homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Wed May 24, 2017 10:38 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:37 am
Posts: 767
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 2, Washington
I think the title is self-explanatory. My partner and I are good enough, but we never get speaker awards and thus have an uphill battle to fight against better teams.

How do you go about beating a team that is obviously better than you?

_________________
Potent Speaking: the only debate website exclusively dedicated to speaking tips. http://potentspeaking.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
run better arguments than them.

_________________
- Will

2010-11 | Freshman | Bardsley/King | IX | 13th at Regionals
2011-12 | Sophomore | Dovel/King | IX | Q'd to Nationals
2012-13 | Junior | Dovel/King | IX | 17th at Nationals
2013-14 | Senior | Dovel/King | IX | 5th at Nationals

Baylor University class of 2018


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:37 am
Posts: 767
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 2, Washington
Oh yay, a troll :P. I mean when even though your arguments are better, their rhetoric is making the arguments look bad.

_________________
Potent Speaking: the only debate website exclusively dedicated to speaking tips. http://potentspeaking.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 3:24 am
Posts: 769
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Alabama
If they are trying to get by with only flashy rhetoric and not actually having better arguments, then I don't see how they would win, unless (1) the judge votes only on how good you speak, or (2) the disparity between speaking ability is very significant. The most obvious solution is just to get better at speaking. :|

_________________
- Brennan Herring (Team Policy Coach, Catalyst Speech and Debate)

Ethos is also pretty cool, you should check it out.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:46 pm
Posts: 212
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Mars, obviously.
Two things.
You guys are good speakers. Not getting speaker awards doesn't mean you don't communicate well. So stop it. :cough: broke at Nats :cough:
Second, if your arguments are clearly better, then point that out to the judge. Make a real-life comparison between the two sides, and it should be obvious... that's pretty much the answer. There's no magic formula to beating good debaters, except hard work (and I know you do that).

_________________
ShaynePC wrote:
Guys. John Bush III is coaching this club. In Greek, jonbush means SIGN UP NOW.

Join Speech and Debate USA
[Avatar photo credit]


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:41 pm 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
There is a very clear difference between being a good orator and being an effective communicator. If your arguments are good then you have to learn how to effectively communicate them to a judge.

Strip your speeches down to the bare bones and present only the arguments as clearly as you can. Less words. Less attempts at being a spectacular orator. Get really good at using four point refutation ("they said," "I say," "because," "and this matters;" i.e. identify opponent's argument, make your counter claim, give warrants, impact). You can get good at this without using a policy debate context. Try doing it with what to eat for dinner, or what to do on Saturday.

And learn to call out BS effectively. Amazing orators can beat better arguments by BS'ing their way around it; if you can identify exactly where that is occurring and then can point it out effectively, you should win.

Alternatively, you might be losing to teams that are better than you because they actually make more sense than you do.

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:06 pm 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1358
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
I would agree with much of what Drew said. I once heard it said best by one of my debate coaches: “It’s not necessarily what you say, but how you say it.” Don’t be intimidated by what the postings or what other people say. Treat every debate round as the final round at Nationals and a way to honor and glorify God. The other teams don’t determine who you are; YOU determine who you are. Be a winsome communicator for Christ and make your arguments clear in whatever circumstance against whichever team you hit. The best teams don’t have the most complicated cases or the snazziest debate briefs. The best teams are winsome communicators and good orators. Not necessarily spectacular, but CLEAR and concise is what wins.

Also, keep in mind a proper perspective about your judges. Oftentimes, community judges were asked by friends at church or a second-cousin twice removed to come to this mysterious thing called a debate tournament. These people are the thinking man and woman from the street: well-rounded, smart, and educated, but having no idea what a “contention,” “inherency,” “solvency,” or a “card” even is. They drive up to the campus not knowing what to expect, who to see, or even most likely what they’re doing. They walk up and are promptly put through a twenty-minute orientation which they somewhat understand. Then, they walk into a room with four dashing young men in awesome suits and ties debating about what to do in the United Nations. (For the sake of the application, assume that it’s two guy teams debating in NCFCA, lol.) After a round where they take scattered notes on the flow of what they liked and what they didn’t really understand, they go into a judging lounge where cookies and coffee are put in front of them, and they have to make a decision about who to win? AHHHHH! :o

Point being: Many times, if you are lost in a debate round, the judge doesn’t understand the other team, either. You aren’t trying to convince the other team; you are asked to convince the judge of your position. Be clear, coolheaded, concise, and most importantly winsome and you should be good to go. Have the knowledge in your head and the compassion in your heart. Don't let the enemy take you down or beat you up. :)

_________________
Evan Buck, LD Coach
Twitter | Seeking Alpha | Coaching Website | YouTube

As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. -Psalm 42:1

Truth is treason in an empire of lies...


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:17 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1909
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
Ditto Drew.

Unless you've got a pure speaks judge, the critical point in beating good speakers is just clarity clarity clarity. The main key to clarity is organization. Use four-point refutation relentlessly - for every argument, not just direct rebuttals. Outline your speeches in a clear, coherent order on your flow, and then stick to it, with lots of signposting. (I find the sporple symbol very useful when constructing speech outlines.)

Also, remember that people are persuaded by knowledge. Thus, winning requires teaching. (I wrote a bit about this here.)

If you don't like your prospects against a well-researched Aff, it often helps to go for an unusual strategy. Run a counterplan, or a kritik. Think through the case and try to find a way to play the Aff's points off each other. Base your entire Negative strategy off of how Mozambique will react. Etc. If nothing else, introducing a completely unexpected toss-up strategy might raise your chances to 50-50. :lol:

EDIT: Ninja'd. Ditto all that stuff too. :P

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.4 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
  1. Practice a lot more. Do a practice speech a day. Keep your flows and re-give one rebuttal a day, and when you've cycled through them all, take two or three days off and then repeat. Pick several debate friends and make an exchange deal with them where you send your affirmative outline around, and they send you back a hypothetical 1NC, which you then use to prep and give a practice 2AC.
  2. Think laterally. Don't be predictable. Find novel angles of attack and get them off the arguments they hear all the time.
  3. Reverse-engineer the strategy. If even one piece of evidence is from a sourcebook, go back and read the original publication. Learn to draw fine distinctions based on what you've learned from reading authors' entire works.
  4. Pay your dues and be patient. If they're better, it's very likely from hard work. Remind yourself that they once wondered what it would take to beat the people who were better than them, and that your turn will come if you keep at it. And the harder you work, the sooner it comes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:45 pm 
Offline
The Great White Sharc
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:58 pm
Posts: 4769
Home Schooled: Yes
If you are focusing on one or two particular teams, then just know their evidence better than they do. Out-research them. With a good flow of their case or their brief against you, this shouldn't be difficult (albeit time-consuming).

If you are talking about in general, I was once given a piece of advice that has stayed with me for 7 years now: I had come out of a tough round where my refutation wasn't very good. I was ranting about how their arguments were weak, and ours were clearly better for xyz reasons (you know how you let off steam to your friends when you come out of a sub-par round). One of the people listening (an alumni much wiser than I at the time) told me, "what you just said there is what you should've said to the judge". For some reason, in the NCFCA, we tend to adopt a persona when speaking to the judge. It's better to simply be plain with the judge and point out why you're right. One thing I learned in college (where it is more acceptable and common) that should be applied more to homeschool debating is just saying "Judge, their argument is wrong". Be blunt. I mean, in NPDA or BP, I'd open speeches by saying "the last speaker seems to have completely misunderstood the laws of economics by saying x". Now, you can't be that harsh in front of parent judges, but you get the point. There's no need to put on some politician show. Speak plainly and truthfully.

_________________
Marc Davis

I currently help coach at TACT in Region X.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Take a huge risk. DON'T run the same strategy everyone else ran.

Example: Finals at nationals 2010.

In semis, Baumgardner/Nelson (one of the best teams ever, and Colorado's a-team that year) lost to Josiah/Patrick. The core flaw with their strategy was running DAs and Inherency at the same time and ending up in contradiction.

Their club-mates ended up in finals on the same side and ran the exact same strategy. If you're more junior and the senior team can't pull off a strategy, don't just do the "basic" thing. You'll likely lose 7-0. Go for something off the wall and interesting.

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:27 am
Posts: 107
Home Schooled: Yes
Isaiah wrote:
Take a huge risk. DON'T run the same strategy everyone else ran.

Example: Finals at nationals 2010.

In semis, Baumgardner/Nelson (one of the best teams ever, and Colorado's a-team that year) lost to Josiah/Patrick. The core flaw with their strategy was running DAs and Inherency at the same time and ending up in contradiction.

Their club-mates ended up in finals on the same side and ran the exact same strategy. If you're more junior and the senior team can't pull off a strategy, don't just do the "basic" thing. You'll likely lose 7-0. Go for something off the wall and interesting.


Just out of interest, how were the Disads/Inherency contradictory?

_________________
"Until the possible becomes actual, it's only a distraction." ~ Qui-Gonn Jin

Verve, WA
G. Smith


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:16 pm 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
RPatz wrote:
Isaiah wrote:
Take a huge risk. DON'T run the same strategy everyone else ran.

Example: Finals at nationals 2010.

In semis, Baumgardner/Nelson (one of the best teams ever, and Colorado's a-team that year) lost to Josiah/Patrick. The core flaw with their strategy was running DAs and Inherency at the same time and ending up in contradiction.

Their club-mates ended up in finals on the same side and ran the exact same strategy. If you're more junior and the senior team can't pull off a strategy, don't just do the "basic" thing. You'll likely lose 7-0. Go for something off the wall and interesting.


Just out of interest, how were the Disads/Inherency contradictory?


(I hope I'm remembering this right...) The inherency was that coal plants were already implementing better cleaning and disposal technology, but one of the DAs was saying that if coal plants were required to upgrade (under McPeak/Shipsey's plan) it would essentially be too high a cost to bear and we would essentially have an energy crisis on our hands.

I think that was the biggest contradiction, but I could be wrong.

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
That made me think of one of my favorite Baylor debate stories. It's a good cautionary tale against pinning too much on the element of surprise, and also a good cautionary tale in favor of doing your own research.

Dartmouth had two very good teams at the National Debate Tournament in 1987, and both reached the semifinals. In one semi, Dartmouth was affirmative against Baylor and ran a new affirmative. The topic was about removing a restriction on the first amendment, and Dartmouth allowed legal defense funds to be included in the Combined Federal Campaign. The details aren't important; it was an obscure little affirmative, and to win, they counted on Baylor having no evidence at all, and in particular no disadvantage links, because the plan did virtually nothing. The 2AC link answer to everything was "It's exactly one hundred eighty words of free speech protected, which isn't enough to trigger anything."

One problem. That was also Baylor's new affirmative for nationals.

In the 1NC, Baylor started seven disadvantages, each with an on-point link card, and then read another fifteen to twenty case-specific cards on the case. The Dartmouth debaters were very, very smart, but also very slow, and the Baylor team was one of the two or three fastest in the country. It was a quick, merciful slaughter.

It gets better.

In the other semifinal, Dartmouth beat Nebraska, so the final round was also Dartmouth-Baylor, but this time Baylor was affirmative. And yes, Baylor ran the legal defense funds Combined Federal Campaign affirmative, which Dartmouth had prepped for nationals as their new affirmative. One of the Dartmouth coaches came over to the Baylor coaching staff after the 1AC and said, "Are you crazy? We can talk all day about this affirmative! What were you thinking?" The Baylor coaches said, "Let's see what happens."

You see, Dartmouth had pioneered a practice that badly backfired on them that day: hired researchers. They would hire debaters who had just graduated from college, and the debaters could make a reasonably good living just researching arguments for the Dartmouth debate team. As a result, the Dartmouth debaters were at times a little over-programmed, and didn't know what their own arguments actually assumed. They were technically proficient, eloquent, and very smart, but they hadn't read the parts of the books and articles that were between the cut evidence, so they didn't always know what was going on. It wasn't that much of a handicap; they still got two teams to the semis of nationals. But occasionally it left them high and dry.

In this case, the hired researcher who'd written their new affirmative for nationals, and the negative strategy against it, had also filed it for them, and they couldn't find the file. "What were you thinking?" rapidly turned into "What are THEY thinking?" after the 1NC, when it was all generic arguments and generic evidence against the case. Baylor coasted to an easy win.

Moral of the story: surprise can be powerful, but you can't count on it. And if other people are doing your prep, that'll wrong-foot you at the worst possible moment.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited