... and things blow over...

As usual -- forum BS ends as quickly as it started.

The newest non-person sent a quasi apology to hubby.... which is nice for hubby (and, really nice for me because I'll let hubby deal with him).

As usual, I wish the debaters, coaches and tournament administrators of NPDA well -- there is sure to be some kind of 'issue' for someone to complain about... I hope the security stuff works out, that nobody is arrested for doing drugs ON the campus of the USAFA and that everyone debates well.

Personally, I'll be watching from BN state and working on stuff.... which is why I stopped doing debate in the first place, so I could be a philosopher instead.

Kick me when I'm down, why don't you...

I think the reason the forum nonsense hit me so hard is that it came at the end of a long and stressful weekend.

I was tired, I'd worked hard at a tournament I didn't have an entry for... so I didn't even get the coach-adrenaline rush I've had in the past.

I was cranky because I knew I had lots of stuff to do.

I was also tired because the trip started with a 6 hour drive after class to Red State and then an early morning flight out to the Pacific northwest.

and... because the person making the accusations had excellent access to information that would have answered his concerns.

Add to that the idea that it was personal and accused hubby and I of both being disconnected from debate AND voting as a block, which is untrue and if it were true is unethical..

yea, it upset me.

Especially when I think about how much debate has interfered in my actual philosophical career. Add to that the actual, out of pocket money hubby and I have spent to help students compete and it was really insulting -- like none of that counts.

Personally, I'd love to tell the little m-f exactly how much 'debate' owes us... from mileage on the Jeep to hotel costs, video tapes, a broken laptop, missed hours at work, food costs, tournament and co-op entry fees and even tuition for one brilliant debater in need. Don't tell me we haven't been connected to debate in the last 8 years.

Then it really sunk in -- and I realized what the little m-f would have to do to even come close to meeting my qualifications to sit on the board of a national tournament.... and I realized that after he starts two teams from scratch, teaches numerous college students to debate without high school experience and starts a kid from his intro to philosophy class on a career path that ends with two consecutive 8th place nationals finishes -- then, and only then, can the little m-f criticize me.

Until then, he's just another GenMEer with internet access and a vindictive, cruel and stupid personality.

A sense of perspective

There has been a lot of verbosity, exaggeration and outrageous use of rhetoric to describe the impact of hubby's mistake last weekend.

It has been called horrendous, amazingly bad and so forth...

Folks, people getting raped, killed, mugged and discriminated against are amazingly bad.

Making a mistake that prevented someone from debating really sucks.

Having a system by which debaters with winning records aren't allowed to advance to elimination rounds is bad.

Having a system which doesn't break brackets, and thus forces someone to stop debating at nationals when they didn't lose a round is bad.

Having to debate a team you wouldn't otherwise have debated at that time in the tournament is unfortunate. It isn't the end of the world, it isn't really even all that unfair, as the team debated had the same record as the team they should have debated. Further, the way the bracket was calculated is one of THREE logically equivalent ways to determine the match.

and... it was only the end of the world because the team lost.

Maybe the best thing to come out of this hassle is that I now see the true character of the coward/enabler/coach. I've seen the temper tantrums and hysterical behavior before, but this one is just beyond my ability to overlook it.

So -- while the debater and coach in question don't have a sense of perspective, perhaps they've given one to me.

thanks guys...

On "democratize the NPTE"

Anybody who wrote that on a ballot last weekend ought to go to the NPDA business meeting.

For most of you, it would be your first time -- I know, I've been there and seen how democracy doesn't help. I also know that y'all weren't there. You were having fun, hanging with your pals or something.

The thing about democratic debate organizations is that everyone has an opinion about how things should go. Being debaters, they assume they are right and that their way will win.

You know what happens when a room full of these sorts gets together? NOTHING happens... because it can't be discussed adequately to get to a vote. Additionally, what's called the "majority cycling problem" happens, in which everyone thinks things should change but no one proposed solution gets a majority. As a result, you have an organization that becomes less and less responsive to changes in the way debate is done.

I know this because I've been at those business meetings. I watched as some tried to make changes, propose qualification systems or other innovations that would make the tournament more fair. They didn't pass -- if they got on the agenda at all... or, they'd get held over to the fall business meeting many of the proponents don't attend.

Do you want to know why NPTE is so good? Because it IS NOT a democracy. Yep, that's the reason. As a result, the board itself can make changes that may not be popular, but are right and work for future competitors. We can act quickly without having to consult the membership --- and we have the freedom to try to make things as competitive and fair as possible.

Hubby and I have been pretty careful about who we suggest as additions to the board. We try to pick people who are from a variety of kinds of schools, different regions and with enough experience to put their decisions in context. We selected some damm good people, don't you think? In fact, they are so good that y'all from that f-ing square state aren't asking for their resignation now, are you? I may be wrong, but after Jim, all the other additions to the board were proposed by Hubby and myself.

You know what, I was thinking about resigning. I was even contemplating doing it after this tournament. I'm much less likely to do so now ---for a couple of reasons.

First, I don't want to let you asshats win. I simply don't. I hate bullies and won't stand for them now that I'm 39 and don't give a hoot what you and your coward/bully coach think

Second, I don't want to try to persuade someone to take a position on the board right now. The way you've treated Hubby and I has shown your true selves and whomever would take my seat now knows exactly the heat and BS that comes with it.

Third, I want to prove that this really is a debate community. That being only one year out from having a team doesn't justify being shunned from the community. That would be a really terrible precedent to set. Many of your favorite judges are no longer associated directly with a program. They come back to a few tournaments per year to judge and be included in the community. If I'm "not connected" to the community, then they certainly aren't. It would be really bad to lose that experience and perspective from the judge pool.

Finally, I actually do want to see if some limited sort of democracy might work for the NPTE. If I resign now, that won't happen. The board will have to replace me (and Hubby) quickly, before the new set of rules revisions etc... happen. One of the proposals we will probably consider (if you bring it...) will be a form of democratic voice in the NPTE. I'll vote for a reasonable one -- but it is quite possible that the remaining members or my replacement won't do so.

Really, stop being such a jerk, go smoke something and relax a bit. You aren't helping yourself or your wider cause with this vendetta, and you are only making yourself look bad.

Civil Disobedience and debate, pt. 2

Let me begin this little tale by explaining the background...

BNstate (you know where BNCC is if you are old enough... you might have been there for NPTE) has a very small local circuit. More or less, it was us, fancy pants college, Catholic College, Good Baptist school and Small Lutheran school doing our kind of debate on a regular basis. Other schools would throw in a token team or two on occasion and come up with an entry for state, but they had no emphasis on debate and didn't travel the national circuit.

BNstate has also produced some excellent high school policy debaters, most of whom leave the state to compete. Some stay to compete with a couple of decent policy schools, but if they really want to be serious about college policy, they go elsewhere.

Hubby and I moved to BN state and I was hired to start the program at Catholic College (CC). I didn't work at Big Northern Community College (BNCC) until the next year -- where D1 and I started the team.... So, we start coaching at CC and preparing students for the small competitions at SL.... and we do so like we learned to do debate on the national circuit, via Red State (Hubby's current employer and BA school).

The national circuit practices included coaching debaters during their 15 minute prep time and later using files of information gathered to prepare cases.

SL thought this practice was pretty much going to ruin debate. They started putting rules in place at their tournaments -- but, like good Lutherans, they were very passive aggressive about it. The phrasing was something like, "teams are not expected to coach in preparation time or to use materials other than a dictionary in preparation time" -- It didn't say "expected not to" -- which is quite different from "not expected to"....

.... Snarky side comment that is kind of out of line -- The director of debate at SL got his BA at SL and debated for them, it is too bad that he didn't get a better education, or he'd have been able to proofread his invitation and realize that "not expected to" and "expected not to" mean very different things...... back to the original story...

So, the last time hubby and I went to SL's tournament and decided to do some coaching in prep. Our students weren't advanced enough (or were too lazy, really) to generate materials to be used in prep.... so our only violation was giving them some constructive advise during their preparation time.

...... explanation for the non-debaters -- "preparation time" is the 15 minutes between the reading of the resolution and the beginning of the debate. Each new resolution requires the team to prepare to support or defend the resolution. It is now normal for coaches and students to confer to some degree about what they'll run. We call this educational and helpful for debaters of all levels.... those who are against it think we are dictating cases to our debaters -- we've tried that at one tournament, it is a horrible idea and we never did it again... back to the story...

Hubby and I know that SL doesn't really approve of coaching in prep, so we did it in a discrete manner. We find corners or empty classrooms etc... We aren't in their face about it and we always get our own rounds started first. We also don't share our advanced knowledge of the resolution with our students, as that is cheating.

In the past two years we tried to discuss the coaching in prep practice with the SL leaders, to no avail. They don't even want to discuss why they object to the practice or hear why it might be a good and helpful thing. The fact that it increases access and increases the levels of both knowledge and case writing in debate fall on deaf ears. We suspect the real reason is that Hubby routinely beat the SL coach as a competitor.... but, never the less, we tried.

At the last SL tournament, SL director got dirty -- he claimed to have seen us coaching during prep for round 5 (but, he couldn't have... anyway), told our opponents and judges that coaching in prep is a reason to drop us -- and that the other team should make the arguments (ummm... isn't that coaching?). For round 6 (since he couldn't make the tab program work to do this) he hand wrote a round 6 posting that gave us judges he knew were very much against coaching in prep. We didn't coach in round 6 (and were very public about not doing so) and (we found later) those coaches dropped our debaters for actions done before round 5. When asked if coaching in prep impacted their decision, they got hostile.

So -- before we knew about breaks (remember, no disclosure of records either) we hatched a plan. The plan was simple -- If one or both of our teams broke, the first constructive speech would begin with a concession of the round. We'd then say that we are going to ignore the topic and begin a debate on the value of coaching in preparation time and allowing research materials in prep. The point was to set-up a situation in which the judges in the round would have to have those arguments played out in front of them... they may not listen to the arguments, but they couldn't help hearing about it.

Sadly, I can't tell you how it would have worked out -- because both of our teams were 3/3 -- with two of their three losses coming in the last two rounds. Some 3/3 teams broke, but we didn't have the speaks to do it....

We asked for our packet and left the tournament.

That was the last time we went back to a tournament run by SL. My last two years coaching, I took my students to two tournaments in-state. One was run by a nice but not exactly flexible TD who wanted to handle a large squad not showing up for the tournament by giving byes all over the place (as in, they were in about 1/2 the rounds, so 1/2 of the teams would have had un-earned wins...). Thank goodness Good Baptist's director convinced him to re-pair the tournament. The other was state -- where my best team was 1-3, my worst team was 2-2 and my middle team (but the sweet, smiley ones) broke to elims 3-1.

I had other reasons not to return to our state tournament -- but it didn't help that SL director tried to unilaterally impose his parli rules into the state rule set. I caught him and GB's director made him take them out AND posted corrections with the pairings....

Recently, SL announced that they have canceled a couple of their small tournaments because of lack of attendance. Often the difference between making it and not is a matter of two or three teams.

A major factor in my decision to stop coaching debate was that we had to travel so far for competitions. SL is practically local (90ish minutes), but since I held a firm belief that their tournaments were anti-educational AND a terrible experience for my debaters, I could not take or send my teams to them. As a result, I handed the program over to a wonderful policy coach.

So -- I suppose in the end SL got some punishment for their actions. It really is the case that if they hadn't had such stupid and anti-educational rules, their students would have been able to debate in the tournaments they canceled. It is also the case that if coaching and materials had been allowed all along, the level of debate would be higher and as such, the education gained in each round by the debaters would have been increased.

It is pretty clear how our planned action would have been a full act of civil-disobedience...

1) We identified a real problem with a real solution.
2) We tried to change the system from within (for two years or so, at least...).
3) Had we been advanced to the next round (or had the shenanigans began earlier in the tournament) we would have been civilly disobedient.
4) Our act of disobedience includes taking at least one punishment and may have resulted in others, which we would have accepted and publicized in order to make the point about the rules in place.


So, folks, debating about debate isn't new -- nor is civil disobedience in debate. The difference is that your recent actions weren't exactly costly or difficult for you, although I am still skeptical about how they can produce change...

On civil disobedience in debate, pt 1

Dear Debaters,

Debating about debate isn't new... really it isn't. We've been doing it for ages and things haven't changed as a result. There are several reasons for this, which is the purpose of this post.

The thing is, most 'projects' are akin to acts of civil disobedience... and the reason you aren't effective is that you aren't actually following the guidelines for civil disobedience... go read Letter From a Birmingham Jail

ok.... now, that you've seen there are several parts of civil disobedience 1) identification of the problem, 2) attempting to solve the problem within the system, 3) being disobedient, and 4) taking the punishment for your disobedience --let's talk about how you've tried to do it...

On Identifying the 'problem' (1)-- you've identified something you don't like about NPTE. OK -- but, is there a real problem to be solved, or simply something you don't like. Those things aren't the same. Are there any real harms to not having a democratically elected NPTE board? Do you think that just because someone is elected that they will somehow make better decisions about things? I kind of think not -- but, you think it is a problem, so what should you do about it?

That brings us to (2) working for a solution inside the system. That you didn't do. In fact, your coach has privileged access to the NPTE board and didn't use it to suggest your project. He still does read all of our private board discussions, even though he isn't on the board. He chimes in and often acts like the 6th, (unofficial) board member -- and he didn't make any such suggestion... didn't know that, did you? Also, as a former NPTE board member, he knows the procedures for change we've established AND he knows where our discussions about democratization have lead -- hmmm, didn't know that either did you? At least you could have made a formal proposal to the board, outlining concerns and solutions. You didn't do that, probably because debate projects are too much fun -- and a good excuse not to win the national title as seniors -- thus a way to keep your fragile egos intact. Way to be a GenMe-er... go read the book...

The next step (you know, the one you jumped to) is actually being disobedient (3) -- I suppose you did that. You ignored the side and topic norms and presented your "case" for democratization of the NPTE. But, from what I can understand, you didn't really articulate harms or solvency... you just gave your opinion. That was enough to win you some prelim rounds (probably because the other team agreed or you ended up with critics who like projects or didn't want to drop seniors) -- but I noticed that you were out pretty early in elim rounds... hmm. I was kind of happy to see that D1 beat you on a 3-0... Really, I'm not so sure what you hoped to accomplish -- that you couldn't have accomplished by discussing it between rounds, discussing it on-line or making a formal proposal to the board.

The final step is being punished for your disobedience (4) -- this you didn't do. You didn't even forfeit the round -- you didn't take ANY kind of punishment for your actions. In fact, your actions probably made you more popular among your peers -- because that is what it is really all about, no? Honestly, that is what I'll think until I see a formal proposal from you... you've had some feedback on what it should look like and consider, so the next step is yours. At any rate, you were pretty sure you'd get the ballot --- so you didn't take a risk with this project...

So -- at this point all you've been is naughty.

Stay tuned for a story from a few years ago about a planned act of debate civil disobedience that didn't get off the ground. The plan had all the elements --- and was hatched by Hubby....

how to make changes...

... one of the things I'm learning from the Generation ME book (Jean Twenge) is that Generation ME has been taught that self-esteem is all important and when that is somehow violated they become very angry.

Sadly, sometimes in debate people lose rounds -- in fact, at every tournament, in every round there is a winner and a loser. Sometimes people even give constructive (or not so constructive --oops, I just remembered another non-person) criticism to the losers.

I've noticed that over the last 10 years, the likelihood of debaters taking such information well has decreased. Recently, the incidents of debaters taking their anger out in on-line forums has increased.

This can't really be good for the event.... if trends continue, who will be willing to be honest?

"debate is for the students"

Sorry that there are so many debate related posts here -- but it is what I'm thinking and really can't say elsewhere...

It is often claimed that, "debate is all about the debaters". I absolutely agree. Without students benefiting from the activity, there is no reason to do it. Coaches and judges can find other ways to make less than minimum wage. Those of us who volunteer to run national tournaments could easily stay home all weekend and watch NCIS (or, heaven forbid write our dissertations).

Clearly, we do this for love and not money -- and the benefits we personally gain in terms of career and skills stop after about 3 years of coaching and judging. We've now learned to write fast, administer tournaments and listen to people screw up philosophical positions. In terms of judge 'education', we'd be better off spending the time we spend judging reading the New York Times, The Economist and the Onion on our own. It is more efficient to get the full story from the source than to have it be morphed into the debate format. We've met people from a variety of schools who might be able to give us a positive on-campus reference for jobs in our field... yea, that is about it.

So, the love is the love of students. We love smart students and we want them to learn. We want them to have the best and most fair competitive experience possible. We want them to be motivated to explore the world and keep up with current events. We want them to speak well and to formulate brilliant arguments in response to the arguments of others.

That does not mean that what the students WANT RIGHT NOW will achieve those things. Debate can, and should be done with the students' best interest in mind. That does not mean that what comes to the student/competitor mind is how it must be.

In fact, the longer those of us who are willing to hang around do so, the more insight and perspective we can bring to how things ought to work. A group of us started NPTE almost 9 years ago. We've just had our 8th national tournament. For those of you who are seniors in your last season, think about how much you've learned in the last 8 years of debate. That is how long NPTE has been in existence. Every year we've learned things as well. We've adapted and changed the rules, we've figured out a way to run a tournament that was good enough for you to want to get into... and we've had some experiences along the way that tell us that what students want isn't always in their best interest.

I know your attitude is very Generation ME. I'm reading the book right now, so y'all are making some sense. That doesn't mean that I (a Gen Xer) am going to give you your way.

Essentially, saying "debate is for the debaters" is like saying "medicine is for the patients" in that the medicine is supposed to improve the person, just like debate should improve the debater. The thing is, the folks in charge of debate are kind of like physicians. We'll listen to alternatives, we'll consider them in light of our significantly greater experience and preference and we'll do what is really in your best interest. That is the only way debate can really be about the debaters.

I love the debate community, but...

someone gave me a cold... a really nasty cold.

That person should feel guilty that I'm spending my first days as a non-debate coach blowing my nose and cursing their existence.

Debate Drama...

As y'all know, I've been at the big nationals this weekend.

Big nationals is very different, in some ways, from the tournament I helped to run and create. Those differences seemed to come out more this year than in others. Every year, Big nationals seems to contain some surprises -- and even those who are fans of Big nationals say that it takes luck and good politics to win. This year seems to be no exception.

I can't say that there wasn't good debate at Big nationals -- because there was. There are plenty of smart debaters, smart coaches and smart judges... but, this year it doesn't seem as if there was the expected consensus as to what good debate IS.

This makes preparation pretty difficult, because if you don't know what good debate is -- how can you aim for it?

I will also say that, while my team did well (another team award this year... yea!), and my foster-team did even better (yea D2 and D3) -- there were several excellent teams that were eliminated too early. I think this is a problem with the open nature of Big tournament... having every interested team come and slug it out is great, and perhaps the way it should be. The problem is that those inexperienced teams bring their judges, and those judges just aren't experienced at judging high-level debates. So, while the excellent coach/judge of the top teams is watching the teams of the inexperienced judge, that judge is watching the highly-developed team and not understanding what they are seeing.

I'm not at all sad to say that I won't be back to this tournament. I'll do our tournament next year -- I'm not sure I'll ever miss it... but Big nationals is just too unpredictable.

my last tournament as a coach...

is over, for me and my students... Next year will be strange, but in a good way. I won't come to this tournament next year (I swear!!!!) -- the timing won't be good and since I won't have competitors here, I think it is time to say enough is enough.

I'm excited for D2 and D3 (D2's new partner -- who, by the way, is both nice and smart --) -- they did well at this tournament... the best performance in the 'upper midwest' (for all it is worth... hmmm) they also got great news about their debate program.

I saw some friends, talked to some people I don't consider friends and generally had a good time while getting sick and losing my voice. Needless to say, I'm exhausted and eager to get home tomorrow night -- to some solitude and some cats who are missing me.

This afternoon we'll probably play in the mountains near this little mountain town...

later, someone will win a national championship title --- other people will lose rounds and everyone will start talking about what they are going to do next. Thus is the way of debate.

I'll probably have a few more posts on the subject, later -- when I'm not fried.

one more tournament... wow

I'm up early for an 8:45 flight from Red State to Mountain State -- the hosts of JKLDALNPDALK nationals are in a city about 90 minutes from the main Mountain State airport...

I'll meet my team in Mountain State, thus ending my 2 day Spring Break.... which was actually pretty nice.

I got a great pedicure and some waxing on Tuesday, then I went back to bed with a book... "Alas, Babylon" -- If you haven't read it, it is a classic and you really ought to do so.

Yesterday hubby was off, so we hung out in the morning, went to a late breakfast and then I hung out with him during his office hours and we decided on our strike strategy for nationals.

Then, on the way home, we decided to buy a basketball hoop... you know, the ones you can put together and put up in the driveway --one of those.... we got most of it up before it started to rain and thunder....

Now, I'm off to a second national tournament.... I swear, my Spring Break 08 won't be a debate trip....

a small bit of debate justice...

Every year the big national tournament has a novice speaker award.

The award is nice, because it recognizes people who are in their first year EVER of debate -- by their definition of "novice" they ask if the person did ANY high school debate... or maybe it was more than one semester or something.. but, by "novice" they don't mean 'had lots of high school debate experience, won awards and other stuff and then did their first year of college'.

D1's partner last year, D2, was a real novice. So novice that he was actually IN high school last year (oh no, we can't tease him about that anymore... he graduated...darn :) ). Late the last day of competition, Dr. Snoopy-Dance (a good friend who needs a nickname) came to me to ask about D2's high school speech or debate experience. I told him D2 had none, and he was happy to hear it.

Dr. Snoopy-Dance is in charge of the novice speaker awards. Dr. Snoopy-Dance is also very precise and fair -- he asks the same question in the same way of everybody. It turns out that several coaches were either intentionally ignorant or just plain liars -- because last summer someone figured out that a bunch of the "novices" that year had high school experience.... including the one who beat out D2 for a big, fat (ugly) trophy.

Of course, I went to Dr. Snoopy-Dance immediately, he started an investigation -- along with Herr Tall (another pal who needed a name). They gathered evidence and submitted it to the board, and then I heard nothing.

I found out yesterday that they are going to correct the error -- and that D2 will get a new award... as will all the others who got the wrong ones. I was happy. I really wanted that to work out in D2's favor... because he worked really hard to keep up with D1, and he'd earned the award.

So, yea for Herr Tall and Dr. Snoopy-Dance.

debate update...

D1 lost the first of the single-elimination rounds.. He and his partner were happy with the way they debated, so -- while they are a little dissapointed, they'll survive :). I'm still hella proud of him, and he has a couple more naitonals this year to take a shot at it.

Some of my other favorite teams are still in -- D1's new teamates are in semis, as are a couple of guys from MO who are just brilliant, nice people -- and who, I'm sure, will be the leaders of the revolution someone else in their posse proclaimed to start :).

It is now 10:00... and we still have another round, plus awards to go. It will be a long night, but we are all tired in that good way that you get when you know you've done something hard, but worthwhile.

NPJKQRSNPTE update...

D1 is doing great --- as in... in a double-elimination system, he hasn't lost a round. He's in the top 9 in the country for sure...

I'm three debate tournament wins away from a tatoo... yikes.

Even if D1 loses this round, he'll be in the single-elimination round part of the tournament. I told him that if he won nationals, I'd get a tatoo-- it is an extension of a deal I made last year that if they won a tournament, I'd get one.

Of course, I made the deal before I realized D1 was going to be good.

Saying I'm done...

I'm feeling even more done with the debate scene -- because I'm telling people face to face that I'm done coaching.

I've made some good pals, people I like to keep in contact with and whose lives interest me -- but, they are kind of temporary, I only see them at tournaments -- and when I'm gone, they'll chat with other people.

I waited to tell most people until they decided what would happen to the program after I'm done. It is good to know that the person who will be taking over for me has a good reputation among the people I know and trust. It is easier to go, knowing that what I've built up won't go away.... of course, he's planning to change debate genres -- and I wish him luck in that --

On the other hand, he's said that he doesn't want to coach permanently, so -- if you have policy experience and want my coaching job in the next couple of years -- keep your eyes open for an announcment. I'd love to have someone who knows both kinds of debate, so that if/when it becomes clear that doing policy with BNCC students is just too hard -- they can changee :).

As for the tournament itself, it is going pretty well -- we are nearly on-time and things are humming along like usual. Every year we have a new challenge, and this year is no exception. But -- the judges and debaters seem to be having a good time and there seem to be good debates happening all over... so, it is a success so far.

tour de square states....

I'm off for one more debate tournament.

My last as a coach -- which is odd enough.

Between national tournaments I'll spend my down-time in Red State -- all two days of my Spring Break. Don't go getting jealous or anything :).

I packed last night. I have one suitcase I'll take with me everywhere -- and another that has extra stuff that will end it's travels in Red State on Monday.

I was smart enough to book middle of the day flights, so this moring will be the usual getting ready to leave the cats in Brain's care. This is more complicated now that Old Kitty has no teeth -- but, my 4-day cat feeder helps the situation.

I'm sure I'll be updating from the road -- this blog was born in a hotel on a debate trip, why not continue the tradition?

One more tournament down... two nationals to go

It seems kind of odd to me that this will be my last year coaching a team at KLNPDAKL nationals (for new readers, I add a few letters every time I talk about a national tournament, just to avoid the google...). I've been doing it so long that the prospect of having most of my Spring Break seems like a dream most people get to live out, but that is never available to me...

For now, I'm sure I'll keep running the ballot table at NPTEKQRS nationals, but I don't see a good reason to go to the larger one. This year, like many years I'll start my spring break by running one tournament and end it by coaching at the other. For all intents and purposes, my spring break consists of two days in Red State (Tuesday and Wednesday) -- Monday we come home from NPTEKQRS nationals and Thursday I meet the team in mountain state for KLNPDARK nationals...

Today I hosted a debate party at BNCC. It was fun-- we had six teams from 4 different schools. We did 5 rounds and gave out some toys as prizes at the end. Some of my really good debate friends came and spent the whole day judging and giving insightful comments. We had good food, some fun times and did some great work to prepare for nationals.

Since I only have one team, I'm VERY grateful for their help getting ready for nationals. Without them, my team would have the same practice round over and over again -- which teaches them to debate against one type of team, but not against many others. I've also said the same things over and over to them -- and, like many familar relationships, what I say often goes in one ear and out the other. The fact that the other coaches were giving the same comments as i do helps to reinforce what I've said -- and maybe they'll listen.

Handing over control

I had a meeting with the comm studies people at BNCC about debate.

We discussed the current program and the options for continuing it. It was very interesting to see how another department works and the way personalities play out.

The final decision was the best case scenario, although it will more than likely result in a format change from parliamentary debate to policy debate. The other debate coach on-campus has a strong policy debate background and he's willing to give it a try.

I trust that he understands the students, the requirements of policy debate an the challenges that he faces. I don't see how it will work out, but he does and I trust him. At worst, they'll end up changing over to parliamentary debate.

So, next year will be the first year in 10 that I haven't coached debate. I find that both liberating and scary. I think my friend is in a place in his life that he's ready to take on a challenge like this -- and I hope it works out for him.

Personally, I can't wait to actually HAVE a spring break and a full winter break -- I haven't had either for a while.