College Policy Debate Forums
November 19, 2017, 03:20:30 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Topic Process Deadlines and Notes  (Read 4313 times)
stables
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 334


« on: March 31, 2011, 01:39:07 PM »

With the completion of the 2010-11 season, the CEDA Topic Selection Committee turns its attention to the 2011-12 topic. We will be providing a lot more information in coming days, including information about the first ever national student topic representative election.

Important Dates
The following dates will be used as the basis for our topic selection process.

Controversy Papers must be submitted - Monday, April 25th
Working deadline for ballot release - Monday May 2nd
14 Day open balloting ends - Monday May 16th
Deadline for submitting wording papers - Friday, June 3rd         
The topic meetings (@University of Michigan) - Saturday June 11th through Monday (morning) June 13th
Release of wording ballot  (tentative) - June 14th
Announcement of 2011 resolution - Friday July 15th (the 3rd Friday in July, as per the CEDA Constitution).          

Potential topics
The committee is interested in controversy papers on any topic (domestic, legal, or international) consistent with our guidelines. I would encourage anyone who is interested in writing a paper to let me know so we can help you develop your work.  We also encourage folks to review the topic archive on the forums and consider updating and revising papers from previous seasons.

To date I have been told that there are authors interested in working the following topics: Reductions in defense spending, increasing financial reform, education reform, failed states, Middle East democracy promotion,  and Infrastructure. This is far from a complete list - just items that had been communicated to me.

Suggested Guidelines for Controversial Area Papers
By Gordon Stables, Originally released June 2006, Modified March 2010, April 2011

Introduction to Topic Paper Writing

Writing a topic paper can appear daunting, but is manageable if approached in several steps. The first part of the process takes place when someone decides that there is an issue that might make a valuable intercollegiate debate topic. The topic selection committee commissions a number of areas each year that might be valuable options, but these are designed to only ensure that some options exist. Each topic selection is improved by the addition of areas identified by the community.
In the last few years the writing process has been divided into two distinct papers: a controversy paper at the conclusion of the competition season and wording papers written after the first community ballot. This process has helped lower the entry barrier for community development of papers and has reduced the burden on any single author. At the same time, the topic selection committee has also worked to produce wording options consistent with the topic area selected by community vote.

As much as these trends have improved the topic writing process, we are occasionally left with the problem of an area paper that is very conceptually broad, perhaps too broad to produce a range of expectations surrounding the upcoming topic. This may, in part, be due to the very nature of writing an "area‟ paper. The general procedure has encouraged writing on a subject, such as a nation (like China) or a branch of government (the Supreme Court). In the interests of helping develop a process that is both accessible and predictable, beginning with the 2007-2008 process the chair of the topic selection committee would like to ask that the concept of „area‟ papers be slightly adjusted toward individual controversies or controversial areas.

Why select controversies?
There is a tremendous amount of information discussion about the "best‟ topics. It may be impossible to develop a consensus on such criteria, but it is not uncommon for some of the discussion about better topics to describe their coherence and the presence of a rich body of literature. It may be understood that some of the "better‟ topics possess a vibrant dispute among interested parties. These "controversies‟ may be understood as the specific theme of a topic. Anyone who has explained the topic to someone from outside the debate community may also recognize these themes as those brief summaries of the debate topic.

Asking for a central controversy in each "area‟ paper can allow the community to vote on each area with a greater confidence. The last two topics, which featured extensive work by individual authors, provide some clear examples. Instead of listing the "China‟ topic on the area ballot, we might have instead listed the controversy of trying to produce economic policy changes by the Chinese government. Alternately, the "court‟ topic could have been listed as "reverse major Supreme Court cases.‟ In both cases the precision of the specific wording is not a necessity. The next stage of the process will be tasked with that specific responsibility. The primary challenge for each author of a controversial area paper is to identify that policy concern.

This also keeps our process consistent with the mandate of the CEDA constitution (Article 2), which describes the goals of debate including to “promote the value of argumentative discourse as a means of producing reasoned, measured, cooperative solutions to contemporary problems of social and political significance.”

The Elements of a Controversial Area Paper

A fully developed paper should include:

Mainstream options for policy change - The central task of these papers is to identify the most mainstream or central proposals for change within a given controversial area. This is often understood as identifying the few "middle of the road" affirmatives with evidence and cites for solvency advocates. These are the central issues at work in the larger controversy. The identification and citation of important authors can help guide the development of the topic wording and allow a common subject of community debate. The paper may also identify the central literature based arguments available to the negative, i.e., what are the major argumentative assets for opponents of change? For both sides, authors should consider traditional policy and critical literature that is relevant to this controversy. Solid work in this element is essential to ensuring that later wording options reflect the central argumentative controversies.

Unique educational opportunities - There are obviously argumentative strategies for both sides common to most topics, these papers should be primarily concerned with the unique opportunities provided by this controversy. The job of the topic selection process is not to produce a single type of arguments, but rather to help provide the playing field for arguments developed by each squad and team. These considerations may include the last time such areas were debated and how earlier topics overlapped (if at all) with these areas.

Papers should also consider the potential public benefits of potential topics. Does your controversy provide a way to access significant public policy debates? Are there ways that your paper could involve local communities? Remember that the winning controversy will govern how 100 universities and almost 3000 students research for an entire season. You may identify specific events that will help draw attention to this topic (such as the Nuclear Posture Review during the 2009-10 season) that help to explain why this controversy is specifically valuable to debate during this specific season.

Potential directions for wording papers – These controversial area papers are not required to include specific wording recommendations, although authors may include these as suggestions. It is very important that authors provide suggestions for approaching the next phase of the process. The greatest value that authors can provide is preliminary analysis of the specific elements of this controversy. Is there a debate about the best level of governmental response? Is there a general direction that new policies should follow? Are there certain agencies or interested parties that define the terms in specific and meaningful ways?
Keep in mind that the controversy paper is a starting point for the next phase of committee work. Let us know if there are approaches you would suggest or even a specific strategy for how to divide your proposal into 3-4 working groups to advance your work into a series of wording options.

Recommendation of the author – It is of tremendous importance that each author treats their task as part of a due diligence on behalf of the larger community. It is important that interested parties work on these papers, but each author should also consider that there may be specific historical moments where some topics are better or worse suited for the intercollegiate community. This concern was voiced in the fall of 2001, when there was tremendous interest in selecting a topic that dealt with terrorism for 2002-2003. At that time, however, it was felt that the necessary literature might be "too ripe,‟ that is not sufficiently explored in scholarly detail, to allow for the best possible topic. This concern was also raised in this last topic cycle, when some argued that there should be additional time to let the congressional debate on immigration policy settle before it was considered. An author of a paper develops additional insight into a controversy and the community would benefit from this moment of evaluation. Accordingly, we would ask that authors provide their recommendation of the topic‟s inclusion on the upcoming ballot. Options for this recommendation include: strongly support, support with reservations, no opinion, oppose with reservation, strongly oppose.

Research Resources – We encourage authors to identify and share important research resources. Authors should specifically consider identifying and building bundles of RSS feeds that could be used by the entire community. In our new media environment, it is very important to identify important research materials that will allow the topic to develop over the course of the season

Final Thoughts
Writing topic papers at any stage is a process fraught with a tremendous amount of hard work and little thanks. The nature of the process ensures that every topic but one will be rejected each year. That seemingly cold fact should not dissuade potential authors. It is the process of identifying, comparing and ultimately voting for a specific area that helps to keep this process valuable. I mention this only to encourage people to work on these papers, but not to invest so much of themselves that it is difficult to handle the selection of another paper. For this process to work at its best, we need a number of committed community members to write these papers each year. They need not be longer than 10-15 pages if they follow these guidelines. Even if they are not selected, each author can share in the comfort that they are providing a valuable service to the community and that each controversial area may be considered in following years.

Thanks and please let me know if you have questions or suggestions.

« Last Edit: April 01, 2011, 10:23:13 AM by stables » Logged

Gordon Stables
Assistant Dean for Student Affairs
Director of Debate & Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
University of Southern California
stables
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 334


« Reply #1 on: April 01, 2011, 10:24:09 AM »

Please note the original post has been modified with the corrected dates for the topic selection meeting, Saturday June 11th through Monday (morning) June 13th. The CEDA Business Meetings will take place prior to the topic meeting.
Logged

Gordon Stables
Assistant Dean for Student Affairs
Director of Debate & Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
University of Southern California
stables
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 334


« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2011, 01:24:44 PM »

A reminder that this coming Monday is the deadline for submitting controversy papers for the 2011-12 season.

You may either post them directly on the forums or email them to me at stables@usc.edu and I will repost them as well.

The committee will review all submissions and produce a ballot for community consideration.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Gordon
Logged

Gordon Stables
Assistant Dean for Student Affairs
Director of Debate & Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
University of Southern California
RGarrett
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 53


« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2011, 09:19:00 PM »

If people are interested in participating in a straw poll or seeing what high schoolers think of the topic selection I have created a poll here: http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1000017
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!