Ross--My focus is on #5 below (I'm writing from a hotel lobby and can't cut and paste for some reason): Do you really think that the amount of time that students work depends on the topic? I think that your students, who are on avergage more economically privileged than my students, are on average more debate-experienced than my students, are on average more into debate than my students (plus your students have more and better coaching than my students) will always accomplish more research than my students.
For convenience sake, let's say that Wake students accomplish twice as much as WVU students (it's probably more than that). Thus, on a small, narrow topic, let's say that Wake debaters master 100% of the topic, while WVU debaters master 50%. If they debate each other, they will either debate something that Wake has mastered and WVU hasn't, or they will cover ground that both sides are familiar with (in which case the round will probably turn on experience and technique). You always win. From an educational perspective, students (at least sometimes) end up debating the same thing over and over and are not pushed outside their comfort zones very much. Instead, imagine a resolution that is 10 times larger (whatever that means). Wake debaters will master 10% of the topic, WVU debaters will master 5%. There's a 4.5% chance that we'll be debating about something that we know and you don't. You may win a bunch of those anyway, but maybe not. There's only a 9.5% chance that we'll be debating about something you know and we don't (as opposed to 50% chance with a narrow topic). The largest portion of the time (85.5%), we'll be debating about something neither side knows much about, thus requiring them to apply what they do know to new but related territory. You'll win most of those, but we've got a puncher's chance. Educationally, debaters are pushed outside their comfort zones much more, don't have the same debate 20 times in a year, and are always (even at the end of the year, and even if they are among the most debate-intensive students) learning new stuff about the topic. Thus, I would argue that, contrary to your claims and the conventional wisdom, the broader topic is better for those who have lives, don't have debate experience, etc. Nobody will ever "master" the topic, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Respectfully, Neil --Neil Berch West Virginia University >From: "Ross K. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Ede Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >CC: Ceda-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] Organizational goals and decision-making >Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 13:53:33 -0400 > >1) Organizations have overlapping institutional roles and objectives. >Historically the NDT has had a narrower mission than CEDA. CEDA's >mission has been relatively more focused on promoting "the activity" and >NDT has been relatively more focused on promoting it's tournament. > >2) I put "the activity" in quotes because 1) CEDA's conception of what >that is has changed significantly over the course of CEDA's history, and >because it would be deceptive to assert that CEDA (or even CEDA plus >NDT) are the arbiters of what debate is or should be. > >3) The mission of the AFA should be included in this discussion. AFA >promotes many activities that may (or may not) be more effective and >appropriate educational and competitive vehicles for achieving the often >conflicting set of goals people are trying to pack into the CEDA topic >mechanism. There are forms of parli and IE that ought not be treated as >if they do not exist. > >4) My personal opinion is that policy topics are the best form of debate >topic if you have to have only one because they require debaters to >learn to debate questions of fact, definition and value. > >5) My personal opinion is also that narrow topics are better than broad >ones because debaters and coaches have (or should have) lives outside of >competitive debate. The broader the topic, the more time needed to >master it. Time is a luxury of the wealthy and of those with more prior >debate experience. > >6) My opinion is also that the exact topic is relatively unimportant. >Any decent, narrow policy topic will do. The activity of policy debate >is about teaching skills. We all have our pet causes -- some >conservative, some liberal; some domestic, some foreign. Pick a public >(public because it is researchable) controversy, any controversy, and >learn to debate both sides of it. The skills learned by doing so can be >applied to whatever topics debaters will inveitably confront in their >lives beyond the confines of our classrooms. > >7) Do a methodologically sound survey of experienced debate educators. >My guess and hope is that there is a vey large majority that would agree >with me. My guess is that the process is already quite representative of >the considered opinion of the CEDA and NDT membership. > > > >On 7/21/2007 10:34 AM, Ede Warner wrote: > > > Hello colleagues, > > > > I'm moving my part of the organization discussion to the listserv that > > was created for directors. The power to cast the ballots and make the > > decisions that determine the direction of this organization lies here, > > so this is my target audience. I've tried this once before and got > > little to no response. > > > > I guess the litmus test is whether directors feel this is a safe place > > to express themselves. It's clear that the majority of us don't feel > > that safety exist on edebate. I suspect the concern here is whether > > someone will forward discussions here back onto edebate. I don't know > > if that has ever happened, but my hope is that a conversation can begin > > here which allows more directors to feel they can participate. > > > > I have a couple more procedural questions before we get started, most > > I'm sure Gordon can answer: > > > > 1) Is there a separate executive council distribution list and is there > > much conversation about policy making done on it? > > > > 2) Is the entire executive council part of this list? > > > > 3) Does the executive do any business outside of the required meetings > > which I believe are (summer, NCA, and CEDA nationals) via email? > > > > > > I have one question for the membership...Are you willing to disclose > > where you stand on the organizational question of whether you feel CEDA > > and NDT should have the same mission? > > > > I have one additional question for the my administration which would > > include my executive council...There are four ideas discussed so far: > > 1) CEDA and NDT keep things as they are > > 2) CEDA go back to 2 topics per year, one being non-policy (Elliott); > > 3) Having a simultaneous policy and non-policy resolution that the > > affirmative can chose each debate (Korcok); or > > 4) Support for different but related topics between CEDA (broad or more > > flexibility) and NDT (narrow or less flexibility) (Warner)? > > 5) others? > > > > I'll take the information backchannel if you are not comfortable posting > > publicly. I promise not to critique or debate your personal thoughts. > > > > My agenda is rather obvious to gather some preliminary information so I > > can personally make realistic decisions about how to proceed, since I > > think some type of organizational statement or perhaps by-laws change > > would likely be necessary to pursue my idea. I also think this would be > > a good time for some consensus building if it can be done. > > > > I've put a lot of time into this over the last couple of days because I > > think it's really, really important. I spent a lot of this past year > > fighting to stabilize the Louisville program, now I would like to see > > assist if I can in bringing some stability, but more importantly some > > community, to NDT/CEDA? > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > Love, > > > > Ede > > > > > > Ede Warner, Jr. > > Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication > > University of Louisville > > 308E Strickler Hall > > 502-852-3522 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://comm.louisville.edu/~debate > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CEDA-L mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > >-- >Ross K. Smith >Director of Debate >Wake Forest University > >336-251-2076 (cell) > >http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ >www.DebateScoop.org > >_______________________________________________ >CEDA-L mailing list >[email protected] >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list [email protected] http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
