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

trey gibson's fax

18 Sep 1996 14:55:43 -0700 (MST)@
Received: from general2.asu.edu (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1])
 by general2.asu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA23485 for
 <ceda-l@cornell.edu>; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 14:55:42 -0700
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 14:55:42 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: disclosure/SUU (fwd)
X-Sender: herro@general2.asu.edu
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Message-id: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960918145413.22618D-100000@general2.asu.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT


was this posted and i missed it?  or did i push the wrong key and it 
didnt goto the L?

steve
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 16:50:24 -0700 (MST)
From: herro@imap2.asu.edu
To: Terry West <WEST@EDU-SUU-CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU>
Cc: Issues concerning CEDA Debate <CEDA-L@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: disclosure/SUU

just a couple comments:

first, i respect terry and his opinions...and for the most part agree.

On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Terry West wrote:

> 1)  Does negative disclosure prohibit debaters from thinking during a 
> debate round.  Even if you've "heard the case 13 times," does this 
> prohibit you from having any other original thoughts as you hear it 
> for the 14th?  Maybe you notice something in a card that gives you a 
> link to a position you hadn't noticed before.  Are you limited by 
> disclosure to inferior positions just because all thinking must stop 
> when the rounds start?
> 

i dont think you are limited...all thinking doesnt stop.  it depends on 
how much you commit when you disclose.   if you tell the aff "this may 
change when we hear the 1ac" obviously you arent limited.  usually in 
cases where the neg changes, they tell the aff as soon as possible...like 
the cross x of the 1ac.  

the problem may lie more in what a particular team _expects_ from you re 
disclosure.  i hope we can atleast respect each others right to decide on 
a policy.  there is not a right or wrong policy.


> 2)  What about elim round disclosure? We've had a lot of discussion 
> on the CEDA-L about making tournaments a kinder human experience by 
> running them on time so people can sleep, get home safely, go to 
> classes, etc.  But I've been in countless tournaments where 
> disclosure occurred, followed by a one hour (or more) delay while 
> coaches played dictation with debaters, telling them first-lines to 
> write down and say later.  Since these coaches were usually on other 
> judging panels, those rounds were delayed as well.

this is a good point to an extent.  the "play dictation" reference doesnt 
give debaters enough credit.  in my experience there is some "dictation" 
but usually there is more discussion/brainstorming etc.  i guess my 
question is: is your objection to the time used, the manner in which it 
is used, or both?  i agree the time issue is a problem.  more disclosure 
earlier might help by allowing this work to be done before postings or 
tourneys, rather than waiting to disclose.

your problem with this type of coaching would exist with or without 
disclosure.  

> 3)  Doesn't extensive disclosure intensify the natural advantage of 
> schools with large numbers of coaches available at the tournament 
> (and which often buy out of judging commitments to free these coaches 
> from obligation)?  I mean, if I have two teams in elims, I have to 
> split myself between coaching them; I'm all they've got.  But if I 
> have three assistant coaches, I can put one of us with each debater 
> writing first lines (if I were so inclined).  Yes, it happens with or 
> without disclosure; there's always an advantage to more staff.  But 
> doesn't extensive disclosure increase this even more?

you still have the same number of people working either way.  _any_ 
disclosure probably magnifies the advantage.  teams with less coaches 
need to offset this in other ways.

again, with or without disclosure, this "problem" will always exist.

> 4)  Are there any limits on disclosure?  I've had coaches ask my 
> students (who were going negative):  "What will be your extensions to 
> our answers to your disad?"  Why stop there?  Why not just script out 
> the 2nr/2ar?

in general i dont think this is reasonable.  _but_ in some cases it 
happens, usually between teams that know each other:  "youre running 
clinton with an ctbt impact?...out turn stories will be...."

my point above is i dont think people should expect or insisit _any_ 
level of disclosure.  it should be up to the idividual squad and/or a 
negotiation between two teams or squads.

> Maybe this is all that's needed to once and for all classify me in 
> the "dinosaur" category.  But I won a couple of trophies when I 
> debated, and when my last round ended, so did my career as a debater. 
> Let's let the debaters debate.

i think you are over-simplifying the position of the coaches who take a 
more "hands-on" approach to coaching before rounds. i dont think that 
oversimplification is fair. 
 
> Terry West
> Southern Utah University
> 
steve herro
arizona state university
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page