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

A second proposal for the novice division.


Thank you to all who commented on my first suggestion of subsets of the rez for
novice divisions.  I'm not backing away from my advocacy, but offering another
opinion of how we could better serve the first-time debaters wanting to join
our programs.....mandatory case lists.

One of the toughest things to explain (and indeed often discourages individuals
from joining programs) to true novice debaters is that they will have absolutelyno idea of what they will be debating until the round starts, or perhaps 5
minutes before, if the team discloses.  This, obviously, significantly inhibits
a novices ability to prepare.  They need not have a complete flow of the case
so they can "prep-out"; but if we could at least tell them, "you will be going
negative 3 times on Friday/Saturday against 3 of these 10 cases" then they 
would have some time to think/ask questions about the cases.  The result would
be a better case debate from the negative, also forcing the affirmative to
offer better explanations of there affirmative--overall better debate!!!
For those who believe in the in-round education value of debate (I do), the
in-round debate would be better, thereby increasing education.  Furthermore,
we would be able to offer the assurance to our first time competitors that they
will know what they will be debating.

For these reasons, I propose:
1) Individual tournaments establish a mandatory case list rule for novice 
   divisions.  When entry's are made, the plan's which may be run by novice
   teams should be disclosed at this time. (option-just prelims or entire 
   tournament, something to consider).
2) Once entries are finalized, this info should be made known to all schools
   with competitors in the novice divisions.
3) All novice teams are required to run an affirmative case from the list 
   which they submitted.

Obviously there are potentials for abuse which follow:
Coaches wishing to take advantage of the system could submit a dozen cases
for each team, knowing they will only run one.  Others will submit variations
of plans written intentionally vague, as to mask the true intent of case.
Etc.  However, what this asks is for us to develop a prioritization for 
winning/education + involvement.  If winning is your primary goal, this 
plan is not for you, bottom line.  However, those who truly care about education, you can relate to the objectives of such a plan, and seek to develop a 
similar, workable proposal. 

Let's work to put this in practice for 97-98

Bob Alexander,
SSDS
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page