Academics and Coaching
Thu Mar 19 10:47:15 CST 1998
Ive been saying for years that comm journals need more work done on
pollicy areas and that young coaches could help themselves alot if they
would use the cards cut for debate as texts for rhet crit articles. The
only other thing Ill say is this: you keep saying more debate is always
better, but that is precisely the tragedy of the commons I am talking
about. More of a good thing is NOT always better: should we adopt the high
school system, announce the new topic in the spring, postpone nationals
until late June? As for institutes -- that is a really good way to
guarantee that your tenure case will too close for comfort in a Research I
or II institution. Im obviously a supporter of institutes and what they do
for high school kids, but I am far more ambivalent about what they do for
tenure track faculty. Youll note I did not return to DDI until after I got
On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, kevin kuswa wrote:
> What's up with all these pot articles? :)
> A few additional thoughts on the recruiting issue. Thus far, this
> discussion has been outstanding, particularly the recent posts from
> Dallas and Doyle. I also received great backchannels from Max S. and Casey
> Anderson--they both seem to think student-based activism is essential,
> although Max finds problems with the competitive format.
> Leaving competition for another post, I wanted to make a coment
> about the "over 50 issue." Take a look at the judge pool posted by Mike
> Berry. This is an outstanding group of young Coaches/Judges/Academics,
> especially if some of those distinctions are broken down.
> Dallas made a good point about specific solutions. The season length
> and number of rounds (per tourney) have been debated extensively. I still
> think, though, you can't decrease debate to save it and we have to make
> other sacrifices. Besides those issues, other suggestions deserve attention.
> 1. Cori talks about strengthening links to academia, especially
> Communication Departments. The need for "tenured" support is definitely
> something worth pursuing.
> 2. The activist turn & public forum debating are also great projects.
> Gordon and others have expressed the need to expand the debate forum. This
> move cannot replace the importance of win/loss collegiate debate, but I
> don't think it has to--the idea is to supplement rather than supplant.
> 3. We can also work to expand interest in institutes. Workshops of any form
> increase students' exposure to critical argument and communication. This
> type of education perpetuates itself down the road. There is no reason why
> institute enrollment does not increase across the board every year.
> 4. In addition to expanding summer programs, we could also add rhetoric (or
> general communication) to the institute "curriculums." Of course this type
> of work occurs now, but the classes could be more explicit: a class on "the
> History of Communication and Debate," a skills session that emphasizes
> rhetorical style, or even lectures on pursuing graduate study after college.
> 5. Rhetoric could become more central in our argumentation practices. This
> means more than simply kritiking the opposition's language:
> a) it means discussing CITATIONS, QUALS, the nature of evidence and a number
> of other issues that often fall by the wayside.
> b) it means adding introspection to the debate process--what do particular
> styles and conventions do to certain arguments?
> c) it opens up a virtually unexplored area of research. Great cards about
> the connections between policy and rhetoric can be found all over the QJS,
> CSMC, Comm. Monographs, the regional speech journals, and tons of cultural
> studies journals.
> d) it makes graduate work in comm. studies more interesting.
> e) it grounds much philosophical or critical argument in solid evidence
> (rather than email cards :) ).
> 6. This is kinda hoakey--but we, as a listserve, could draft a short letter
> elaborating on the benefits of supporting a debate team. This letter (which
> many folks have probably already drafted) could be distributed to a huge
> list of potential supporters.
> Oh well, more suggestions as they surface,
> kevin kuswa
>From Thu Mar 19 11:53:39 1998
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:53:39 -0800
Reply-To: jhizm at JUNO.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Joe W Kilpatrick <jhizm at JUNO.COM>
Subject: Re: My Cambodian Demining Webpage
I appreciate the visits to the page and the discussion that has
followed, but I think I should again make it public that Scott Harris'
view of my page is indeed correct. I only published this as an
educational tool, a chance to share an academic and personal interest
with the community and perhaps stimulate discussion over its merit, not
its legitimacy in a round.
Please do not quote me in a round. I agree entirely that this would
set a precedent we as a community would most want to avoid. Use my
materials and works cited pages as tools to further your own research,
or perhaps as a starting point for similar study.
I intend to add to the page as material develops, and I would love to
hear from those with similar works who would like to see them published
in a public forum, particularily those that rely on materials gathered
through debate research first. If you have an interest or paper you
would like to share for academic purposes, write me at
Jhizm at juno.com
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
More information about the Mailman