[eDebate] Please Read. The implications of bad resolutions ondebate programs
Thu May 24 12:06:07 CDT 2007
This just doesn't make much sense to me. I understand that there is some
harm in an aesthetically unpleasing wording of the resolution - and all
other things held equal a more elegant wording would be better. BUT all
other things aren't held equal - the reason the committee used a legalistic
topic wording choice is it creates a more precise resolution - less
suscesptible to squirrely affs outside of the controversy and less prone to
niggling T debates.
Also, I would argue that the harm of imprecise resolutions outweighes the
ugliness of wordy resolutions. The resolution is the T limit - so it has to
control debates -- BUT the resolution is not how you have to advertise - so
you can avoid the ugliness harms by telling people they are going to debate
CE to various ME governments; true enough for recruitment purposes - and
they are going to have to get into far more gritty specifics when they learn
to debate anyways than the wordy topic - so no harm no foul.
Line by line below.
>Resolutions matter. I was asked to take over a university debate program
>Fall and switch it over from Parlimentary/Public Debate/I.E. to an NDT/CEDA
>policy debate program. This means I am having to start over from scratch,
>having to convice students who have done one form of debate to start doing
>policy. Or, I have to recruit from either the student body at large or from
>The resolution matters. It matters a lot to a coach of a small or new
>Looking at this morass, I am seriously considering holding off switching to
>policy debate for at least a year. There is little chance of me recruiting
>students if I have to give them one of these resolutions as the starting
>of there debate odessey. If this continues, I guess I will just suck it up
>keep one less program in the South (and now absolutely NONE in the entire
>of Louisiana, and there used to be at least five)from doing policy debate,
>many of you may enjoy, but I find rather tragic. Simply put, there is more
>one way for people to vote. I think some program directors will simply vote
>with their feet.
So start a little bit vaguer = and then work on the specifics - its not like
the proposed resolutions are substantially different than your proposed
resolution of increase CE to ME gov't X - they just require security
guarantees or foreign assistance - hardly a big difference.
>I have thought long and hard this week about the logistics of a small
>trying to grapple with these resolutions. Other than running the same
>every round, I just do not see how a small or new program (read one coach,
>than 8 debaters) can even begin to compete at the NOVICE level with these
>resolutions. It would take me an entire year just to get my Israel file
>together (with all the link stories, c-plans and answers, etc.) and I have
>in policy debate for over 20 years!
And your resolution below would have solved the Israel problem how? (other
than Afghanistan affs). The Israel problem is inevitable on this
controversy area; anything done in the region impacts Israel - and the
Israel debate is complex. You're going to have to deal with it.
Nonetheless, I think your substantially overestimating how hard it will be
to cope with the Israel debate - AND any good topic is going to have complex
areas that you have to get into - the Genetics topic would have avoided
thrusting novices into complex debates with TONS of lit and different links,
CPs, and answers how? Having debated novice on the sanctions topic which
included Syria, Iraq, and Iran I think novices can deal with the Israel
debate on this topic.
>Would the following resolution have been so bad?:
>"Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should substnatially
>increase constructive engagement with Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Lebanon, or
This is dramatically different from topic 1 how? (other than the Egypt for
P.A. switch) Rez 1 avoids the stupid reading of "or" as disjunctive -
requiring the aff to do only 1 country and not more than 1. Yes that
reading is poor, and you should be able to beat it - but not always - and
its a dumb T debate to have. And then Rez 1 requires that you include
either a security guarantee OR foreign assistance - which seems to be just a
check on truly minimal affs that would have a CE of a little bit nicer
diplomacy only. These two changes make Rez 1 a little more wordy, but at
the gain of some real improvements in precision. Your right lay people -
would just say your Rez - but you don't have to jump into specifics at the
The other rez's make small modifications in topic size/focus - but are other
wise the same.
>Is this example of a straight forward resolution something I could go to my
>department chair, recite from memory and explain? Yes. Is this something I
>could recite from memory and explain the a freshman college student in
>Louisiana? Absolutely! Could I build a new program based on it? I believe
Why do you need to explain the entire rez from the start? You can explain
the core of the rez from memory - and get into details when necessary -- its
not like the details betray the summary - just clarify it.
>I just do not understand why every year the resolutions get worse and
>They are all hypertechnical, poorly written, and just plain bad. My
>are that either the system of resolution writing is horribly flawed, or the
>people who write them have a flaw, or both. I think we have too many topic
>committte members with their "debater" hats on when they write these
>resolutions, rather than having their "debate coach" and "program director"
>hats on. Worse, they forget that there are multiple target audiences for
>year's debate resolutions.
How was last years rez hypertechnical? And I admit that the rez is not good
creative writting - but I think you need to make a stronger case that it
needs to be. What these rez's succeed at it is being pretty precise as to
what they would and would not include. This makes it easier for noivces as
you have a better idea the actual aff's they will face.
>Currently, and rather obviously, the only audience targeted this year was
>most elite of the policy debaters, only those who have been steeped in
>policy debates for the past six years. I think that novices, students who
>students in argumentation classes, new programs, small programs, program
>directors who are searching for more support from their administration, and
>former debaters who would like to watch a debate round, have been ignored.
>truly breaks my heart to look at these resolutions and to feel totally
>alienated from an activity I love and believe to be an important teaching
This is ridiculous. Former debaters who would like to watch a round are
going to be hurt by a legalistic resolution as opposed to a one sentence
one? Wow are the former debaters you know fragile people! As to admins and
new debaters see above.
>When people start commenting, the responses have been basically that no
>community input will be considered--too late, topic committee has met, you
>take these resolutions, whether you like them or not. No, I do not have to
YES! There is a tight window for when this has to get done. No one has
time before the NDT. Students are leaving like right now, and we might want
to consult with them before they are out of touch for the whole summer. You
can't do it a whole extra year before because its too far out for many
people's attention spans, and God only knows what could happen to muck up
the topic area in that much time. So in between the NDT and late May we
need to pick a slate of topics, give people time to think, vote, and then
pick a slate of rezs, and give people time to think and vote - thats
necessarily going to be somewhat tigh. Despite these constraints the
committee was very open to suggestions - just because people disagreed with
you and you lost out doesn't mean you weren't heard! (e.g. I'm still
nervous about Afghanistan - but its clear that the committee considered it,
did more research on it than I have time to do, and came out the other way,
they may be wrong - they are probably right (they are all really smart!) -
but they certainly did everything they could). If you bitch now it really
is to late. Your concerns aren't necessarily everyone's concerns - and they
might be difficult to deal with - so people would have to meet, research,
work, and discuss how to meet them. There isn't any more time for that - so
yes, your bitching is not constructive, you should probably focus on what
resolution of the 4 works best for you and persuading others - or much more
politely trying to come up with feasible ways to make the process preferable
to you in the future.
>We were thinking of hosting a rebirth of the Mardi Gras tournament for
>debate in the Spring. Now, I don't think we will even be in the policy
>form of forensics for at least a year. The only other option I see is to
>new organization, al la CEDA in the 1970's, as an alternative form of
>debate geared toward small programs; teaching college students policy and
>debate with a limited, but necessary research focus; and regional debate.
>Sadly, this is what CEDA used to be.
This slate of resolutions isn't bad - and hyperbole doesn't make them so.
If you really think gramatically simpler resolutions make for easier to
research debates I guess you should explain why and try to sell people on it
for future topics; but its really unclear how you avoid the Israel debate
you complain about here by making the topic less wordy. I don't think the
rez is a barrier to regional debate - ADA boy that I am, I think you should
have stricter/smaller rezes that are more easily grabbed on to by novices.
>I normally do not put my title or credentials at the bottom of my e-mail
>because I would rather people look at the argument rather than the
>But today I will.
>Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D., J.D.
>Assistant Professor and Director of Forensics
>University of Lousiana-Lafayette
Tom O'Gorman (husband of Danielle), J.D.
Volunteer Assistant Coach USNA
Catch suspicious messages before you open them?with Windows Live Hotmail.
More information about the Mailman