Early Days of "the K" #1 - Texas BE vs Georgia BN 1995 National Debate Tournament

Today we are beginning a series of posts that will be of some historical interest to all you other debate nerds out there. We have dusted off and digitized an old VHS tape of a 1995 NDT Octafinals debate between the Georgia team of Paul Barseness and Len Neighbors and the Texas team of Jon Brody and Eric Emerson.

Each day, a new speech of the debate will be posted here along with another video post with commentary by Joel Rollins, Director of Debate at the University of Texas, Brian McBride, former University of Texas debater and current coach at USC, and myself, J.V. Reed, former Texas debater, current Texas coach, and director of the UTNIF (only occasional commentary by me, anyway, chiming in as the disembodied voice sounding off from behind the camera.)

The goal of this project isn't to laud the past and lament the present state of debate, or to re-live the good old days. The idea was to take an old debate featuring two very accomplished teams, watch it, critique it, and think a bit about where debating conventions were at in 1995 and what they've become in 2011. We think the results are thought provoking and make for an enjoyable viewing experience.

It is particularly interesting to have a window into the past and to see how K debating has changed on the Aff and the Neg. Debate conventions evolve rather quickly, often for the better. Even still, it is worthwhile to revisit old debates and see what might be learned from their juxtaposition with the debates we are currently competing in, coaching for and judging. At the time of this debate "the K" as an argument form had only been around for about 2 years. Because, the University of Texas was the chief instigator of this argumentative turn, this debate provides a good example of early K debate practices for review. The use of Foucauldian theory in debate, now quite commonplace, was a new innovation at the time this video was shot.

We hope you enjoy watching this series as much as we enjoyed making it.

Below, I will provide some basic introductory context for the debate featured in this series.

Year - 1995
Tournament - NDT
Host - West Georgia College

This debate is an OCTAFINALS debate. The title cards are incorrect - it is not the Quarters. (The editor for this project was summarily fired.)

Texas BE was the Number 5 First Round At Large team at the NDT. Georgia BN was the Number 13 First Round At Large team at the NDT.

Georgia BN was having a great tournament, racking up 7 wins and 18 ballots to earn the 3rd seed. Texas BE had emerged from the prelim's a bit bruised, as the 19th seed with 5 wins and 14 ballots.

Texas BE had won a close Double Octafinal debate vs the Emory team of Jamie McKown and Charlie Henn. Georgia BN had advanced through the Doubles without debating.

As anyone who has attended the NDT can attest, the level of competition and intensity is quite high. The intensity is further magnified by the sense that the debate one is judging or competing in, could be the competitors' very last debate ever. This debate had a senior on both of the teams competing - Jon Brody, the 2n from Texas, and, Len Neighbors, the 1A from Georgia.

The topic - RESOLVED: That the federal government should substantially change rules and/or statutes governing criminal procedure in federal courts in one or more of the following areas: pretrial detention, sentencing.

I believe that Georgia's affirmative was a new Aff, although they had run it earlier in the tournament. The Georgia Aff is concerned with the sentencing rules for attorneys who are held in contempt of court. Some attorneys are subject to what is called "summary sentencing" in which they are sentenced for their contempt offense, right there in the court, on the spot, by the same judge who has held them in contempt. Or at least that's what I gathered from listening to the 1AC.

You'll notice that much of the commentary from Joel and Brian in this first video revolves around the strategic value of this particular Aff vs. a Foucaultian "Disciplinary Power" argument. It was no secret that Brody and Emerson's preferred negative argument was Disciplinary Power, and Georgia's decision to run this particular Aff reflected that intel about Texas' typical 2NRs. For audiences new to this debate, the commentary should become clearer once the 1NC speech has been posted.

Viewers will likely get the most out of this series by flowing the debate, just as one would if you were an in-person spectator.

That's probably enough to get this thing started, so I will shut up for now and let the games begin!

The 1AC:

Wayback Machine: 1995 NDT Texas v Georgia - 1AC from UTNIF on Vimeo.

Post 1AC commentary by Joel Rollins and Brian McBride:

Georgia BN vs Texas BE Post 1AC Commentary from UTNIF on Vimeo.

CX of the 1AC:

Wayback Machine: 1995 NDT. Texas v Georgia. CX of 1AC from UTNIF on Vimeo.

Post CX Commentary by Joel Rollins and Brian McBride:

Georgia BN vs Texas BE Post 1AC Cross Ex Commentary from UTNIF on Vimeo.