[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

picking cases

Tuna says:
>1.You are more committed to it, you fight harder for it, you are more
>dynamic about it.
unfortunately, you can't always debate the things you would like to debate.
debaters have to debate things they disagree with.  what tuna says may be
true, but it only is an example of a debater who lacks skill to over come
this psycological barrier.  we truly become great debaters when we can
argue any issue effectively, and win.  not to mention, i think the opposite
may be true, at least for me.  when i am arguing for something i despise
(ie objectivism), i feel i have to make myself look like i believe it, and
i assume that others think it is a bunch of crap too, so i increase my
energy level to account for that.

>2. You are able to stand for ideas to get a judge's ballot, not just the
notion that "we are kicking their ass." Judges like voting for ideas more
than voting for school X.
smells like intervention to me, i know i certainly wont bow down to my
judges choice of argument.  additionally, this seems to work against me
and others just as much as it would work for me.  if i ran all of the
things i believed in, i know i would never pick up crossman's ballot.

>3. You work harder on it if you believe in it.
again, this is only a characteristic of a poor debater.  if he/she can't
work hard on whatever their assignment may be, they won't be successful.
it is impossible to always debate the things you beleive in.  i also think
that this is an unhealthy approach to argumentation.  i am 18 years old, if
i think i fully understand the complexities of all of the arguments in debate
and have formed a coherent opinion about them, thus causing me to not do
research for things i think i may disagree on, i am making a grave mistake.
the way that i LEARN is by doing research, and then debating the issues.  i
would be grossly making intellectual presuppositions about what i think is
right an  wrong if i only debated the issue i though were right.  even if
i felt i had a pretty firm grasp on what was right or wrong, it is better
for me to research and debate those arguments that run contrary to my world
veiw so that i can gain a fuller understanding of my opposition.  debate
teaches people, it can't teach someone who has already decided what they
know is right.

>4. Because it fits your mindset you have fewer contradictions when you debate
> what you believe in.
this should overcome.

debate all of the issues out there.  this is the best way to learn what you
beleive and what you don't believe.  it is essential in the formula for
becoming a successful debater.

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