[eDebate] Exactly Wrong...

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Fri Oct 5 01:52:10 CDT 2007

Briefly a few things about this.

1) The discussion largely seems to think that Novices are devoid of
knowledge because they lack debate experience. I think this is wrong and
indicitive of a larger process in which we claim success as novices learn
the tools of the discipline but don't pay attention to the skills they bring
to the activity. Some of the crap that passes for argument these days best
gets called out by novices because they have yet to be convinced that they
dont have any thing to say.

2) I'm not saying  OU  and others is a novice debate away from having all
their clothes ripped off and the emperor exposed as naked, i imagine jackie
is coaching them really well to be prepared and good, but i am saying that
some times what we see as complex arguments really boil down to a few simple
things,But for the rest of you,  i mean what did baudriardin geo politics
say? when you boil down the advocacy ? Do the studenst you recruit have no
good reasons to know how to defend the system of geopolitics that most of
this stuff krtiks? No reasons why it is a good idea to discuss the middle
east? I mean you will say thats the other teams  strength, they will have it
blocked out. Sure. You wouldnt avoid teaching your novices
 a disad debate past the frontline?

3) You may say you shouldn't have to do that work because its not topic
specific, but you do have to do it. I used to think i could get away with
setting novice teams out to only kritik politics debates, that doesnt work
when politics debates are good and specific, so i learned to prep my novices
with answers, though i have serious theoretical and educational objections
to having to include the curriculum that included debating politics , ...you
get the point. 3b) BUT SPECIFIC TOPIC KNOWLEDGE IS GOOD. Well yes but
largely because its specific. Teach your novices a realism kritik and a
framework argument and be specific and in depth. They learn a skill they ca
n use to protect themselves if they think they are being wronged and they
learn in depth how to use an argument.

4) The case specific neg argument would be so perfect if not for that other
stuff arguments is  a little weak. Dis ads, counter plans, t's and big k's
too serve the purpose to distract from case specificity for strategic
benefit. You may say having to cover all that stuff makes it doubly
impossible to cover a whole set of stuff outside that. I Agree, yet
sometimes with some novice teams make strategic choices that help us be able
to control and win the debate. I'll at least make a deal, no more politics
arguments in jv and novice and ill tell people if they want to be non
topical they can go to jv. Seriously.of course i dont need to worry about
implementation of that promise, because im only one person, and each of you
is only one person so any pledge i got that agreed would just mean when team
i work with debated x team they wouldn't have to answer politics/wacky
aff...but that wouldn't mean they wouldn't have to answer it in other
rounds....which is sorta my point...my suggestion for you is a discussion
about why its important to discuss the middle east and have a fair and
balanced playing field...

5) Judges need to recognize that good debates are not always as complex as a
4-2 4-2 debate at Harvard. some times there can be four good and evaluative
claims which get debated by each side about say state action being good or
bad and even though they may not have an answer to everything novice
debaters are often times much more able to engage well in these "sloppy" but
effective debates, look for it, don't let your novice students think they
have nothing to say, teach them ahead of time that there are two categories
of arguments stuff that is about the topic and stuff that inst....get them a
generic strategy at the beginning of the year for these debates...(BTW I
Only feel like giving coaching  advice because it seems to be the tone of
the conversation)

On 10/4/07, debate at ou.edu <debate at ou.edu> wrote:
> These claims of absolutely true are so false are absurd.  You are not the
> know all of debate.  Your experience does not define
> the debate conventions.
> -----------------------
> I really should stay out of this, but...
> Zomp and Scott Elliott are exactly right in the debate about the damage of
> non-topical aff's to those just learning debate. I will
> expand on that argument and make an additional argument about small
> schools.
> When I worked at Augustana College, every student on the squad started as
> a novice. We worked our tails off to become
> competitive, and qualifying for the NDT was a big accomplishment.
> --------
> JM
> This small school large school thing is a false dichotomy, and we both
> know this. Or at least I see it that way.
> ---------
> My students #1 complaint about debate was when they would debate teams
> that wouldn't defend the topic. It was VERY difficult
> to have strategies about both the topic and the non-topic. Repeatedly, the
> teams who would do this would say "helps small
> schools." It might help them on the AFF, but it certainly doesn't help a
> school with limited debate experience debate you when
> you won't play by the basic rule that you should defend the topic.
> ----------
> JM
> My students number one complaint are mean people who like to kill
> terrorists defending their policy debate.  You speak as
> though the students they deabte are like these varsity debaters who stay
> in novice cuz they are kritik debaters, they dont have
> to be able to defend against both sides?
> -----
> It is true that we frequently also lost debates to bigger schools with
> lots of cards. But when Emory GP (a specific example) beat
> them, they could say, "ok, that team was faster, more experienced, and had
> better cards on 'x.' The judge said if we did x, y,
> and z; we could win. I know how to get better."
> In the other debates the after-rounds with judges were often hilarious.
> You would ask "what could we do?" [long pause]. Maybe
> you could run, "x argument having nothing to do with the topic that we've
> never heard of any lit on." How on earth could we
> have an infinite variety of those arguments against a 180 team field at a
> large tournament? Especially when many of these
> arguments arguably existed nowhere in any literature.
> -------
> JM
> I take it you had problems figuring out how to disagree?
> -------
> Is it that unreasonable that a team DEFEND THE TOPIC so our topic-specific
> strategies could apply?
> --------
> JM
> Write better topics! Your one of those in charge.
> -----------
> I've basically already made argument #2: it is false that allowing the
> affirmative to defend non-topical aff's "helps small
> schools." It HURTS small schools when debating such AFF's.
> -----------
> JM
> Not very well though.
> ---------
> Further, large squads gain an additional advantage--specialists. I could
> go into a long discussion about this, but when your
> coaching staff hits about four you can have an argument specialist. About
> all Eber did at MSU was cut cards against K teams.
> Other large squads have their specialists. When a specialist can target a
> team with non-topical aff's the advantage to the team
> running the non-topical aff shrinks dramatically.
> ----------
> JM
> Your misunderstanding the reason for such strategies. How about creating
> debaters that cut their own cards, then you dont need
> ten coaches.  This is what my style of coaching does.
> --------------
> Against squads that can't afford (literally cash-wise) an argument
> specialist. Then the non-topical aff. defender can say "but we
> lost to Baudrillardian geo-politics bad last night, go research that..."
> AND your politics updates, and five countries, and the
> twenty or so cases per country.
> ------------
> JM
> I would put the politics updates at the bottom of the list.  We all have
> the same infinite prep.
> ------------
> It's a losing battle. Judges should vote on "you're not topical--go write
> a topical case."
> Adjust your strike sheets accordingly, but I'm already on record in the
> judging philosophy as saying the number 1 strongest bias
> is that an affirmative should be topical.
> And this is the primary reason why.
> RG
> ----------
> JM
> Strike sheet adjusted.  I say disagree, and then debate out why that
> disagreement is imortant.
> Peace
> massey
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071005/4f1e47d2/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list