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

Re: CEDA-L digest 1057

  More importantly, you misunderstand my philosophy.  Ken Broda-Bahm explained
it best to me when I was but a youngster - It has to be an argument before
it counts as an argument.  We do have fairly concrete and agreed upon ways
to detemine what an argument is while we do not have such clear-cut mechanisms
for determining what the REAL WORLD is.  In other words, the statement, "Its
a VOTING ISSUE,"  would not qualify while,"Its a voting issue because it makes
the 1NC irrelevent by changing the intent and focus of the 1AC,"  comes a bit
closer.  I honestly believe if we taught debaters to be smarter and choose
better in the 1AR we would have much more meaningful debates.  Because, on the
whole,everyone FEELS SORRY for the POOR 1AR and seems to feel they need LEEWAY
we have a whole circuit full of 1AR's living down to the expectation that a
good 1AR is impossible.  If the 1AR collapsed down earlier and more often to
the BEST 2AC arguments and got DEEPER on those arguments 1) comparing the 2AC
to the Block 2) and extending those arguments OFFENSIVELY instead of just
extending them then the 1AR would have more time to answer the cheap shots.
I would much rather hold the 1AR to a high standard and let them meat them.
  Finally, I answered your argument about a coach PROGRAMMING debaters with
arguments....It is at the bottom of the post.  Consultation is different than
force.
  Whoops, one more, you missed my argument that the critic is not silenced by
the approach I suggest.  There is more pressure to apply judge criticism to a
useful model for debate practice.  In fact, when you make the argument that
your debaters do not debate the way that you would like aren't you saying that
you have failed to convince them that such an approach would be viable?  If
we found ways for coaches philosophies to become reconnected to debate reality
perhaps this would be less of a problem.....  At the end of the round, if a
judge is upset or felt that the round could have been resolved in a superior
manner then say so.  If you feel that you are voting for a bad argument feel
free to say so.  The audience can still have a voice just a less pro-active
one.  Josh

Joshua B. Hoe
Asst. Dir. Forensics
Arizona State University
e-mail:IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
(602) 965-5578
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page