[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
1) We agree that a debater does best and learns the most with ev they
themselves cut. BUT, if a person wants to use evidence others have cut (be
it from coaches, fellow team members, etc), they should feel free to suffer
the consequences of that use (under Church's interpretation that would be
fewer wins and less education). I think a person should have the choice to
learn less and win less if they want.
2) small squads can't compete. Not true. Two dedicated debaters with no
coaches and no other team members cutting evidence can win national
tournaments. I didn't want to use myself as an example, but.... Michael
and I had no coaches cutting ev and had no real other squad help and did
quite well. We NEVER felt overmatched by ANY coaching staff, and I
wouldn't trade our experience at American with ANY other squad in the
nation. If two-person teams with no coaches are not willing to do the
amount of work we did (while still carrying large classloads), then they
will suffer competitively. So be it. The point is that lack of coaches
cutting evidence does not BAR a person from doing well.
3) what the rules should be. Not sure. I personally feel the more
evidence and variety of positions a team has the more education that goes
on. A student hasn't learned any LESS by working their butt of AND having
coaches do the same. They have learned by reading the materials and
cutting the cards, and have learned even more by being able to argue more
positions. As long as it doesn't prevent people from competing and doing
well (see #2), there doesn't seem to be any harm.
Adam Chud
Cornell University
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page