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

Re: ans Dove (x2)

> howdy.
> 
> thanks for the wisdom about what "smart" programs do to win:  i will 
> consider your proposal for Cornell debate.

Not intended as sarcasm, but if you want to take it that way, enjoy.  
Unfortunately, it makes me respond in kind.

> two arguments are made:
> 
> 1) they lug around a lot of useless evidence
> 
> you're wrong.  what's a test other than your own eyes and ears?  those 
> fools who lug all that ev around win.  they dominate the top 40 spots of 
> the power rankings.  could it just be that you don't know what you're 
> talking about in this regard?

Michael, I'm surprised at you.  A post hoc fallacy so obvious isn't worthy
of you.  They carry a lot of evidence, and they win.  Therefore, evidence
must make them win.  How about this: motivated, competitive debaters win. 
They have been taught to believe that evidence is a quantifiable measure
of potential success (by coaches who desperately want such a measure), and
because they are motivated and competitive, they go and collect more
evidence.  At first, this works, but eventually, it just feeds off 
itself.  Nobody stops to ask, "Hey, how much of this stuff do you really
need?"  Have a debater try this experiment: make some small mark on a
brief each time you read it.  At the end of a season, go through your
filebox and see how many unmarked briefs you have.  I think I know what
the result will be, and you think you know what the result will be, but
the fact is that neither of us has a shred of empirical evidence to
support that.  I'm arguing from what I have seen and heard, and you are
doing the same. 

> 2) there is a threshold and if you cross it all will be fine

No, there is a threshold and once you cross it your work becomes 
significantly easier.  It's not quite the same statement.

> 
> how ccconnnnnveeeeennnnniennnnnntttt.
> 
> let's see, for early topic release to make ANY sense for "smaller" 
> squads we'll need a THEORY of the value of evidence.  let's see:  how 
> about the THRESHOLD theory.  yeah, that's it, the threshold theory.
> and because the theory lets us draw a conclusion which justifies our 
> foolishness, it must be true.

Your only justification for calling my position "foolishness" is that it 
disagrees with your own.  See above regarding empirical evidence and the 
perfect reversibility of your own model for explaining the importance of 
evidence.  You don't know what the cause and effect are, but you're 
perfectly willing to extrapolate to the death of debate as we know it when 
the topic date is moved back two or three weeks.  Please look carefully 
at your own position before mocking mine.

> well, then evidence behaves like an odd "commodity" indeed:  strange 
> that the value of very few other objects behave like the value of 
> evidence...  but then, a simple decreasing marginal utility curve which 
> fits the value of just about every other thing would mean that an early 
> topic release is BAD.  we can't have that, it'll never do.  it's gotta 
> be the threshold theory of value for evidence.

You have ccccoooonnnnvvvveeeennnniiiieeeennntttlllyyy forgotten that I 
never bought your economic paradigm in the first place.  Evidence does 
not behave like a commodity, and I wish you would stop assuming that it 
does (again in a complete absence of empirical justification).

> and look!  if we release the topic 5 weeks earlier, then "small" squads 
> will be able to cross that threshold.  it's magic.  it can't be 2 weeks 
> earlier, they don't cross the threshold THAT way...

I never, ever, in any post, specified that two weeks earlier was 
unsuitable.  I said I felt it would be advantageous to many programs if 
the topic were released when students could do preliminary research 
without the burden of classes.  You'll have to give this straw man to 
someone else.

> finally, mocking aside, even if the "threshold" theory is 
> correct, remember that the "big" squads will know that the "small" 
> squads will cross the Rubicon.  why oh why won't they increase their 
<snip>

Here you go into your economic speculation again.  You still haven't 
shown why the application of this type of analysis to debate is valid, 
especially when evidence is the only thing you are taking into account.

> what is your motivation for the absurd commitment to early release?  
> why?

I think it will help the programs I coach.  It may also help the program 
you coach.  I do not believe that it will lead to a desolate future where 
a small circle of debate geeks stand around chuckling at each others' 
obscure jokes, wondering why there are so few schools competing these 
days.  Our opinions differ on this, and as demonstrated above, there is 
no objective empirical evidence for either of our opinions.  I'm calling 
it the way I see it based on my personal experience.  You are doing the 
same, but trying to cloak it in an appeal to economic theory.

          --Alan


__________________
Alan Dove
N3IMU
ad52@columbia.edu
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page