lexis wrexis

[STUMASSEYJB@MERCUR.USAO.EDU]

An Open Letter to the Topic Committee and the Community from one of its members:

Thoughts about the topic committee and its duties, in no particular order.

1. Topic committee members need to say it in the session and then stand
together. If you don't like a topic, say so and argue against it, but don't
say it is OK and then decide you dislike it later. If you say it is bad in
the meeting, then you certainly may continue to say so later in public.

2. Topic committee members should not consider their insights as privileged
and then ask others to follow in their "spirit." I am upset by a ballot I
saw which said that "I am on the topic committee and we had hoped we would
not hear the words nuclear war on this topic." Do not speak for others in
this way. Spirit of the resolution arguments are bad and topic committee
members need to arrest the notion that there is some eternal truth either
in us or our topic.

3. Contrary to what others may think, I believe that the debate community
wants policy topics. We should give them some. Realize that your pet
non-policy topic will have trouble getting elected, so you might want to
consider phrasing it as a policy topic.

4. I believe that an excellent trade topic last semester was lost because
it had too many words. Extra words mean more topicality and more
counterplan ground. Keep it simple is my advice.

5. We must avoid the tendency to frame topics with our own agendas in mind.
The debaters will do what they want with whatever we give them, and trying
to force discussion of some issues, trying to force certain kinds of
arguments, trying to force certain styles, all of these will fail at their
objectives and only screw other things up. The critical issue is not "how
can we write the topic so that it produces the kind of debates we want" but
"how can we write a topic so that debaters can choose their own focus in a
fair and even handed way." The problem may be that topic committee members
don't like the current average CEDA debate and are tempted to use topic
writing as a way to fix that. It won't work and it will only damage many
other facets of the activity. You can't write a topic saying that "I want
more case debate." It doesn't work.

6. Avoid the double complaint. For example, broad topics are bad because
they end up focusing on generics" and also saying that we need "reasonable
expectations of generic ground." Contradiction. Avoid "it's too broad" and
"it will be boring quickly." Or, "Broad topics are bad because they lead to
tiny cases," and "the answer is to have a small topic." Wrong. A tiny topic
will only mean tinier cases and no broader ones, where a broad topic will
lead to at least SOME broad cases.

7. Those members who  withdraw from CEDA competition should consider
resigning from the topic committee.

8. An important critical tool is to consider what people are likely to do
with a topic and look at it that way. Let us ask a few coaches at Emporia
to tell us what the focus of our considered topics will be -- how would you
coach it? -- and then use that data to guide us.

9. I disapprove of "ideological pairing" of any sort. Like, you two
disagree on debate in general, so go off and write a topic, or the reverse.
Go with your interests. We can all work together.

I am looking closely at this process so that I can learn from Pam's efforts
as well as try and identify new practices for use next year.

Those debaters and coaches without suggestions prior to the meeting should
SHUT UP when they don't like the choices. JOIN IN or STOP WHINING is my
advice.

By the way, I have changed my hair cut and my wardrobe as part of my mid
life crisis. Unfortunately, my obnoxiousness factor has also increased
considerably as a result. Sorry in advance.

Alfred C. Snider AKA Tuna
Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics
University of Vermont

---

• Prev by Date: Ev from Internet?
• Next by Date: Mardi Gras?
• Prev by thread: Re: Ev from Internet?
• Next by thread: Mardi Gras?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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