topic bredth and small schools

["Michael A. Krueger" <mkrueger@frank.mtsu.edu>]

I sit here and read about the spratley islands and I think to myself that
the topic -is- big.
then I think to myself...  so what?
and yes, we are a small school.
 
I think "so what" because I don't really see that as a disadvantage.
really.
good debaters can do wonders by themselves.  I believe that.
why?
the rounds are divided half and half (aff and neg).
I don't think -any- squad is big enough to prep out -every- case.  maybe
so, but i doubt it.  remember that the topic is "infinitely" big, which
means their division of labor is going to be negated somewhat if the small
school  can
find a place to argue their affirmative.
plus, I should win every affirmative round, dammit. Unless Simerly is
judging i mean.  oh.  not me.  my teams.
 
take last year for example...  what disad were the "big" schools running?
Clinton.  or some variation of that. (at least many of them) (oh yeah...
a counterplan too that they ran all the time) case debate wasn't really
relavent. so....
seems the large schools and small schools carved out a niche in the
resolution and debated their niche on the affirmative.
both large and small went for generics and a Cp on the negative (and maybe
a Kritik.)
 
seems to me that the quality (in general ) of the arguments wasn't
particularly better from large schools.  case debates (unless warming :)
) weren't really happening all that much (well, they happened, but
rounds were rarely won and lost on case).
 
and that my friends was with everybody posting case lists throughout the
year on the L.
 
Large or small topic areas, we have fallen into a debate rut it seems,
which is poor quality of argumentation.  there is little clash left.  oh
well.
I'm not certain that is the product of the topics, either....
 
seems to me that judges who refuse to vote on case pimps, solvency take
outs and so on contribute,.
now you have to win a disad to win.  or a kritik or a case turn (i'm
guilty too of course)
but all of that tends to force negatives into big impacts and risk based
scenarios in order to have a chance against the little affirmatives.
so, when looking at the "small" topics that effect our lives, I'm not
certain that the same practices won't happen there to.  what does this
really do then?  not alot.
 For instance, if an affirmative action topic as used, debaters could
parcel that out to little areas, right?  that argument has already been
conceded.  so what will the negative do?  rely on generics like political
capital...  yeah.  more clinton debates.  yawn.
perhaps the "movement" isn't really against the topic; rather, it might be
a sense of frustration over what debate is and where it is going.  Now
this
is certainly no indictment of -every- team that I saw last year as there
are some very fine debaters.
on the other hand...  there are also some very poor debaters that do a
bunch of crap and get ballots.
Are we perpetuating bad debate at times by rewrding poor debate habits?
perhaps.  Just a thought...  though I do sympathize with the frustration
felt by many programs.
 
hopefully, this dialogue can shed some light on what the problems are and
won't continue to degenerate.

my humble opinion, of course.

mike

Michael Krueger
Asst. Dir. of Forensics
Middle Tennessee State University
Http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate
(615) 898-2273

Berry, Buck, Mills, and Stipe in '87

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

---

• Prev by Date: The southwest mo state coach
• Next by Date: Do Not Believe the HYPE about topics.
• Prev by thread: The southwest mo state coach
• Next by thread: Do Not Believe the HYPE about topics.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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