College Policy Debate Forums
November 22, 2017, 07:38:47 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 2 [3]
  Print  
Author Topic: Women's Rights Topic Paper  (Read 19483 times)
antonucci23
Full Member
***
Posts: 138


« Reply #30 on: May 05, 2012, 04:49:17 AM »

i think one reason people are a little unwilling to put some of these absolutes in their judging philosophy is that many, many absolutes are rendered more contingent by what occurs in the debate. the only thing worse than someone not knowing your exact feelings on an issue as a judge might be when you say one thing but then counteract your stated preference as a result of what occurs in the debate round.

To some extent this parallels the higher level of execution requirement that often comes along with some folks: i.e. Brian McBride loves the K, but also rues those who do not practice it expertly, I can imagine a billion good arguments against consult counterplans but if you only make bad ones who knows how I might subconsciously react to that failure on your part etc. etc.

As far as the circularity/negative-feedback-loop concern about debate pedagogy, there's a good episode of Mad Men where Don Draper is trying to pitch an alternative tagline for a product for women. The most attractive pitch to the company is one that emphasizes family and the home, but Don's firm has an alternate suggestion that relies on a more modern message focusing on the independence/agency of women. When he receives skeptical responses ("Our research says they respond to family, etc.!") Don simply replies "How can you know what else they might like if they've never been exposed to it?"

Debates/coaches do themselves a grave disservice if they think their judges beliefs/preferences are truly carved in stone, There are exceptions (might still keep Hardy at an arms length with your consultation counterplan if you want to keep your points up), but generally the actual thing occurring in the debate rounds matters an AWFUL lot. Sometimes people have preferences because they haven't been exposed to the opposing viewpoint in a while, and if at some point in the pedagogical chain the dialectic has broken down, it sounds like there's a market inefficiency waiting to be exploited.

What I'm suggesting is the opposite of an absolute.
Logged
Paul Elliott Johnson
Full Member
***
Posts: 134


« Reply #31 on: May 05, 2012, 11:45:37 AM »

Re: antonucci

I agree!
Logged
Hester
Full Member
***
Posts: 153


« Reply #32 on: May 05, 2012, 10:45:57 PM »

"Well, I'm not really directly concerned about the quarters.  My debater career is long over and wasn't very distinguished.  I might go to a pro round robin, but I suspect I'd get rolled by Hester/Sharp (among others)."

This is just the kind of humble-on-the-surface subterfuge one should expect from a debater who - along with Niko Poulakos - ran affirmatives which delved deeply into the powers of selective secrecy and counterintelligence.

until proven otherwise, we'll continue to assume you're doing daily speed drills.  Cool
Logged
tcram
Full Member
***
Posts: 165


« Reply #33 on: May 06, 2012, 09:07:18 AM »

did Hester just go for Red Spread? I think he did.
Logged
antonucci23
Full Member
***
Posts: 138


« Reply #34 on: May 07, 2012, 02:56:01 PM »

Re: antonucci

I agree!

My bad - I misread an antecedent in your message.  I wasn't sure what you meant by "these absolutes", so mistakenly presumed that my proposed caveat was one of these absolutes.  Apologies.

Back to pen drills...
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  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!