Lincoln Douglas Schedule and Information

2017 Greenhill Fall Classic LD Schedule

Friday (Marriott Quorum Hotel) – September 15, 2017

7:30 – 10:30 pm Registration

7:30 pm Final Round of Policy and Lincoln Douglas Round Robin (s)

Saturday (Greenhill School) – September 16, 2017

7:30 am Complimentary breakfast in Main Dining Hall – students

8:15 am Round 1 – Lincoln Douglas

10:45 am Round 2 – Lincoln Douglas

1:15 pm Complimentary Lunch in Dining Hall – students

2:15 pm Round 3 Lincoln Douglas

4:45 pm Round 4 Lincoln Douglas

7:00 pm Round 5 – Lincoln Douglas (Single Flight)

Sunday (Greenhill School) – September 17, 2017

7:30 am Complimentary breakfast in Dining Hall – students

8:15 am Round 6 Lincoln Douglas

11:15 am Doubles Lincoln Douglas

1:30 pm Complimentary Lunch in Dining Hall– students

2:30 pm Awards Assembly – TBA

3:15 pm Octos Lincoln Douglas (single flight)

4:45 pm Quarterfinals – Lincoln Douglas

6:15 pm Semis - Lincoln Douglas (single flight)

7:45 pm Finals – Lincoln Douglas

Lincoln Douglas Debate: This is a varsity division for your most experienced Lincoln-Douglas debaters.  Lincoln-Douglas debaters will be allowed five minutes of preparation time.  Six preliminary rounds with two presets and four power-matched rounds will be held.  All power-matched rounds will be high/low within the brackets.  This division will break to double octo-finals.  The resolution will be the September/October National Forensic League resolution. 

Each school will be allowed two entries. We will entertain requests for a 3rd Lincoln Douglas debater as space permits. We will not break brackets.

In requesting extra entries two important considerations should be noted. First, no director should request extra entries unless they feel those students have an above average chance of advancing to elimination rounds given the difficulty of the competition at the Fall Classic. Second, schools requesting extra entries must provide judging for those entries. No school will be allowed to “buy out” of all of its judging. All debaters must bring judges that can be used in a world of mutual preference judging. For example, if a school brings a parent judge that has little to no experience judging national circuit debate, that school will be asked to hire round to fulfill its judging obligations. 

We will be again using a 30 point scale that allows tenth points for speaker points.

We encourage disclosure of decisions and discussion of all debates within the constraints of keeping the tournament on schedule. 

All debates must have one winner and one loser. 

Awards will be presented to all policy debate teams and Lincoln-Douglas debaters reaching the elimination rounds. Speaker awards will be presented to the top 15 cross-examination debaters and top 15 LD debaters. 

***When we reach capacity entries will be closed. DO NOT make plane reservations until you have confirmation of entries. The information listed on the web entry must be that of the official coach for the school.  E-mail information must be supplied for confirmation purposes.  Student initiated entries will not be accepted. Signing up on the website alone does not guarantee entry. You will get a confirmation from Aaron Timmons or Eric Forslund via joyoftournaments to confirm acceptance. We also reserve the right not to accept an entry based on a school's delinquent payment of fees or past behavior (students or coaches) that we feel is inconsistent with the goals, and/or continuation of, our tournament.  

Each year more and more requests are coming our way for independent entries. We are unable to accept "independent" entries. We define an independent entry as a team or student who wishes to compete without the approval, knowledge or consent of their school administration and/or coach (es). All students must compete under the school's name in which they are officially enrolled. 

All judges must be approved, in advance, by tournament officials as a condition of entry. We reserve the right to deny a schools’ entry based on a school filling a judge slot with a judge we feel doesn’t meet the pedagogical ends of the tournament and based on a system of mutual preference judging will be able to be used in at least half of he debates. A very simple rule of thumb is to ask the question, “would you want the judge you are bringing judging you against a quality opponent if the situation was reversed?”

Debate Fees:

Lincoln Douglas Debater $85.00

Lincoln Douglas Debate Judge (1 per 2 LD entries) $175.00  

Make checks payable to:    

Greenhill School

Attn. Aaron Timmons

4141 Spring Valley Road

Addison, TX 75001

Case List (Applicable to both Policy Debate and Lincoln Douglas Debate)

As mentioned in the opening letter, those attending the Greenhill Fall Classic are guests of Greenhill School and its coaching staff. While we value different pedagogical perspectives, at this event, we are unwavering in our perspective on the value of openness. Openness promotes comprehension and preparation, which are critical components for effective clash and better debates. As the host of an early season tournament, we feel particularly compelled to promote an environment that facilitates better debates for the students involved. As competitors for the rest of the season, we appreciate that competitive drives can run into conflict with openness. Finding the appropriate balance between the learning environment and the competitive environment deserves continued consideration. We have decided that a willingness to take part in a collective case list – in both spirit and in practice – is an essential characteristic to accepting the invitation to our event. Case lists enhance the pedagogical and competitive goals of openness by allowing students to better understanding their opponents’ arguments which is an essential component to quality clash and better debates. 

*If you cannot agree with the stipulation below, we respectfully ask that you explore other competitive opportunities on this weekend. Those that DO attend, yet attempt to evade/ignore our requests, will be asked to leave. Participation in the Greenhill Fall Classic, and its benefits like mutual preference judging, is a privilege, not a right.* 

It is also our belief that teams/debaters have an affirmative obligation to update the wiki as new arguments are run throughout the tournament. To clarify, this is a requirement/expectation to compete. 

For the last few years we experimented with a case list in Lincoln Douglas debate and after much reflection and improvement on the implementation of the details of submission, we will once again require all competitors to submit information to a case list available to all coaches and students in both policy and Lincoln Douglas Debate. 

It is the duty of coaches to inform students of the expectation of disclosure/the case list. 

Links to a Drop box are not acceptable. All information must be placed directly into the wiki.

You may ask – “Why are you doing this?” 

1.       We are of the belief that a culture of openness in the sharing of academic information and believe that a case list is one vehicle to maximize that objective. 

2.       A case list that is required of all participants helps to “democratize” the collection of information for all schools in attendance. Without an official case list, schools with plenty of resources, coaches etc and are in the “inner circle” acquire a disproportionate amount of information relative to others.

3.       A case list that is required of all participants, and clarifies the expectations for submission, helps to avoid “freeloading” by those that access the information, yet don’t contribute the same level (or any amount) of information. 

You may ask – “What are you requiring us to do?” 

1.       The community norm that has developed (and seems to be working) in policy debate is that no one should have to disclose a position that they haven’t run yet. We feel this norm is applicable to Lincoln-Douglas as well. We are not asking you to disclose information BEFORE you run it. Specifically, if this is your first event of the year you do not have to disclose your positions until you run them. For example, if you run a case round one, only then does it become public information. 

2.       The expectation is that all debaters are required to disclose positions (affirmative and negative) and full citations (including page numbers of the evidence), and a few words from the beginning and end of the card,  that are read in any debate on the National Debate Coaches Association wiki. The URL for the case list is   http://www.debatecoaches.org/resources/wikis/

An example of the format follows. 

1.      We ask that each team/debater submit information to the wiki in a timely manner. The community norm in policy is to put things online within a round or so of it being run. If you run a new position in elimination rounds, you should post it immediately after the decision.  Greenhill School has an open wireless connection and for those with laptops, submission directly to the wiki should be easy. For those without laptops we will allow you to use the computers in a designated computer lab to submit the information. After the last round of the evening, we ask that once you arrive at your hotel, or place of residence, that you submit arguments broken before retiring for the evening. 

2.      If your advocacy is such that you read a case that doesn’t have a traditional structure, please include enough of a description to allow a delineated thesis of the position. A good rule of thumb is this: include any and all information that you would you want your own debater to have to better understand and prepare to debate the case in question.

3.      If major arguments are not dependant on evidence, those arguments should be summarized on the wiki along with complete citations. 

4.      Cases disclosed should specify both school and team/debater. A debater saying, “See X persons wiki we run the same cases”, doesn’t meet the sprit, or letter of our expectations. 

You may ask - “I don’t like disclosure/case lists but want to come anyway because the tournament is really good. What are you going to do if I don’t participate/attempt to fly under the radar?”

The point has been made that by accepting the invitation to attend the Greenhill Fall Classic, you understand that you are guests, and agree to participate fully with the guidelines outlined in the invitation. As such, attempts to circumvent the intent of the case list will be dealt with in a direct manner given the clarity in which the expectations have been made this year. The tournament directors reserve the right to either remove mutual preference judging or ask competitors to leave if the feeling is that there was an effort to subvert our request. Aaron Timmons and Eric Forslund will make the final judgment of potential violations. “Lawyering” regarding what was expected will not be engaged or tolerated. Two examples illustrate unacceptable behavior we have observed over the years: 

A)     Attempts to overload your wiki with information in order to conceal your arguments will result in disqualification.

B)     Coaches were overheard asking students to report incomplete and perhaps more egregiously, telling students to LIE about their position. These behaviors are unquestionably unethical from our perspective and will result in disqualification.  

Our point in attempting to clarify expectations is to avoid ANY conversations regarding potential disregard, or violation of our requests at the tournament. Again, with all due respect, no one has a right to either attend, or continue competition, in the Greenhill Fall Classic if requests are ignored. If you have questions prior to arriving in Dallas regarding our requests, please email Aaron Timmons at timmonsa@greenhill.org. 

You may ask - "What if our genuine attempts to comply are considered insufficient? Will we be punished?"

Teachers evaluate sincere versus insincere efforts from students every day so we are very comfortable making these judgment calls. We are not interested in a role as the Disclosure Police. However, enforcement is an essential part of any successful endeavor. We want compliance which best benefits all of our guests rather than issuing any punitive actions. If there is a concern, prompt and courteous compliance will go a long way. We are comfortable in being able to tell the difference. Here is a good rule of thumb for those sincerely interested in positive compliance with this community expectation: include any and all information that you would want your own student to have if they were in this debate.

With all due respect to divergent positions on these issues, we are committed to a culture of openness and a sharing of information at the Fall Classic. Please understand that belief as you make a decision to attend our event. 

To provide clarification about the expectation of the timeliness of disclosure, we ask that the information be placed online after you have debated on both sides of the resolution. At worst, all information should be online, with sufficient detail and correct formatting by the end of round four. 

Example of a Lincoln-Douglas case from the wiki past seasons:

Value is Morality 

A consistent moral philosophy should explain the structure of moral reasoning and the kinds of obligations that follow from this structure. Thomas Nagel, "Equality," Mortal Questions, Cambridge (Cambridge University Press, 1979), 126. "I have a…with fair detachment" 

This view yields a moral obligation to minimize the unacceptability of policy options. Thomas Nagel, "Equality," Mortal Questions, Cambridge (Cambridge University Press, 1979), 126 "So let me…in this sense" 

Standard is minimizing the unacceptability of policy options 

A. Economic sanctions harm the most disadvantaged members of society. 

Roger Normand & Christopher Wilcke (Wilcke completed his degree of Master of Philosophy at the University of Oxford in Modern Middle Eastern Studies in the summer of 2001. Roger Normand is co-founder and Executive Director of the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR), a human rights group that advocates against poverty and economic injustice both at home and abroad.) Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems Fall, 2001 SYMPOSIUM: INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAQ: WHERE ARE WE AFTER TEN YEARS? Human Rights, Sanctions, and Terrorist Threats: The United Nations Sanctions Against Iraq "The third concern...the most valuable" 

This harm is built into the logic of economic sanctions. Roger Normand & Christopher Wilcke (Wilcke completed his degree of Master of Philosophy at the University of Oxford in Modern Middle Eastern Studies in the summer of 2001. Roger Normand is co-founder and Executive Director of the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR), a human rights group that advocates against poverty and economic injustice both at home and abroad.) Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems Fall, 2001 SYMPOSIUM: INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAQ: WHERE ARE WE AFTER TEN YEARS? Human Rights, Sanctions, and Terrorist Threats: The United Nations Sanctions Against Iraq "This conclusion elicits...further impoverish them" 

The indiscriminate nature of sanctions is instrumental to their success; this factor is what makes sanctions a uniquely immoral foreign policy tool. Mark R. Amstutz [Professor of Political Science at Wheaton College], “The Ethics of Economic Sanctions,” International Ethics: Concepts, Theories, and Cases in Global Politics, Third Edition, 2008, 189 “Some scholars have…on the leadership” 

B. Economic sanctions increase harms against non-consenting individuals beyond the imposition of sanctions themselves; they increase the power of oppressive leaders, furthering human rights abuses. 

Jacob Weisberg “Thanks for the Sanctions: Why do we keep using a policy that helps dictators?” The Slate. Aug. 2, 2006. http://www.slate.com/id/2147058/ “Sanctions tend to…off their chains” 

Also, sanctions increase the probability of war. David J. Lektzian and Christopher M. Sprecher [University of New Orleans and Texas A&M University], “Sanctions, Signals, and Militarized Conflict” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 51, No. 2 (Apr. 2007) p. 415. “Sanctions can function…will also occur” 

Sanctions exacerbate intra-state conflicts by creating an imbalance of military capability. Noel Malcolm [Fellow of the British Academy, History], Bosnia: A Short History, 1994, 241-242. “Because the war…sentence of death” 

Not even targeted sanctions can avoid the problem of targeting a nation in the face of intra-state conflicts. Jacob Weisberg “Thanks for the Sanctions: Why do we keep using a policy that helps dictators?” The Slate. Aug. 2, 2006. http://www.slate.com/id/2147058/ “Tyrants seem to…for 47 years” 

C. Diplomatic sanctions have proved to be an effective alternative to economic sanctions. 

James A. Phillips (Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation). “The Changing Face of Middle Eastern Terrorism.” October 6, 1994. http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/BG1005.cfm “Countries victimized by…1991 Gulf War” 

Economic sanctions are immoral because they harm the worst-off more than alternative foreign policy options. A.J. Christopher [Professor of Geography, University of Port Elizabeth], “The Pattern of Diplomatic Sanctions against South Africa 1948-1994,” GeoJournal 34.4 (1994), 439-446, at 446. ,“The application of…the international community"