[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: The quality of Analysis
> I'm getting confused here.
A lot of people apparently are.
> I don't know where Alan Dove all this "intricate reasoning" and "brilliant
> analysis" in the good ol' "value days" of CEDA. I debated in 91 - probably
> the tail end of that era and saw the exact opposite. Analysis was stunted
> by a lack of concrete theory on which to pontificate. The "value
> hierarchies" were a joke - reducing value conflicts to "Life is paramount"
<snip>
I'm not saying that value topics were the greatest in the world (I'm
actually very happy that CEDA has gone policy, as the issues are
clearer). However, apart from the periodic muddiness on criterial
issues, there was a greater tendency to analyze the case - and not just
to see which of your D/As could link to it. With the advent of policy
topics in CEDA, I was looking forward to hearing a lot more such
analysis. It hasn't been there.
> The lighter side: questions asked of me attending the Wheaton fall
> tournament last year;
<snipped out some good responses to questions>
> Just thought I'd throw those in. I VEHEMENTLY (I just had to throw in some
> caps so I would fit in to the tone of this thread) disagree that evidence
> destroys analysis. I believe I addressed that in an earlier post about the
I also disagree that evidence destroys analysis. That's why I never said
it did.
> So, what do you plan to do about this horrid situation - start voting
> against teams that have more than a recipe card box? Start limiting the
> number of cards a debater can read in a round? ("Mr. Judge {knees shaking}
> may I please read another? Please?) Obviously these are ridiculous
Yes, especially since they miss the thesis of my original post, and the
subsequent clarification I posted.
> More accurately, you can change the shape of the activity one debater at a
> time, one program at time. Your pedagogical influence does not extend very
> far beyond those you coach. Judging is a poor place to educate -
> competitiveness colors the debater's perception of you and your ability to
> educate. ("That jerk-off. Like he knows anything! Go get my gun so we can
> wax him!" :)
See my responses elsewhere on this thread for how I decide an individual
round vs. what I would have preferred to hear in the same round. Sure,
I'll vote for positions I think are a load of crap - if the other team
fumbles them. I educate by what I write on the ballot and the speaker
points I award. If both teams tacitly agree to debate in a particular
manner (as is usually the case), one of them will still win, whether or
not I like the overall style. Judging is a fine place to educate, as
long as you don't do it by allowing your prejudices to determine the
winner. I assume that debaters read my comments on the ballot and try to
learn from them - that is education. When I was debating, I read the
ballot even if I had won the round - chances are, there was something the
judge thought I could have done better.
> I don't think this is a productive thread - what did you think was going to
> happen. You: on CEDA-L (probably at lease 1/2 of the subscribers are active
> debaters), telling them all that they suck, they don;t knopw what good
> analysis, yearning for the "good ol' days".
I don't know whose post you are responding to here, but it certainly
wasn't mine. It interests me that this is such a touchy issue that
everyone is jumping to put words into my mouth.
> What did you think was going to happen? A paradigm shift?
No. I was hoping for insightful responses, perhaps suggestions of how
other coaches work to encourage more thorough analysis. At the very
least, I was hoping that readers of the L would read my original position
carefully before responding.
--Alan
__________________
Alan Dove
N3IMU
ad52@columbia.edu
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page