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

Why predictability?


Why Predictability - In the topic writing process,

   Many people attribute the decline in debate membership to symptoms like
speed and supposedly counter-intuitive impacts etc.  I attribute it (admittedly
in anectotal fashion) to lack of predictability in research.  Russ Church once
emphasized to me(in a topic meeting)the imporatnce of the simplicity and
elegance of topic construction.  While I agree that brevity forms the essence
of wit I also believe that such elegance should not be acheived at the expense
of meaningful word choices.  While it may in fact be important that a novice
debater can connect intellectualy with the topic whn it is announced that same
novice needs to be able to connect with the topic AS IT IS DEBATED THROUGHOUT
THE YEAR.  When that novice hits Michigan State running a cooling ponds for
eutropied waste affirmative that is probably not what they thaught US foreign
policy toward Mexico meant.  When that novice hits brick kilns they probably
did not anticipate that that would form a part of the topic literature.  These
are not aberrations and they have an attributable cause.  If the words that
we choose in topics are so simple as to become essentially meaningless when
debated we have failed at writing an effective topic (I say we because I
helped frame the Mexico topic -- I am not externalizing blame).  What we have
lost in the rush to simple broad topics is predictability.  Despite thousands
of hours of debate research I cannot fully anticipate all of the possibilities
and each new interpretation adds multipliers to the uncertainty that is created
by the unconstrained but simple breadth.
    Another problem with our current method of topic writing is that the lack
of predictability creates an unwell activity.  The example that I have used is
the national CEDA tournament.  At CEDA nationals, a team can debate a total of
11 negative rounds.  According to the CEDA national case list over 130 cases
(not counting new cases run only at nationals) with approximately 100 advantage
areas were run at each of the last two CEDA national tournaments.  So, to be
prepared to debate 11 rounds you must be prepared to debate hundreds of rounds.
Inevitable trade-offsoccur in this preperation including almost constant sleep
deprivation, massive caffeine infusions regularly, lots of smoking, lots of
late night poor food choices, skipping classes, dissing the significant other
etc.  All of this just to be suprised by a new case when you finally reach
national finals (or your break round).  If this really sounds unfamilliar to
you disregard my post.  There obviously is a cost to success. I am not saying
that there is a way to absolutelysolve this dillemna.  In fact, to be the best
sacrifices will always have to be made.  What I am talking about is that
feeling of futility that occurs when the vast majority of the hard work and
sacrifice you made to create a solid base of research never gets used.  Either
way, the odds are high that the vast amount of research that you do in any
year bcomes nothing but a monument to deforestation.
   In addition, I think that those that have competing priorities of equal
importance (ohhhhh lets say.....an education)frequently leave this activity
because they cannot stay competitive in both simultaneously.  It is not even
that they cannot win....but rather that they cannot even open the door
because, currently, anything is possible in any round regardless of the topic
(ask KU about Space Debris -- hold on Emory could not have run that case --
ASU did not run it first like Sovereign Immunity and Tritium).  What I have
suggested is that predictability at least defines the boundries and allows
teams to be prepared to say something in most debates.  They may not win, but
they will not feel the anger and frustration at not being prepared for say
tire mosquitos on the border (no offense Todd).  You see the meaning the topic
creates is the same meaning that topicality becomes as a limiter of
affirmative case construction.  The reasons T becomes irrelevent are the same
reasons the cases become unpredictable......THE TOPICS MEAN NOTHING....they
are frequently multi-directional and filled with poor limitations on action
that do not conform to any real world policy equivelent.
   When I talk about predictability I am referring to using the action or
verb part of the topic to constrain the actions taken to a real set of
actions that could be taken in the mirror policy-making body in the real world.
For instance, on a court topic, contstrain the tpic to the reform to last years
docket of Supreme Court decisions.  On a foreign policy topic, use the current
specific mechanisms of reform to reverse prior policies that are specified
in the wording.  It is because I believe this that I voted for treaties.  I
am sad that more of you did not agree.  I ahve to go do some packing now,...
I hope some of this makes some sense to you.....Josh

Joshua B. Hoe


e-mail:IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
all info will be changing soon.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page