Neil, First of all - hope you are feeling well.
Your analysis is interesting to me, but one thing I don't understand: If Aff always chooses the case, then I don't understand how "The largest portion of the time (85.5%), we'll be debating about something neither side knows much about"? Thanks, ml ------------------------------------------------- Sandoz, M L Director of Debate Vanderbilt University Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, July 21, 2007 3:29 pm, NEIL BERCH wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list [email protected] http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
