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

Re: Ethics - Coaches and card cutting

> I think the reasons for coaches not cutting evidence presented by Dr.
> Church are incorrect.  He first says that debaters using evidence cut by
> their coaches produces poor debates (he even cites an example of a team
> losing while running such evidence).  This seems to be self-defeating.  If
> you don't understand your evidence and have trouble reading it, you are
> likely to lose with it. 

Chud feeds my argument quite clearly, because the debater who does her or 
his own research is much more likely to understand the position.  
Moreover, isn't more knowledge an important goal of debate and isn't 
the debater who does his or her own research always learning more?  To me 
this is really clear.

 If a person CHOOSES to lose with their coach's
> evidence, shouldn't they have that choice? 

Yes, under the present system the ethics code is aspirational and so all 
have the choice of whether to follow it or not.  I don't think that is 
the issue.  The issues are two:  what is ethically right and no one has 
really addressed this, including myself and what is most beneficial to 
the debater in terms of educational value.

 If they don't want to switch
> (or learn), they'll continuHe to lose.  Too bad. 

This is really unclear.  Switch from what to what?

 He also says that small
> squads can't compete.  Not true.  As I've said before, two debaters who
> work hard can compete at the highest levels against squads of fifteen
> debaters and five coaches.  It's empirically proven. 

There are always exceptions.  But if you look at most of the final round 
participants in nationals (not all and I believe there is one very recent 
exception) the squads all have numerous coaches who do a lot of evidence 
cutting.  I would guess if you anayzed most of the octafinalists at 
nationals this year you would find squads where the coaches did a lot of 
evidence cutting.

 Those small squads
> are likely to know their evidence the best.  I also think the harm to
> coach-cut evidence is NON-UNIQUE with respect to large squads.  Even a
> squad where the coach cuts none of the evidence will have people reading ev
> they didn't cut as other team members hand in cards. 

You are correct.  But I have two responses.  One, at least it's the 
debaters who do the cutting and at least the debaters have gottien the 
value out of doing the research.   Two, you justify with this argument 
debaters doing their own work.  I agree and I emphasize all debaters 
writing their own cases and their own negative positions, even the 
novices.  Only a very few times have my squads used a team case.  I have 
to admit one of those times was my most successful squads ever.  We had a 
team in quarters and were tenth in the nation in a field of more than 300 
CEDA schools.  But you know we lost a lot of educational value doing it 
that way and I will never do it again.

 These can be equally
> poor cards or written in illegible handwriting. 

So I guess your solution is to make sure the coach does her or his job 
and types all the evidence and cases they write.

 I'm not clear what limited
> assistance with reasearch is or how that line is drawn.

You're right and perhaps coaches should do zero research.  I think I 
could draw a line and justify it, but I will not.  I'll grant your 
position and it feeds my argument

  That seems to be
> the confusion generated by the rules now in place.
> 

There are no rules -- just an aspirational code.  I am NOT calling for 
rules either.  I would rahter see the conditions of the activity change 
so coaches would not even think about cutting evidence.


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