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

Patriot GamesRe: 9-6-16

Glen Strickland

At 11:06 AM 8/19/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Having judged at the round robin in this format, I must confess that I
>liked the plan.  It seems arbitraty to cut-off cross-examination after
>collecting evidence.  I am tired of the continual cross-ex's to which I
>am not privy--the ones that take place after cross-es is over in the
>current prep time plan.  It opens up new strategic opportunities.  It
>plays to the advantage of well-organized, good questioners.  The
>organizational skills and questioning skills are something we should
>encourage.  It means that cross-ex's frequently proceed past "can I see
>that card?"
>
>However, there are two potential problems I am willing to tolerate
>(though I am not sure most judges would also be so willing).  First, less
>judge time.  Lets face it, some of us need it.  And some judges currently
>do not listen to cross-ex--reading, talking to others, and just zoning
>out are common behaviors I have witnessed.  And second, I have only seen
>this practice at the round robin where highly skilled debaters compete.
>Thus, the extra cross-ex time seemed to serve a valuable purpose.
>
>I suppose there is a third danger.  If we fall to the lowest common
>denominator we may end up seeing virtually no cross-ex as debaters use
>the time to prep rather than question and, as educators I believe we
>should encourage cross-examination.  Some do learn and get better even if
>some simply ask for evidence or ask bad questions to provide partners
>with prep time.  Some could argue that many debaters will forego the
>option altogether and that would reflect poor pedagogy.
>
>How about 16 minutes with each debater required or expected to ask at
>least 2 minutes of questions?
>
>I encourage thought on this process, because my experience at the round
>robin led me to believe that, at least among the calibre of debater
>there, I thought it led to engaging and interesting questioning.
>
>Bill N.
>
>
>On Mon, 19 Aug 1996, Doyle Srader wrote:
>
>> Usually, Professor Meany's posts make my head rattle. But I liked his
>> proposal for 9-6-16. As I understand it, this is or has been the rule at
>> the Kentucky Round Robin. Is there a good argument against it?
>>
>> <For those just joining the thread, especially on the NDT-L: 9 minute
>> constructives, 6 minute rebuttals, 16 minutes 'alternative use' time,
>> usable either as cross-examination or as prep. For high school, that
>> could be 8-5-14.>
>>
>> Doyle Srader
>> University of Georgia
>> <706> 548-9938
>>
>> " ... which just shows you can have an M.A. and a Ph.D and still
>>   fall for the same old B.S."
>>      Cecil Adams, RETURN OF THE STRAIGHT DOPE, p. 62
>>
>
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page