[eDebate] Argument Flaws - Rules make more novices......

NEIL BERCH berchnorto
Tue Nov 20 10:41:24 CST 2007


Jackie--I made the most extensive post regarding ADA.  If you're talking about that post, I think you've missed my point (might be due to bad prose on my part).  Here's what I said (in part):

"So, then Jackie's right, and this rule could do more harm than good, right?  Well, it's an empirical question, and I don't know the answer. 

So, what about the ADA, which has a similar rule?  They have lots of novices, so the rule must be good for novice.  Well, after the rule was adopted, novice divisions at ADA tournaments dropped.  Some claimed it was because of this rule, but there was no evidence to support that contention.  Those divisions have increased in size in the past year, so I doubt that was the issue.  Further, the other region that has huge novice divisions is CEDA Northeast.  It does not have an LD rule, and it relies on social pressure among coaches.  So, one thrives with that rule, one thrives without it."

What I'm saying is that while you (and others) claim that banning those with significant LD experience will reduce the size of novice divisions (and that some of those LDers won't simply debate in novice), and others claim that it will "open space" novices without any debate experience, there is no way based on ADA or other experience to determine which outweighs.  The evidence is anecdotal on both sides.

I then went on to point out that CEDA Northeast and ADA both have flourishing novice division.  I attribute that to commitment to novice (I agree with you there) and to geography (lots of schools with an easy drive to other schools with novices).  I don't think (and didn't say other than in the one sentence above where I'm purposely drawing the false conclusion to be rebutted in the next sentence; perhaps that didn't come through in my email, but that was the pattern throughout the email) that the LD rule has had an appreciable impact one way or another on overall ADA novice entries.

--Neil


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Massey, Jackie B.<mailto:debate at ou.edu> 
  To: edebate at ndtceda.com<mailto:edebate at ndtceda.com> 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:16 AM
  Subject: [eDebate] Argument Flaws - Rules make more novices......


  So after reading many posts, and this continuous reference to the "ADA"

  let me make it clear that just because a region has large amounts of novice debate and they have a certain rule does not mean changing the rule in other places will increase novice debate.

  Sorry, not even close to a "true" causal argument.  Correlations are everywhare, and in many of the posts.

  Argument:
  ADA regions have more novice debate.

  Answer:
  ADA regions are more committed to novice debate than most people in our region.


  Simple answer.  Changin a rule doesnt make novices appear.  People have to be committed to novice debate, not just in rhetoric and rules, but in action.  This is the problem, not some LD qualifcation rule.

  Just wanted to get this "correlative" evidence sized up.

  peace

  massey
  _______________________________________________
  eDebate mailing list
  eDebate at www.ndtceda.com<mailto:eDebate at www.ndtceda.com>
  http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate<http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071120/08616f1f/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list