From: deforeest@GONZAGA.EDU
To: Issues concerning CEDA Debate <CEDA-L@cornell.edu>
Subject: Why we should break brackets
While there are many, many issues that face CEDA/NDT, or DEBATE, if you
will, one in particular distresses me the most because of its role in my
last tournament. I could not find the words to express my sorrow when I
realized Sunday night of Nationals that two successful debates in the
morning would result in my teams hitting each other in the quarter finals.
Further, the lower seeded team contained our squad's lone senior, someone
who had worked so very hard for four years to earn his shot at the
national championship. While I could not have asked for a more
professional or gracious response from Fred and John, as a squad we could
not even find a way to discuss the issue - even now, it remains an
unspoken reality that a fine career came to an end not because of a better
argument or even a better team, but because of an outdated rule.I
respectfully submit that one really does HAVE to prove that seeding is a
statistically valid science before a reasonable argument for the present
system can be maintained. Phrases such as "earning a debate" against a
particular opponent imply that there is some objective standard by which
we can say a team is 15th best, not 14th or 16th. I cannot envision anyone
defending the judges at CEDA Nationals as being homogoneous enough to
permit such an objective standard to exist. We do the best we can - going
8-0 does, in all probability, allow you to have easier debates in early
elims than someone who finished 6-2 or 5-3. There is a difference, I
expect, between the top 6-2 and the bottom 6-2. But the distinctions that
brackets draw are very coarse at best. We cannot possibly know that the
team with one or two fewer points really "deserves" to be the EXACT seed
that they happen to be - there is far too much chance involved in critics
and opponents in prelims.
In a true weighing of the issues, let's look at the harm caused by the
current system. Students who have worked for many, many long hours upon
days upon weeks upon months upon years are suddenly denied the chance to
debate or learn. As Dr. Duke observed during the tournament, it is
impossible to understand the emotion involved in CEDA Nationals unless you
are out there embroiled in it. I would challenge anyone, in the moment it
happens, to explain to a debater who has been victimized by this rule why
it exists. I don't think anyone could do it and walk away feeling good
about themselves. What higher, moral good do we think we are promoting
here. If we incorporate a rule for breaking brackets, that is just as
objective a manner of deciding who debates whom in a given round. It is
just as objective to say "1 debates 16" as it is to say "1 debates 16
unless they are from the same school, in which case 1 debates 15 and 2
debates 16." Could that be bad luck for the 2 seed? Yep, but it is back
luck for the teams from the same school to hit each other now. Under a new
system, at the very least, everyone gets to debate and learn. It is not
that one team is being "cheated" out of a particular opponent. Just as
now, the rules are the rules. But under a new system, we have minimized
the bad, not given sacred status to a random event. Just like brackets are
an imprecise but reasonably decent method of deciding a given opponent, so
would a bracket with the ability to break them. This would allow debaters
to what they are funded to do: debate. Even at Nationals, amid all the
competition, we are still human and humanistic educators. That is what we
are still about - at least, I think it is, isn't it?
The fact that Fred is mature enough to handle the tragic end of his career
with class doesn't change the story. It was no accident that he was there
in quarterfinals - the way he was debating, we all will be left to wonder
what might have been if he had been permitted to continue. At least y'all
can find out about John for three more years.
As I said, I can never give back to debate what I received from it.
However, if I can persuade even 3 people to change their minds and get
this rule overturned, then some debater down the line will probably
benefit.
Thank you for reading
Bill DeForeest
Gonzaga University
|
