In general and for a number of reasons, I am not in favor of any separate award designation for novice debate. But if it does happen, then I prefer novice as ‘new to debate.’ The idea that someone with 4 years of high school debate experience and 4 years of college debate experience may enter a separate award division and compete against relatively inexperienced contestants seems to undermine the meaningfulness of those awards.

Of course, these are my preferences regarding debate divisions and participation in those divisions. A tournament host is fully entitled to organize tournaments based on what it is that she or he prefers and can fit to the venue, schedule, etc. There are many occasions in which the physical limits of a tournament site, available time in a schedule, cost and other resources, local needs (debate promotion on campus and in the community, invited guests and judges, broadcast coverage or public event, assessment, etc. ) may require a particular or unconventional tournament design. The special nature of a tournament might require also different design features – a round robin is a popular example. It is healthy to innovate event design and practice. (although such practice should follow substantial private research and practice and integrate evaluation, rather than use invited tournament guests as experimental subjects).

I hold a number of preferences about tournament design (I oppose the current use of CA/DCAs, non-public and transparent tournament tabulation, and private manipulation of computer results for team and judge assignment; object to extant models of judge testing, training; and feedback forms, and dislike 5 prelim round events, disproportionate number of elim rounds for tournament entry, draw for position for elim debates, tiered motion selection, and closed adjudication). Happy to explain the educational and competitive reasons for each of those preferences (although not at this time – too busy). There are other debate formats that integrate some outstanding tournament features that are underutilized at WUDC-format events. Uniformity in tournament features is not necessarily desirable nor practical but would certainly expect that differences should be based on considered judgment and subsequently evaluated by anticipated learning outcomes and standards of fair competition.

Best,

John


On 7/25/12 10:58 AM, "Paul Gross" <[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Eric,
>
> Your tournament looks awesome and I'm excited to attend with the Cornell
> squad.
>
> Just a thought about the issue of novices. You say that novices are those who
> have spoken in fewer than 3 WUDC tournaments. Typically, the definition of
> novice that we've been using in our region is a student in his/her first year
> of intercollegiate debating in any format. This was the standard used at
> Cornell's Novice Nationals last year, as well as several other tournaments
> with novice breakouts in the region.
>
> Obviously, as your tournament is probably the first of the year for most
> institutions, novices that attend will satisfy both definitions. Still, to
> avoid confusion, it might be helpful if everyone agreed on what "novice" means
> in the American BP circuit.
>
> Other people's input?
>
> Best,
> Paul
>
> On Jul 25, 2012, at 1:34 PM, "Barnes, R Eric" <[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hey Everyone,
>>
>> Attached is the invitation to the upcoming debate tournament at Hobart and
>> William Smith Colleges in Geneva, NY.
>>
>> We hope to see you there!
>>
>> Best,
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>
>> ******************************
>> Eric Barnes
>> Hobart and William Smith Colleges
>> Philosophy Department
>> Public Policy Program
>> Debate Coach
>> (315) 781-3182
>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:barnes">[log in to unmask]<mailto:barnes@hws.edu>
>>
>> <2012 HWS FC Invite.pdf>