How Many Topics is Enough?

What we wanted to talk about last week, in the episode with Ryan and PJ that got lost in the ozone, was how many topics we should have in LD. In Episode 52, which hasn't gotten lost in the ozone, Cruz and Menick discuss this between themselves, seeing that Bietz and CP were recovering from Valentine's Day and couldn't get their vocal cords to work.

Starting with Jan-Feb...

There's been a lot of discussion of the Jan-Feb topic, and Menick, Bietz and Cruz throw their oars in the water in Episode 50.

Meanwhile, we're looking for people who want to guest on the program, especially if you think we're full of what we will euphemistically refer to as hot air. That's one of the things we talk about on this program, the need to communicate opposing views in a civilized fashion. We're pretty civilized, I think. Anyhow, all you need is a Skype account and you're ready to go! Email one of us.

TFVT launches War on Drugs

So the Four Corners of the Debate Earth tackled the Nov-Dec resolution last night, with decidedly mixed results. Find out which word in the resolution ultimately drove us into the wall. Episode 30

During the discussion I mentioned some material I had picked up from Filip Spagnoli's blog (which you may not be aware of, if you don't follow the Coachean Feed, which you also may not be aware of, which is a tragedy of epic proportions).

http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/stats-on-human-rights/statistics-on-freedom/statistics-on-prisoner-population-rates/#4

http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/human-rights-facts-193-does-being-tough-on-crime-reduce-crime/


http://www.economist.com/node/16636027?story_id=16636027

Oh, yeah. The feed. I've plugged it in there over on the right. The best thing to do is follow it through RSS.

You heard it here first

That is, you heard Menick retching when discussing what is now the Nov-Dec topic. Hear what the Four Feathers (Menick, Cruz, Bietz and Palmer) have to say about all of the potential resolutions in Episode 29.

Episode 25 (including show notes)

The three and only wind up the season (as Cruz insists it be called) with, mostly, discussion of TOC 2010 here. (Those who go the distance will, as occasionally in the past, get a special treat.)

As discussed on the show, first, the link to my news feed.

Second, the conflict material from TOC:

The Lincoln Douglas advisory committee has instituted a policy which requests directors, coaches, and judges of programs to provide information about potential conflicts. The document or statement below should help guide persons in determining whether or not they ought to be conflicted or blocked from judging certain debaters at the tournament. Please read the document carefully and then follow the instructions at the end of the document to provide the tabulation staff with accurate information so that these conflicts may be recorded. We thank you in advance for your cooperation.

We would ask that you enter your conflicts there even though they may have been entered on the Joy of Tournaments site or sent to Dave Huston. We will have verification of your conflicts and mutual preference sheets at registration.


TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS JUDGE CONFLICT DOCUMENT

Fair competition requires not merely the absence of impropriety but also AVOIDING the appearance of impropriety. A conflict of interest is a relationship that might reasonably be thought to bias a judge toward or against a competitor. Such relationships may themselves be quite innocent, but they could reasonably be thought to compromise a judge’s impartiality. The Lincoln Douglas TOC Advisory Committee has drafted these guidelines to be implemented at this year’s Tournament of Champions.


A judge can’t judge a school they attended.

A judge can’t judge a program (whether one school or a collection of schools) for which they coached, consulted, or judged until four years after they stopped. This applies even if the judge only worked with some (or one) of the program’s students. It applies whether or not the judge was paid for the work.

A judge can’t judge a program if there are plans for the judge to work with that program in the future as a coach, consultant, or judge.

A judge can’t judge a program if the judge has done exclusive pre-round prep for one or more of the students from that program, whether electronically, verbally, or through the transfer of resources. Judges can share information without creating a conflict, but if the judge engages in “coaching behavior” such as discussing strategies, arguments, evidence, etc., with a program for the purposes of helping them win a debate, then they shouldn’t judge that program. If a judge does this in the middle of a tournament, they should inform the tab room and recuse themselves.

A judge can’t judge a program if they attend practice rounds with students from that program prior to tournaments.

Judges can’t judge students who are members of their family, who they have dated or had a close physical or emotional relationship, who they regularly chat with either in person, over the phone, or over the computer, and judges can’t judge debaters with whom they socialize outside of the realm of debate.

A judge can’t judge a student if the judge thinks that they would be unable to fairly judge them for reasons not stated in other parts of this document, but for which the judge feels some personal bias.

A judge may choose to recuse him or herself from judging students if they regularly share transportation and/or lodging with the student’s team, if they have a close relationship with the student’s coach or a member of the student’s family, or if the judge works for a debate camp or other forensics business for which the student is planning to work.

NOTE: This doesn’t mean judges can’t judge students who were in their lab at camp, but if the judge maintains regular contact with those students or has a personal relationship with them, they shouldn't judge them.

NOTE: Any time these rules talk about a “program” that means any student from that program. If a judge is hired by one or two students from a program and never meets the other students, they are still a judge for the program.

NOTE: A program is any school or collection of schools that prepares together as a unit, even if they don’t always compete under the same name. If two or more schools share coaching, transportation, lodging, and practices, then they’re a single program.

Judges, coaches, and students all have the responsibility to reveal conflicts. If a coach or student fails to disclose a conflict, all students from that program will lose their mutual preferences. No decisions will be modified as a result of disclosed information. The TOC Advisory Committee or a quorum thereof will adjudicate any disputes and its decision will be final, with appeal to Dr. J.W. Patterson or his tournament staff at the discretion of Dr. Patterson.

THE HEAD COACH OF THE SCHOOL ASSUMES ALL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ALL OF THEIR JUDGES. IT IS A HEAD COACH'S AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO MAKE SURE THAT CONFLICT INFORMATION FOR ALL JUDGES IS ACCURATE. THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO STATE CONFLICTS OR OVERSTATING CONFLICTS WILL BE LOSS OF MJP FOR THE ENTIRE SCHOOL'S ENTRY.

Episode 15 - Jury nullification

You begged with us, you pleaded, and we listened. The Three Squaremealsaday have added an extra portion of nutrition! This week we are joined by Adam Torson, coach and law student from the depths of the midwest, as we discuss the March-April topic. It's so unusual to have someone who knows what he's talking about that you may find the thing totally unrecognizable. The episode is here, if you're too cheap to subscribe to it for free on iTunes (which is, of course, pretty cheap even for you).

Episode 14 - Topic selection + the Modest Novice

The three visually-challenged mice take on NFL topic selection, followed by a description of the modest novice topic, complete with recipes and serving suggestions. You can get it here, or you can get it on iTunes. I gather you can also get it on eBay but you'll have to pay shipping and handling charges.