Mandell,+Daniel

I was asked to write something for this website, which I agreed to do because I am trying to help my former team. This site did not exist when I was in high school, and upon learning what it was, I became angry. I object to this website and being asked to use it. I object to a tournament which tells judges they have to post to it. And I object to coaches who would use this website and allow their students to use this site.

Debate -- especially high school debate -- was, and should still be, about education. Education should be about preparing students for the real world, and in the real world we very rarely get to choose our audience. A successful debate program should end with a shy student being able to stand up in front of a group of people and speak; with the loquacious student able to focus his or her words into eloquent persuasion; with the novice confident and able to answer the question 'why'; and with the varsity able to answer 'why' and 'why not'. Regardless of the audiences' or judge's "paradigm," a successful debater will be able to present, adapt, and persuade. Asking for judges to place their "paradigms" on this website so that coaches and debaters can know what they are looking for is no different from "teaching to the test."

Debate is special within education because it has the capability to teach invaluable practical skills such as the ability to stand up in front of a room of people and speak persuasively, to think critically, and to be able to see all sides of an issue. It is lamentable that the arts (including debate) are facing increasing cut-backs in our schools; it is far worse that coaches allow debate to be transformed from an incredible learning experience to little more than a trophy race.

The time just spent reading this little rant could have been used preparing for the round, delving further into the question of 'why' and 'why not', understanding the task, the history, purpose, and rules of the specific event, and how do deal with whatever situation may come up. If you get me as a judge and you want to win, then you need to persuade me you are better/the best of the options. If you are in LD, you need to why I ought to act in the way you assert. If you are in TD, you need to prove to me why I should or should not adopt a policy. If you are in Extemp or IE, then be the funniest, saddest, most convincing person in the group. And so on and so forth.

One final comment. Before deciding to strike me, ask yourself why you are thinking of doing so. Are you afraid because I will not tell you whether I think evidence should be used in LD or whether topicality is a valid basis for decision in TD? Rather than striking me, why don't you test yourself and see if you really are as good as you think. See if you can persuade me to vote for you without knowing what my preferences are.