[GFCA] GFCA - First Year Policy State Championship Survey

[Smiley, Adam]

I voted yes on this and brought it up at the fall meeting, so I am happy
to discuss my logic.  In my opinion, the purpose of the novice state
tournament should be determine the best 1st year debate team in the
state of Georgia.  By February, a very large percentage of first year
debaters will have begun entering JV and Varsity divisions to get
exposure to new types of arguments.  Asking these students to then
revert to the packet asks them to engage is less complex debates than
they have been at their most recent tournaments.

The JV division at JV state should be reserved for 2nd year teams and
determine the best 2nd year debate team.  A large number of these
students will be competitors would be individuals that have been
competing at the Varsity level all year.  Putting the novices that do
not want to use the packet in the JV division would give them no chance
of winning against the 2nd year teams that have an extra year of
experience.

I feel that having an open novice division will be more effective at
determining the best 1st year debate team.

 

Adam Smiley

 

________________________________

From: thegfca-bounces at lists.gradyspeaks.org
[mailto:thegfca-bounces at lists.gradyspeaks.org] On Behalf Of Anna Watkins
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 11:07 AM
To: thegfca at lists.gradyspeaks.org
Subject: Re: [GFCA] GFCA - First Year Policy State Championship Survey

 

I had the same question -- a yes vote is for two separate novice
divisions, one restricted to the packet and one open to new evidence?
But both restricted to the Novice plans?  If not, then what's the
difference between an "open novice" and the JV divisions (besides a year
of debate)?  I missed the fall discussion.

 

Anna

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anna Watkins

JH & HS Librarian

Debate Sponsor

Paideia School

Atlanta, GA

(404) 270-2391

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gradyspeaks.org/pipermail/thegfca-gradyspeaks.org/attachments/20111208/2ad289e7/attachment-0004.htm>