give up our tournament, no questions asked.” In fact, the only conversation I’ve had with someone about losing a tournament contained the sentence “I’m not going to be the only one to take a hit.” I didn’t make that statement, but I share the sentiment. Yankton will never be able to send a student to nationals if we don’t regularly host a tournament.

Third, no one has talked with me directly, but I have been told that some schools have indicated that they will not move from their weekend. When I wrote out the schedule, I left Watertown on its weekend because it seemed as if over sixty years gave the program the ability to hold on to that date. No part of the speech convention proposal, however, is written in stone.

If we shorten the schedule, everything will change. Schools will have to host on weekends other than the one they have now. I think that there are compromises that can work. For example, if three schools share two weekends, we could alter the state rotation so that schools will host state on the year they don’t host an invitational. I don’t have the answer and I don’t want to push something that the community doesn’t want.

Fourth, this proposal was put together under the assumption that the Rushmore and Northern districts would contract within 2 or 3 years. Bryan Hagg has indicated that Ripon has said that such an assumption is incorrect. This year we’re having trouble agreeing about how to hold simultaneous district congresses. If we can’t agree on congress, it seems unlikely that a workable debate/ie qualifier can be put together. If the two districts do contract, we will have to discuss location, a discussion that will further complicate the problems I’ve mentioned in the third point.

Fifth, I have heard nothing from West River coaches. I really don’t remember if any of them were in the room during either speech convention discussion. If the SDHSAA Board of Control is going to pass this proposal, a majority of the West River coaches need to be on board.

Sixth, what’s plan B? We agree that we want to shorten the season. We know that Ken believes that the Board of Control won’t pass this proposal. We will apparently have to fight with the music people about some regional workshop. If the odds of success are fifty-fifty or less, we should have an idea about how long we wait with a new proposal. I realize I’m paranoid, but I always like to have an outline of a back-up plan or an escape plan when I deal with bureaucratic situations such as this one, but SEE POINT ONE ABOVE.

Seventh, are there unintended consequences to this proposal? We all need to realize that losing a tournament means that kids will get fewer NFL points. That’s a foreseeable consequence, but there are probably dozens of others that I’m missing.

Eighth, I am seriously worried that people with serious reservations will not say anything. Everyone needs to speak up. There’ll be more about speaking up below.

Ninth, if everybody wants things to stay the same, just tell me.

I believe I have just created a hydra. Because I am not Heracles, I propose the following.

1. Forward this to people that I may have missed.

2. Look at the proposal again.

3. Talk with assistants, interp coaches, ADs.

4. Converse with other coaches. Post comments here. If you don’t want to post comments, email me and I’ll

compile comments.

5. Rushmore and Northern SD coaches should talk about this face to face at the joint meeting during the

congresses that I believe will still happen on Thursday, April 22.

Here's the proposal so you don't have to look for the email attachment.

Debate Dates 2009-2010

Date	Event	Location
November 6-7	Warrior IE and Roughrider Debate Invitational(s)	Sioux Falls
November 13-14	Aberdeen Golden Eagle Cup	Aberdeen
November 20-21	McGovern Forensics Tournament	Mitchell
December 4 & 5	State Oral Interp	Sioux Falls
December 12	Central Forensics Conference Tournament (CFC)	TBA
December 18-19	Bell Invitational	Brookings
January 9	CFC	TBA
January 15-16	Lincoln Silver Bowl	Sioux Falls
January 22-23	Speech Fiesta	Watertown
January 29-30	Lewis and Clark Invitational	Yankton
February 6	CFC	TBA
February 12-13	Karl Mundt Tournament	Madison
February 19-20	Rushmore NFL District Qualifying Tournament	Sioux Falls
February 26-27	Northern South Dakota District Qualifying Tournament	Brookings
March 5-6	State Debate Tournament	Watertown
March 8-April 16	Assorted Stu Con Invitationals	TBD
April 17-18	State Student Congress	Pierre

The Season Under The Speech Convention Proposal Using 2009-2010 Dates.

Date	Event	Location
October 30-31	Pumpkin Stakes or Conference Competition	TBD
November 6-7	Invitational Tournament	TBD
November 13-14	Invitational Tournament	TBD
November 20-21	Invitational Tournament	TBD
December 4 & 5	State Oral Interp—No Debate
December 12	Invitational Tournament	TBD
December 18-19	Invitational Tournament	TBD
January 9	Conference Competition	TBD
January 15-16	Invitational Tournament	TBD
January 22-23	Speech Fiesta	Watertown
January 29-30	NFL Qualifier	TBD
February 6	State One Act—No Debate
February 12-13	State Debate Tournament	Regular Rotation
February 15-March 4	Assorted Stu Con Invitationals	TBD
March 5-6	Student Congress Qualifier

2008-2009 Proposed LD Resolutions

2008-06-27T12:37:00.003-05:00

Here are the proposed NFL LD resolutions and the rules for voting as stolen from the official NFL website. Comment at your leisure.

2008-2009 NFL Lincoln Douglas Debate Ballot for Topic Selection

Directions: Indicate your preferences for the headings listed below. In other words, from the list of 10 topics, indicate your first, second, and third choices for each time slot. A first choice will receive 3 points, second choice 2 points, and the third choice 1 point. After tabulation, the topic with the highest point total for a given time slot will be selected. Repeating topics within a given time slot is not acceptable. However, a topic may be reselected for another time slot. A minimum of five different topics must be listed on the entire ballot. Fill in all blanks for your ballot to be valid.

List of topics:
A. Resolved: Military conscription is unjust.
B. Resolved: On reservations, sovereignty claims by indigenous peoples ought to be prioritized above the plenary power of the United States federal government.
C. Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.
D. Resolved: A parliamentary form of government is preferable to the United States presidential system.
E. Resolved: United States law ought not recognize marriage.
F. Resolved: United States immigration policy ought to prioritize admitting skilled workers over reuniting families.
G. Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.
H. Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams tograduate.
I. Resolved: The United States ought not issue torture warrants.
J. Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

The Final Rankings Report

2007-09-13T08:29:00.001-05:00

I would like to thank all the coaches who participated in the little discussion.

Resolution C seems to be the clear winner.

Resolution H seems to have come in second and Resolution B seems to have come in third.

Resolution F earns an honorable mention.

A. Resolved: It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations

that pose a military threat.

Make’s Mike’s final cut

Is on Travis’s back-up list.

Jen does not like it

Leo hates it

B. Resolved: Governments ought to make economic reparations for their country’s historical injustices.

Make’s Jon’s, Travis’s, Gina’s, and Leo’s final cut

Jen seems to like it

Mike doesn’t like it

C. Resolved: Limiting economic inequality ought to be a more important social goal than maximizing economic

freedom.

Make’s Ron’s, Jon’s, Travis’s, Gina’s, Leo’s, and Jen’s final cut.

Mike likes it for a November/December Topic

D. Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

Make’s Gina’s final cut

Mike likes it for a November/December topic

Is on Travis’s back-up list

Jen has serious concerns about it.

Leo hates it

E. Resolved: In the United States, jury nullification is a legitimate check on government.

Is on Jen’s “intrigued” list

Is on Leo’s back-up list

Mike hates it

F. Resolved: Successor governments ought to pursue transitional justice through truth and reconciliation commissions

rather than through criminal prosecution.

Make’s Jon’s and Leo’s final cut.

Is on Travis’s and Mike’s back-up list.

Jen likes the fact that it’s a new idea

G. Resolved: International lenders ought to cancel the debt of highly indebted poor countries.

Is on Leo’s back-up list.

Mike seems ambivalent about it

H. Resolved: In the United States, plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust.

Make’s Jon’s, Travis’s, Gina’s, Mike’s, and Jen’s final cut

Is on Leo’s back-up list

I. Resolved: Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States.

Make’s Ron’s final cut

Jon, Mike, and Jen do not like it

Leo hates it

J. Resolved: Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

Make’s Gina’s final cut

Mike hates it.

2007 LD Resolutions

2007-07-28T13:30:00.000-05:00

I love technology when it allows me to be lazy. Anyway, it seems to me that instead of waiting for an LD committee report at the SD Speech Convention, coaches can comment on and debate about the 2007-2008 resolutions here.

First, the rules have changed. In the past, we just checked 5 topics and mailed in the ballot. As in the past, there are 10 topics. The rest of the ballot is different. I think the following 4 points are key. (They may not be key to hedge, however.)

Indicate your first, second, and third choices for each time slot.
Repeating topics within a given time slot is not acceptable. However, a topic may be reselected for another time slot.
A minimum of five different topics must be listed on the entire ballot.
Fill in all blanks for your ballot to be valid.

This change probably means that South Dakota coaches should vote for the three best options in both November/Decemeber and January/February. We can put in whatever we want on the other options. Frankly, I think it's a bit risky for the NFL to allow people in states that don't compete during a particular resolution to vote those resolutions, but I probably am just a natural skeptic and conspiracy theorist.

I suggest that each coach rank the resolutions 1-10 and give some reasons for each ranking. I'll tabulate stuff before the convention and do another full post with the results.

Anyway, the topics are listed below. You can find the ballot here. The comments are now open.

List of topics:

A. Resolved: It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat.

B. Resolved: Governments ought to make economic reparations for their country’s historical injustices.

C. Resolved: Limiting economic inequality ought to be a more important social goal than maximizing economic freedom.

D. Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

E. Resolved: In the United States, jury nullification is a legitimate check on government.

F. Resolved: Successor governments ought to pursue transitional justice through truth and reconciliation commissions rather than through criminal prosecution.

G. Resolved: International lenders ought to cancel the debt of highly indebted poor countries.

H. Resolved: In the United States, plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust.

I. Resolved: Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States.

J. Resolved: Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

Questions We Have

2007-04-25T08:50:00.001-05:00

Cory, Travis, and Jon started a good discussion in comments section, but some others may not have access to comments section from school. I don’t. We realize that this is the track, prom, and thank-god-debate-is-finally-over season, so we thought a cyber worksheet might be in order.

Question 1. Can you live with two judge panels? Why or Why not

Question 2. If we go to two judge panels, what should we use as tiebreakers? Please list them in order.

Question 3. If you are a class A coach, when does a separate Class A tournament cease to be a viable option? Should it be decided on an event by event basis? Do we need to write rules establishing a contingency plan if we suddenly don’t have enough entries to warrant a separate tournament?

Question 4. Last season, the SDHSAA Board of Directors voted to waive the mandatory two team rule in policy debate. We will probably endorse the permanent elimination of that rule at our meeting. If there is no longer a two-team mandate, do we need to change the sweepstakes formula back to best entry?

Question 5. How may preset rounds are too many? When should the elimination process start?

Question 6. Are two IE rounds enough? Is what happened this past year better than the one and done.

Essay Question A. Do you want to see major changes at the state tournament? For example, Paul Harens claims that one proposal that was made in the distant past involved each school bringing only 5 students to the tournament. Those students would enter in all the debate and IE events. I only remember the wooly mammoth and saber tooth tiger; those of you who remember pterodactyls and the t-rex will have to vouch for the veracity of Paul’s memory. Anyway, what major changes would you like to see?

Essay Question B. If you don’t want major changes, what changes do you want to see happen in the state tournament?

Please post your answers in the comments section. Neatness counts. We can’t give late answers full credit.

Jon's Initial Observations

2007-04-20T08:08:00.001-05:00

I will say this, the more I look at Brent's software for tournament use the more I feel that:

It can be customized to individual tournaments like invitationals, but it cannot be customized to fit a very specific set of pairing rules like NFL or like our state tournament works now. Furthermore, I believe no software will be able to do this consistently.
I believe it can be used to schedule, section and enter results for IE's with little to no headaches.
I think we need to consider using the software for ballot entry and strength of opp reports, but in the end, hand pairing will likely be the only way to ensure a specific set of rules is followed during a pairing procedure. I'm becoming a believer that a computer cannot be trusted to do this consistently.
While I still support the use of computers to tabulate the tournament and generate the reports at the tournament's end, I do not support the use of computers to schedule and pair the tournament.

Leo's Initial Observations

2007-04-19T20:32:00.000-05:00

Here's what I think I know about the state tournament

1. The one day tournament should only be done in emergencies.
2. We need to be sure that people get out the door on time.
3. The current situation with people bye-ing in to quarters has the appearance of unfairness and has too many students and coaches sitting and doing nothing.
4. The judging problems will not go away, but we need ideas on how to ameliorate them.
5. No one really likes the current state tournament, but no one really wants major changes.
6. The schedule that we hashed out last August needs to be tried
7. I want tabulating software to make the math go faster, especially if we're trying to figure strength of op and/or opponents' strength of op as tie breakers.
8. We need to change the state PF ballot to a points system.
9. Someone is going to have to change the tournament again within 2-4 years because the SD debate world is going to continue to change.

A Modest Proposal to Start Discussion

2007-04-19T19:39:00.000-05:00

A Modest Proposal for the State Tournament Format

Prelims: Four guaranteed randomly paired. It will be the goal to avoid school hitting same school in prelims, but it will not be guaranteed. The top 8 in AA will break to quarters; the top 4 in A will break to semis.

If there is a tie in ballot count, the following tie breakers will be used:

strength of opposition (opponent’s total ballots)
head-to-head (if applicable)
speaker points
drop hi/low speaks

Quarterfinals: Once the top eight are seeded in the brackets, care will be taken to preserve that a school cannot hit itself until finals by breaking brackets to preserve this rule.

Judge strikes?: We're open to suggestions. Late in a tournament, it may be difficult to find enough quality judges. Further, it takes up time. However, strikes allow teams who have reached semis or finals some control over the final round

Entry Limits: Two teams or contestants in all events.

Judge Requirements: One school provided judge per debate event entered, even if the school is only entering a single debater or team in the event.

One judge cannot be used to conver an entry consisting of 1 policy team and 1 L-D debater.
Individual event judges must be designated.
It is preferred that each judge be able to judge all three events.

Some Quick Math: 14 AA schools = 28 entries teams and 6 A schools = 12 entries/teams. Therefore, we need 40 judges to cover 20 rounds of debate with 2 judges in each round.

Schools would provide 20 / SDHSAA would provide 20 who should be able to judge both policy and L-D.

Comments and suggestions welcome.

We Need Your Help

2007-04-19T19:07:00.000-05:00

Jon, Kristin, and I stole this idea from Cory. He set up a page for state one-acts, and we thought that we could borrow his idea to get your comments about changes that we should make at the state debate tournament.

During the next few days, we will be posting some of our concerns about the state debate tournament and perhaps an idea or two that we believe will make the tournament better for both students and coaches.

Please post your concerns and questions in the comments sections. Also, please offer your own suggestions. We need all the information and ideas that we can get.