Re: Input on types of CEDA Topics

["Anthony M. Penders" <apenders@seattleu.edu>]

On Sun, 9 Apr 1995, Jim Hanson wrote:

> Tuna and others
> 
> I urge that we skip "fact topics"--like the wording
> used for the media and welfare topics.  They are
> barely debatable if at all, make teaching debate
> very difficult because of the incredible
> divergence of views on how to debate these
> topics (plans or no plans, etc.), and they are not
> that fun to research and coach because they are
> too narrow.
> 
> I'd prefer a policy topic--but please, no fact
> topics.
> 
> Jim Hanson
> Whitman College
> 
Agree completely, and would be quite a bit less likely to debate NDT if I
knew in advance that the topic would be policy.  Because I'm a limited
Cartesian thinker, I like the concept of being able to explain consistent
concepts to young students.  (Plans, inherency...I still haven't figured
out how anything "filters through criterion"--I'm debating not evaluating
a cup of coffee......)
Anyway.  Booo on Fact topics, and mild grumbling about all else.  (b/c
thats my nature)
Tony Penders, Seattle University.

---

References:

• Input on types of CEDA Topics
• From: Jim Hanson <HANSONJB@WPOFFICE.WHITMAN.EDU>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: The Judges Will Have a Lot of Explaining to Do! (fwd)
• Next by Date: Re: favorite cases
• Prev by thread: Re: Input on types of CEDA Topics
• Next by thread: Re: Input on types of CEDA Topics
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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