[eDebate] Reconnecting debate to the academy-topics that reflect the literature

Josh Hoe jbhdb8
Thu Apr 13 19:09:50 CDT 2006

I actually agree with most of what Dr. Warner says here...The problem is
that we all have theories of what is wrong and no meaningful data to back
any of it up.  Let me say one thing, however.

I have worked at UMKC, UCO, ASU, UNT, and now U of M....I will be honest, I
have no problem at all defending what we do to administrators and have had
to many times.  I will go a step further....For the most part, I am pretty
proud of what we do.  Now, this has nothing to do with the "why we are
losing programs" question (at least not directly) or the why are we losing
PHDs discussion (at least not directly).  I just wanted to say that what we
do, in the main, is defensible to administrators.

The rest of this I largely agree with - there has been a disconnect between
the academic basis of the activity and best competitive practices that has
caused problems for students and coaches.  However, we probably disagree
about best solutions (shocking)....Good research would certainly move
everyone much closer to understanding these processes more and arguing
less.  However, good research, in my mind, does not mean we go in
pre-determining outcomes.

Anyway, good post Ede,


On 4/13/06, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:
>  In all likelihood, we can't save Oregon today.  If we could, we would.
> But tomorrow it will be someone else.  But we do have the power to engage in
> practices that can prevent the next one.  Why do I say this?
> 1)  The connection between debate and the academy has been destroyed.
> Newnam concludes in his article that the debate about debate has been had
> forty years ago, and those fighting switch side debate and debate activism
> must have lost.  Why?  Because of the way debate is practiced today.  It's
> ironic that sometimes what we think is a short term victory in a battle only
> sets us up for a longer term loss in the war.  Forty years ago, hundreds of
> debate programs were firmly entrenced inside academic units, being run by
> Phd's and connected strongly with departments.  You can count the number of
> those programs left on a couple of hands.  Many programs have non-tenure
> track faculty or master's level personnel running them, are completely
> outside academic units, or are inside but constently fighting for resources
> and support from a majority of folks that have never seen a debate, and will
> never (at least if the coach or director can avoid it).  As the exposure
> through CSTV and books and articles grow, so does the risk that the wrong
> administrator will actually see what we do.  I get the impression that
> Oregon never had through and through support by adminstrators or faculty for
> CEDA/NDT policy debate.  And if Josh is right, that Jackie and I can't
> persuade others that our call for change has merit, then what happens if
> CEDA/NDT can't persuade a critical mass of administrators and faculty to
> continue supporting debate.  I'll concede that all of this is antedotal and
> speculation based on my observations.  But that brings me to...
> 2)  The need for study.  These edebate discussions (and I'm certainly
> guilty of this) become antedotes and speculation with little solid research
> to support claims, although many of the claims are easily verifiable.  We
> could write down five different types of topics and ask people without
> debate experience to rank their favorites as just one example.  We could
> survey administrators and faculty about their perceptions of what they think
> policy debate should look like and whether or not they feel policy debate
> does this.  Newnam cites articles by Murphy, Murrish, McBath, Cripe, Gow,
> Graham, Rive and others about the need for debate to not just engage logos
> and the need for less expert debating.  His conclusion was that since expert
> debating and competitive debating survived, these folks must have lost.  But
> the academic question is what happened next?  Did they become department
> chairs or administrators and withdraw their support for debate?  Did they
> continue to coach and just stay disgruntled?  Were they the early pursurers
> of all of the "retrograde" ideas promugated now by the left like critical
> argument and performance?  Once their call was lost, was a larger
> consequence the loss of academic mainstream political support?  You see,
> while they may have lost the ability to influence the activity, we don't
> know what impact their response had on the activity, especially if they
> stopped supporting it?
> 3)  Debate conventions to create competitive equity have destroyed a
> connection to the literature and as a result, a connection to the real
> world, especially in policy making.  My argument is that debate conventions
> to create more affirmative or negative ground, also began to divorce debate
> from the literature.  Here are a few examples:
>       a.  The "meet need" aka "plan meet advantage" aka "solvency
> takeout".  Because of the way we evaluate impacts, debates almost always
> can't be won on this argument.  "The USFG has tried to do this 17 times and
> failed" won't win a interscholastic debate, although it could certainly win
> in the Kentucky state legistature.  The fact that it doesn't win in our
> debates, forces us to move away from the literature.  Feasibility or
> workability is often the sole consideration in passage of a policy, but not
> for us.
>       b.  The PIC.  Intended to destroy the small affirmative, it instead
> has destroyed the "big stick".  You can't run affirmatives with multiple
> plan actions, at least that is what three topic committees have told me, too
> easy to pic out.  The irony is, many believe this is true EVEN (point of
> emphasis, not disrespect) when the literature supports multiple actions.
> Why?  Because if I got one article, saying that one of the three things is
> bad, it will likely trump any larger comprehensive solution.  So although
> the negative doesn't have evidence saying we can get the same big advantages
> if we do it without one of the components, our game is set up to shift the
> burden back to the affirmative to each component separately as well as
> together.  Again, not consistently with the literature.
>        c.  The goal of limiting ground.  We ended up with an Africa topic
> that had a mechanism (development assistance) that didn't jive with the area
> (Greater Horn) we selected.  How did that happen?  Because the overriding
> concern was to limit the ground.  This is not a committee problem, as they
> are given 2 ? days to figure out how to mix and match different components
> to create a topic (an unrealistic task).
>         d.  why this won't change any time soon?  The topic committee we
> have is overwhelming trained and supportive of selecting topics in this
> manner.  Last year, I chose to support their choices and work to make those
> choices the best they could be, because I thought that was my role as 2nd
> vp.  I too, would much prefer three broad topics:  1) that the USFG should
> substantially change it's policy towards change; 2) that the USFG should
> substantially change its trade policy with China; 3) that the USFG should
> substantially change its human rights policy with China.  But again, why not
> study.  There will be antedotal claims that these topics destroy debate, as
> well as claims for the more narrow topics.  But define what is important to
> the activity and actually study the impacts.  Take five years, selecting
> topics of different sizes and study the impacts those topics have.  Or
> again, try to find a ground solution that leaves the literature in tact,
> even if that means we have to reconceptualize current debate theories and
> practices to do so.
> The priority should be to 1) decide what the heart of the literature is
> (sometimes easier said than done); 2) create topics that allow for
> discussion of that literature; 3) realize that the community will create
> competitive ground as a response to any imbalances in the topic, it always
> has.  If the policy literature on a topic has at it's heart the "meet need",
> then debates should be won or lost on that issue.  The further you move from
> that as a standard, the further you move debate from the literature, which
> spirals to the academy.  And from there, you have no support for programs.
> When department chairs, deans, provosts, and faculty are persuaded to see
> the beauty of what we do, whether or not THEY HAVE debated, then we will
> start gaining programs.  Before you start dissecting my arguments, keep the
> holistic point in mind:  support in the academy means recruitment and
> retention of programs.
> If we already have that support, then why do we lose program?
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060413/6f4db8d9/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list