Doug Lieb: Debating at the NCFL
CHICAGO, IL - Two years ago, Doug Lieb — a past NCFL top seed and semifinalist — shared some advice on debating at the Memorial Day event. We have received requests to repost this editorial, and much like last year, I’m happy to oblige.
Debating at the NCFL: A Quick Primer
by Doug Lieb
I have a few general points of advice about the NCFL. Your preparation will probably be most effective, and certainly most efficient, if you keep these thoughts in mind. Think selectively. You’re probably going to have to tweak your usual styles of debating and case-writing to be as successful as you’d like to be.
The horror stories of judging at the NCFL are funny and well-publicized. There are some things you just can’t prepare for or adjust to, and total incompetence is one of those things. But, while you’ll encounter a greater preponderance of total incompetence at this tournament than at some others, I’ve found that most of the judges are sufficiently familiar with the event but lack much exposure to it beyond their local circuits. (Note: That’s their local circuits, not yours, so keep reading.)
So consider these suggestions, all of which are intended to make you seem appealing, professional, capable, unoffensive, and eminently reasonable to people who have no qualms about ignoring the content of the round to drop you exclusively because they find you unappealing, unprofessional, incapable, offensive, or unreasonable:
1. Frame arguments intuitively. Don’t conceal complicated warrants with the expectation that you’ll be able to extend them with ink even if they aren’t conceptually clear. Rather, elucidate plainly why what you’re saying is reasonable and logical. Prefer the tangible to the theoretical (this isn’t to say that your approach to the resolution has to be pragmatic and not philosophical, but you should keep things grounded in reality).
2. Ensure that the overall arc of your argument is apparent. An unambiguous thesis statement is a good start, but it’s just a start. Try to create an explicit syllogistic structure. (i.e., because Subpoint A is true, we have a problem whose only viable solution is outlined in Subpoint B, which leads to the benefits outlined in Subpoint C). You might, for instance, take a few seconds at the end of a contention to summarize its basic logic. You could even — yes, it’s possible — write a case with a legitimate conclusion.
3. Structure discussion by referring to something other than author names, and around something other than evidence. There seems to be a growing national circuit trend of having one massive contention that consists of several minutes of unbroken and undifferentiated argumentation, composed almost entirely of cards. Keep that trend far away from this tournament. Use multiple contentions with subpoints. And don’t fill them with a constant string of evidence. Your own simple, concise exposition matters.
4. Run normal arguments. This isn’t an instruction to write stock cases, but to shy away from critical or highly theoretical positions. The NCFL is not the place to debunk what most people consider to be basic established truths. These judges are not the world’s most intellectual or progressive people. Maybe you’re right that nation-states and militaries ought not exist, but keep it to yourself for the weekend. Recognize as legitimate what the average person would recognize as legitimate, like, well, nations and security.
5. Pay more attention to stylistic concerns than you usually might. Violate debate convention, and don’t use big words where small ones will suffice. Avoid excessive informality that might be acceptable elsewhere — don’t ask your opponent for an author name during prep time, for example. Employ basic persuasion skills: look up while speaking, modulate your voice, speak at a reasonable pace, try to be fluid.
6. Don’t debate dumb — don’t overcompensate. Keep in mind that these suggestions aren’t an encouragement to avoid sophisticated and intelligent argumentation, to use the most banal examples you can come up with, or to substitute jingoism for analysis. Think about pointers 1 through 5, but don’t let them become too dominant; adjusting too much might well be worse than not adjusting at all.
–
As a senior, Doug Lieb won the Bronx Round Robin and was the co-champion of Hendrick Hudson and the Princeton Classic, participated in the final round of Monticello, and cleared to late outrounds at Big Bronx, Harvard, Lexington, and Yale. As a junior, he won Monticello and was co-champion of the Newark Debates. He captured a career total of fourteen TOC bids and ended his senior year by reaching semifinals at the NCFL Grand National Tournament. He was first seed.
Popularity: 1%
test
7 Responses to “Doug Lieb: Debating at the NCFL”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Stephen Hess is TOC Champion
- 2006 NFL National Resolution Announced
- Caitlin Halpern is NCFL Champion
- Live from the TOC: The Semifinals
- TOC 2006 Video #3: Quarterfinals - Jeffers v. Motgi
- Good Luck to Those Competing at the NCFL!
- NFL Forms LD Rules and Recommendation Committee
- What's Your Debate Soundtrack?
- TOC 2006 Video #2: Semifinals - Rai v. Weeks
- The Cat Nats Report: The Coverage
Posted from: 168.190.200.33
May 23rd, 2006 10:38
I think its not really appropriate to call those judges who are not national circuit judges “incompetent.”
1) Judging for CFLs is no fun. Its long.
2) Judging at CFLs is, for MANY of these judges, is not a paid activity.
3) For most of these “incompetent” judges, judging at CFLs occurs so that their child can attend this ONE national tournament a year. Those of you who travel every weekend, understand that MOST debaters in this country do not have the organizational structure, the finances, nor the community support to send them off to distant places to compete. CFLs may be their ONLY trip outside their state during their career. HENCE, the judges who come with them also have limited national experience. This makes them lacking in national debate circuit culture, not incompetent.
4) Many of these local circuit judges are PURE LD JUDGES. They believe in communication, argument, and clarity. Because they are not clones of the national circuit judge does not make them incompetent.
You should be glad these local circuit judges come to CFLs because if they didn’t you would not be able to compete.
Note: I do agree that you have to change your style for CFLs. My problem is with Doug’s language selection.
Posted from: 169.231.12.193
May 23rd, 2006 11:29
So judges who arbitrarily drop debaters and accept new arguments in the 2AR are competant?
Posted from: 70.192.221.227
May 23rd, 2006 12:05
While I can’t speak for Doug, and I agree that the word choice is probably not the best, I would suspect — at least given my own experiences at the tournament, and ones that I’ve discussed with him — that the “horror stories” Doug refers to has anything to do with a distinction between “national circuit” and “local circuit” judges. In fact, I think he’s making a distinction between the “totally incompetent” judges and the bulk of the pool, which consists of judges who are experienced on their particular local circuit. Doug was an incredibly persuasive debater, very big picture, and not very technical. He never attended an institute and, at least as I recall, regularly picked up parent judges. So, I think the horror stories have more to do with judges who have *no* background in LD (I think that at a championship tournament, judges should at least be experienced) making choices based on unclear criteria. (Since judges are not permitted to disclose paradigms or identify themselves in anyway, there is no way to know what criteria judges will be using.)
I personally am in 100% agreement with you about the importance and necessity of including non-national circuit judges in this kind of a judging pool. I just don’t think Doug is indicting all non-national circuit judges, especially given his own background and views on debate. I have a feeling the larger issue is with untrained judges who very frequently find their way into this particular judging pool. (Last year, at the judges’ meeting, people were asking questions like: “if I believe one side is true, should I vote for it?” “how many minutes are in the AC?” “Is evidence okay?” etc. I don’t think that’s a good sign of the experience levels of the judges.)
But I agree that the word choice could have been better and clearer. (Keep in mind that Doug wrote this during his freshman year, and in a rush — over the past two years, I probably should have asked for a clearer revision!)
Posted from: 67.171.76.6
May 23rd, 2006 16:32
If person x is assigned a task (in this case: to ajudicate a round fairly) and can’t do so, repeatedly, throughout a tournament, would it be fair to call person x incompetent at performing said task? I’m not sure the word choice is inaccurate.
Posted from: 64.53.94.70
May 23rd, 2006 16:40
All I know is that “imcompetent” judges is the excuse used by a LOT of national circuit debaters as an means of reducing the pain of their losses.
National circuit judges can be just as arbitrary as the local circuit judges hated by so many, though I will acknowledge, sometimes a judge at nationals slips in who is not experienced at all and I do not think that is a good thing.
In LD I am considered an “incompetent” judge by a lot of national circuit competitors (who know who I am).
Posted from: 69.113.43.161
May 23rd, 2006 18:58
“There are some things you just can’t prepare for or adjust to, and total incompetence is one of those things. But, while you’ll encounter a greater preponderance of total incompetence at this tournament than at some others, I’ve found that most of the judges are sufficiently familiar with the event but lack much exposure to it beyond their local circuits.”
Note that Doug contrasts “incompetence” with people who “are sufficiently familiar with the event but lack much exposure to [debate] beyond their local circuits.” In context, “incompetence” is a reference to people not “sufficiently familiar with the event,” not people who don’t judge on the ‘national circuit.’
Posted from: 67.15.74.92
May 25th, 2006 18:42
[…] CHICAGO, IL - We had multiple requests for a vintage piece by Doug Lieb, in which the past NCFL top seed gives some advice on debating at the tournament. Now I’d like to fulfill another frequent request: the reposting of another vintage piece, in which past champion Chetan Hertzig reflected on what it was like to win the title in 1998. Aspiring to win the tournament this weekend? Hertzig may have some advice for you. Shortly after agreeing to write a piece about my experience debating at the NCFL, I realized that I had no idea what I wanted to say. After all, I competed there a full seven years ago, and while I remember most of that weekend fairly clearly, I don’t know that I have any fascinating insights to share. Nevertheless, I’ve decided to go ahead and offer some of my thoughts about what the tournament meant to me. […]