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

Re: Reply to Sullivan re format

You can continue to use a conventional cross-examination format in 9-6-16 
(or 8-5-12/14...8-6-12, etc). There are also strategic reasons that some 
conventions would remain in this newer format (e.g., standard 
cross-examination of the 1AC can be particularly valuable for negative 
strategy)...The relative importance of cross-ex is already decided by 
debaters. As I noted, and you regularly experience, much of 
cross-examination involves a private exchange of information and some 
preparation time involves questioning opponents. Your description of 
"intense interludes of disagreement" without "much excitement in between" 
is a reflection of current practice in cx, prep time, and the debate...

One value of a format change is that it causes participants to 
investigate an issue, official design of the debate, that many take for 
granted. For example, your posting cites the importance of 
cross-examination and the importance of public information (information 
to the judge rather than privately held q/a by the debaters). These are 
issues that are problematic in current practice; experimentation with 
format serves as a prompt to remind participants of the strategic 
possibilities created by the design of the debate. (Many judges, for 
example, do not pay attention during cx or do not flow cx because of the 
relatively inconsequential role that cross-examination routinely plays in 
the debate. However, I participated in and  judged a number of debates in 
which an answer or interpretation from cx served as the critical focal 
point of the debate. Cross-examination ought to play an important 
strategic role in debates. A shift in format might have the effect of 
highlighting the importance of cx, notdownplaying, its role)...
>
>Sure, debaters can adjust fine to new time constraints. Debaters can do a
>lot of things when they put their mind to it and there is competitive
>motivation involved. It's just another thing to worry about. I like the idea
>of experimenting with constraints (I have no particular ones in mind -
>haven't put that much thought into it), I just think it should be done in
>extended intervals, with several tournaments using the same ones.. That
>gives you better data anyway, and takes a lot of the pressure (real or
>imagined) off the competitors..

I think that debaters would be excited about new formats if they 
approached them as opportunities, rather than problems. Brief 
experimentation or even a single practice round (e.g., a six-minute 1AR 
or practice with an 'open' cx/prep format) is usually enough for debaters 
to begin the quest for strategic advantage in the format ..I agree that 
several tournaments should use similar formats. My objection was only to 
the universalization of a single format...As I noted, it is possible to 
debate a number of formats, consecutively, at the beginning of this 
debate season. In addition, many of the suggested formats repeat elements 
(the formats offer many permutations of the same elements). It won't be 
as "new" or as daunting as some suspect...

I agree with you that the design of the debate should not place the 
demand for format experimentation ahead of the skills of the competitors 
or the demands of the event. I have supported experimentation (which 
includes, of course, keeping some tournaments at 8-3-5) which enhances 
the critical examination of argumentation and evidence and promotes 
rigorous debate...


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