[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Pick 50 - adaptation answers
On Tue, 24 Oct 1995, Alan Dove wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 1995, Matt Siemens wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Oct 1995 Pacedebate@aol.com wrote:
> If you ever see my name listed for any kind of judge preference, you would
> do well to put me on your strike list. Not only am I disturbed that you
> try to defend shouting and swearing in a round, I see that your responses
> here lack any real analysis.
wow...you feel really strongly about this don't you? i think that
if judges state this as part of their philosophy or preferences then
no strike sheet be needed. some judges like the idea of shouting
and swearing in a round...would doing this in front of a judge be
considered adaptation?!? i don't know, but i don't think there was
much real analysis in the original post either!
> First, I'll go on a tangent. This hits a nerve for me. In the past few
> years, I have watched debate transform from an activity involving
> analytical thinking and spontaneous generation of innovative arguments
> into a competition to see who can read the most generic briefs. When was
> the last time you were in a round where the negative actually attacked
> case line-by-line?
i would have to say there were a number of rounds i was in this
past weekend in which this occurred.
How many 2ACs go to the trouble to point out
> contradictions in negative off-case positions?
this is the first process we go through when we find out what
negative teams are running, and i'm sure other teams do this alot
Can you name a round in
> which a debater engaged in real analysis within the round?
i think that 7 out of the 9 rounds we were in this weekend included
some real analysis.
Yes, I am
> afraid of this change - I am afraid that the activity has changed to one
> where the only intelligent thought processes occur outside the round - and
> then only on the part of the coach writing the positions.
i am afraid of people who generalize debaters in to this massive lump
of sameness! we are not all committed to reading only what our
coaches write...in fact, many of our coaches (matt siemens being one)
refuse to supply us with prewritten positions that we have not taken
the time to understand, and more than encourage us to write our own.
i know that there are many teams who cut ALL of their own evidence
and are better for it!
I wouldn't even
> bother to comment on this, but I saw a round this weekend that
> demonstrated the validity of my stance on this issue - a team that argued
> analytically destroyed everyone they hit (at least as far as quarters,
> which was when I left).
so obviously you aren't the only person out there who believes this
to be the best approach. if teams succeed, they will not change their
ways just to fit in! in a way, this becomes a judges as well as
competitors issue! it also becomes a question of whether you have
data to back up your claim and your warrants. evidence is not
a negative thing! researching it makes us more intelligent,
enlightened and able to analyze.
If debaters are forced to adapt to curmudgeons
> like me on a regular basis, we might eventually see more such rounds.
> Until then, I will continue to attack the spewfest approach at every
> opportunity - my ire has indeed been raised.
cross apply all of my above arguments. i think that under your
generalized argumentation, we would grant that affirmative cases
would no longer have to have any evidence in them, as long as
they made sense on logical basis. this i believe is called
parlimentary debate, and there is nothing wrong with it in the
correct venue, but we are talking about CEDA in this context.
my ire has been raised with the accusation that i have partici-
pated in this so-called spew fest simply because i have improved
my speed, and include evidence in our negative block. i think
this interpretation would be a GRAND over-generalization!
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page