Is this fair or educational?

[David Frank <DFRANK@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>]

To the Community:
For the first time in the history of CEDA nationals, we did not have a team
advance to the outrounds.  I felt that the judges were fair to my students.  I
was impressed that judges who think that I have fascist tendencies treated my
students fairly.  For this, I am grateful... My students should not be (and
have not been) treated unfairly by critics who do not like me.

Because I want my students to do better, I decided to watch an octofinal round
from beginning to end.  I also decided to watch a team and a coach who had won
the national sweepstakes the night before.  The debate took place between Nortwest State
and UMKC.  I did not know the three judges, but all were recent graduates and
obviously knew the four debaters. 

I watched the Director of Forensics (Todd Grahm) talk with his students before the round. 
He told them that UMKC was running a Special Forces case, and then told them
what they should run.  The arguments he suggested were intelligent and were to
play the definitive role in the decisions the judges made.  His students
listened with some care.  

As the two teams were preparing for the start of the debate, the Northwest
debaters carried on a long conversation with the debaters from UMKC about UMKCs
affirmative case.  Todd Grahm then entered the room, and talked with his debaters
about the strategy he wanted them to run.   At that point, he turned to the
second affirmative from UMKC and asked her a series of questions about the
affirmative case and the affirmative plan.  This cross examination period
lasted about eight minutes, and the student from UMKC responded openly and
candidly about what their case was about.  The questions Grahm posed went to
the heart and to the weakness of the case.  And the questions he posed elicited
answers that the Northwest 2NR used to win the debate.

The affirmative case was based on two or three sources.  The negative had
several sources, but didn't have great evidence on the case.  However, Grahm's
cross examination produced the key flaw in the affirmative.  I talked with two
of the judges after the round, and they told me that they had voted in this
flaw.  

The AFA and CEDA code of ethics tell us that students should be the primary
creators of evidence and arguments.  I try to follow the spirit of these codes. 
I carry on a dialogue and a conversation with my debaters, I have never told
them what to run or argue.  I see many of those who call debaters to "take back
the activity" and to "fight the power" conducting primary research, writing
cases and briefs, and telling their debaters what to argue.   I won't follow
suit, and I will never subject debaters from others schools to a cross
examination.  My days as a debater are over. 

If debate is a game (which I will assume for the moment), then the norms have
changed without open discussion in the last five years, and the playing field
is dramatically uneven when some directors of forensics are allowed to write
arguments and cross examine the opposition.  I believe my students have been
placed at a competitive disadvantage as a result.  I am in search of a communal
response and solution.
Shalom
David Frank
University of Oregon

---

• Prev by Date: Wipeout
• Next by Date: Summer CEDA Workshop
• Prev by thread: Wipeout
• Next by thread: Summer CEDA Workshop
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page