[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Pick 50 - adaptation answers
> 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
Sorry for my narrowness, but out of a fairly large sample, I have not met
any such judges (at least not any who would admit to it).
> 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
> as well!
"when we find out what negative teams are running" again implies that this
is something done outside the round. Apart from that, it just doesn't
match my experience. As a scientist, I set high standards for logical
argumentation - something which used to be prevalent in debate (especially
in the Northeast) and has faded. If it were as common as you seem to
indicate here, "meatball" positions like North/South, Nanotech, and
Cultural Imperialism would simply disappear - they have no strategic value
against someone who is willing to engage in some real thought and attack
> 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.
Again, I think we are talking about different standards for "real
analysis." I didn't mean to say that debaters aren't thinking at all -
just that they aren't thinking as much as they should.
> 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 am generalizing from a pretty good sample, including comments of other
coaches I've talked to. Of course there are many debaters who write many
(or perhaps even all) of their own positions. I applaud this. I also
assume that any coach would want his debaters to understand a position
before running it - that doesn't deny that these positions are
pre-scripted, nor that they are frequently misapplied because of a
debater's reluctance to deviate from them.
> 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.
Absolutely. However, the trend in recent years has been a sort of "mine
is bigger than yours" approach, and I'm not impressed. In my opinion, if
you need more than one large file box for your evidence, you're using it
as a security blanket. Using good analysis in the round, there is no way
you will ever need that much evidence. The team I was talking about in
my original post entered the round with two accordion files containing
all of their evidence, flow pads, and pens - and absolutely annihilated
their opponents. Research is great, but it has increasingly become a
substitute for good argumentation.
> 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
Thanks for the extra straw man, but I have enough of them in my email box
> 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!
Perhaps. I haven't seen you debate. Also, I never said there was
anything wrong with speed. Personally, I love a fast round - but only if
the speed is based on logical argumentation and judicious application of
appropriate evidence, rather than brief-reading.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (email@example.com)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page