Topic Selection Procedure

["Matthew K. Roskoski" <MROSKOSKI@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>]

While we await the results of the topic area balloting, I would like to offer
some thoughts on the modified topic selection process.  These thoughts are not
exclusively my own - many other persons have said similar things to me.  In
brief, my comment is that the topic areas are not sufficiently informative to
guide responsible balloting.

Each topic area (with the exception, in my opinion, of sports) has the
potential to produce good resolutions.  Each also has the potential to produce
bad resolutions.  Without knowing in advance what the resolutions are for each
topic area, the process of selecting a topic area is almost an exercise in
futility, because the exact wording of the resolution has a massive impact on
the nature of the debates.  Consider last semester's resolution, for example,
minus the phrase "to foster democracy."  I would estimate that over 65% of the
debates I judged focused on the merits of fostering democracy as opposed to the
merits of intervention.

Now, I realize that the modified process was the result of much thought and
effort.  I don't want to berate the topic committee, or criticize without
proposing an alternative.  Hence, I make the following suggestion: let's do it
the way NFL does.  We could release the five problem areas, just as we did this
semester.  However, instead of the paragraphs explaining what the topic area is
meant to include, let there be five resolutions.  That way, it is possible to
make a problem area decision based on the actual resolutions involved.

I assume that part of the reason for the problem area system is to disassociate
the question of what subject we should be debating from the political questions
of broad/narrow, policy/value etc.  My proposal allows for that: simply include
in the set of five one policy resolution and one value resolution, one broad
resolution and one narrow resolution, etc. 

I heartily endorse the earlier release of the problem area.  Taking time in the
summer to do basic subject research can only enhance the quality of our debates
and the education of our students.  However, there is room for improvement. 
Modifying the process so that people know what the resolutions will be when
they choose the problem area would be desirable. 

I invite input and feedback.  Judging from the random conversations I've had
with people, this idea is neither new nor controversial.  If that's correct,
perhaps it would be possible to implement this idea for the Spring semester
balloting.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Matthew K. Roskoski   |  "You have the right to free speech.  As long as     |
| UMKC Debate Forum     |  you're not dumb enough to actually try it. Know     |
| Kansas City, MO       |  your rights.  These are your rights!" The Clash '82 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

• Prev by Date: Theory evidence
• Next by Date: TR & theory
• Prev by thread: Re: Problem Area
• Next by thread: TR & theory
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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