Debate Campus Times Article and Scrimmage Goals and More Public Debate, Please?

So, Vermont was exciting!

And here is an article describing our success!

I’m not head over heels for the article mainly because of the first two sentences. It’s a factual error that the Policy team had 38 students (19 teams). At Vermont, Policy had 20 students (10 teams) and the rest were Worlds debaters (hollah for 9 teams!!!). Sadly, those teams have but a single sentence of praise directed at their uniqueness near the end of the article.

I wish the numbers were more accurate in the article but I am, of course, quite proud of the U of R Policy debaters who succeeded so beautifully!

Now we are onto our creation of a scrimmage for both formats that will be buzzing on December 4th. My goals for this scrimmage are very simple:

– give novice debaters much needed practice and endurance training

– provide more experienced debaters a chance to sit in the seat of judgment and learn from that vantage point

– include the Northeast region

– solidify this scrimmage as an annual event for the region at U of R

The schools I hope to draw (novices and experienced debaters alike) from include Cornell, RIT, Colgate, Hobart & William Smith and my wildest dreams would add St. John’s, Bard, Binghamton and the City Unis in NYC.

Of course, this is a team creation and what I dream for may not be how things turn out. Still… hope springs eternal!

I am pretty surprised that by this time in the year the Debate Union has not been approached to help with a public debate. The team’s style seems to be a here-if-you-need-me type of service but I’m interested in being more aggressive. We can’t be scared of debate. Let us normalize it! Spark the questions! I am wondering what would be the most effective way to draw out interest. It seems like graduated aggression that begins with basic flyers targeted at E-board members could remind students that the team is ready for active duty in various ways. If that were to fail, I suppose I would hope that a top down approach in classrooms could ignite interest as well. The beginning of the semester is best for that, I suppose. Debaters announcing themselves as a contact in their classrooms is more personal. All of this reminds me that I am not the student I was. My power is oddly limited. I wouldn’t know the first thing about getting my foot in the door of a classroom to make such an announcement now that I’m an employee. Time, I’m sure, will provide a few more possibilities. All I know is that I want to work. I want the sparks to fly! And I know more debate accomplishes both for me.

On to seconds

The first day was no let down.

Rd 1: This House Believes the US should make all aid to Israel conditional upon freezing settlements. We were closing gov. Took first. I think I got to use an interesting idea of “Imaginability” in this round. The settlements prove a unique problem not only physically but symbolically because peace talks are so impeeded. Harder to imagine a successful peace talk with such blatant negligence on Israel’s side. other args popped in… like this isn’t a chess game. Lives are at stake.

Rd 2: THW create seperate divisions for the openly gay in the US military. We were opening op. We took first. I adored this motion. Korey and I were able to argue a ton! Great matter grab. Korey rocked it in delivery – he shhhed the PM when he spoke out of turn. THAT was awesome! We counter propped (sort of…. perhaps it can be called a hypothesis test) full integration. “Seperation without Stigmatization” and gov couldn’t give us that. But that was my favorite line. I think we  just did really well building solid bricks to make a good wall. I shed a tear when a female from gov worded one of her arguments as anti suffrogettes might have. So… I enjoyed advocating for the Opposition side. OH! Closing op made the best reference to Audre Lorde EVER!

Rd 3: THW ban the US federal government from deficit spending. We were opening gov. We took fourth. I PMed. It is a really tough one for gov but nothing that closing gov said I didn’t already know so I know the next time around I could really make a much better case. I enjoyed this round so much. Partly because it was some old friends from Vermont and Cornell who are phenomenal speakers and, I think, good for debate (the goal is not, fyi, to beat people up and these guys know that). We needed more analysis on China and probably Greece. In the end, Korey and I gave a good go at an econ motion – our weakest link. I learned. 🙂

Now for another day. We are at 6 pts. It’s a safe bet that 12 is needed to break but maybe some 11’s will get in too. Not sure yet. I am so excited!

PS Denver is pretty.