Wouldn't this be problematic if, say, there were incredibly lazy coaches (or just coaches really pressed for time) that decided to over the years write out cases along with introductory materials and slowly make their varsity debaters perfect them for novice use? Or more plausibly, novice debaters would receive extensive help (by that I mean being basically told) of all the possible responses to an argument on a topic over the years (ie, each year the novices are given a comprehensive document of all arguments on this topic ever).
I guess what I'd be concerned about would be the fact that these novices might, for their first few tournaments (and their entire introduction to debate) they'd be simply going through the motions without getting a feel for how to actually do the activity. I think the plan is fundamentally solid, but I think a better implementation would be at least a new resolution yearly specifically for the novices (and then at a later level such a novice resolution nationally) rather then like a set resolution forever. Plus, introductory materials can just reference one past resolution and use that as an example rather than be set on the only resolution novices will debate ever.
I don't really see that as the worst-case scenario, to tell you the truth. Having trained novices for a while now, it seems to me that the content of their specific cases is the least important thing in the early learning process. The source of that material (a topic grounded in solid ethical material that will be valuable for a debater's entire career) is way more important than writing their first case a week after they join the team, and all the perfected cases in the world won't substitute for the debater understanding the underlying principles. (In fact, I would love my team to work hard on perfecting their novices!) But even more than that, the first few times one debates, one is usually more worried about clarity, flowing, responding, standing up straight, not throwing up, etc., except in some cases where people are, so to speak, born to the activity. Even with these so-called perfected cases, going through these motions of learning the give-and-take would be actually quite valuable.
This is not to say that the topic couldn't change every year, as you suggest, but there may be benefits to reusing the same one that makes this unnecessary. Part of the issue is just trying out things and seeing how they work, versus trying to predict. I trust we will be nothing if not flexible.
Finally, I should point out that, in policy, many regions do practically what you're talking about to novices, as in limiting arguments, providing case positions, etc. This allows them to learn how to debate, and to come on to more sophisticated things over time.
While it is true that writing out cases and the other good jazz isn't the primary concern of novice debaters, I do believe that at least half the fun (and up to 95%) is making up your own arguments, and I'm the most fearful that if the topic never changes, then schools and coaches will eventually just have a huge file of cases/blocks for ever specific argument, and then just train their novice debaters to "listen for argument x, then read page y. It's all covered in the Book". Such a scenario would turn off people who actually would enjoy making up arguments on the spot.
I'm not saying that there are no benefits to having one set resolution, but such benefits might be outweighed by making the novice resolution one big "go through the motions and don't think" event instead of actually showcasing what makes debate both hard (and fun).
But how many novices really make up their own arguments the first month of their career, which is all we are talking about here? Nevertheless, nothing stops a novice from writing cases. Your assumption that everyone will somehow shrug off their responsibility to their novices runs rather counter to most coaches' approach to their new students. You're really indicting bad coaches, not this topic proposal. And bad coaches are, as I'm sure you were quick to point out when you wrote your first case in September of your novice year, a non-unique argument.
Our team, at the very least, had our novices write their own cases. Even if they weren't original or creative (or good, or cases), the very process is a necessity for future debate success. Also, our coach did not have the time to write cases.
I would think (though I could be wrong, especially since I'm basing this off only personal experience) that coaches do not write entire cases under the status quo, whereas with one set resolution they could write and/or conscript/enslave the varsity debaters to write cases, blocks, essentially the world's greatest scripted round. This might seem like a silly concern, but there is an incentive to do this if:
1. Coaches want to justify their programs with success. 2. Coaches realize that a large part, aside from learning the process, during novice year comes from the confidence boosting done by winning.
I have never indicted the general concept of a novice topic, but I do believe that the harms of scripted rounds (and novices not learning how to argue/write cases) can be avoided. Granted, the harm's possibility of occurring seem slim, and unlikely. It's still not something to be preferred, though.
5 comments:
Wouldn't this be problematic if, say, there were incredibly lazy coaches (or just coaches really pressed for time) that decided to over the years write out cases along with introductory materials and slowly make their varsity debaters perfect them for novice use? Or more plausibly, novice debaters would receive extensive help (by that I mean being basically told) of all the possible responses to an argument on a topic over the years (ie, each year the novices are given a comprehensive document of all arguments on this topic ever).
I guess what I'd be concerned about would be the fact that these novices might, for their first few tournaments (and their entire introduction to debate) they'd be simply going through the motions without getting a feel for how to actually do the activity. I think the plan is fundamentally solid, but I think a better implementation would be at least a new resolution yearly specifically for the novices (and then at a later level such a novice resolution nationally) rather then like a set resolution forever. Plus, introductory materials can just reference one past resolution and use that as an example rather than be set on the only resolution novices will debate ever.
I don't really see that as the worst-case scenario, to tell you the truth. Having trained novices for a while now, it seems to me that the content of their specific cases is the least important thing in the early learning process. The source of that material (a topic grounded in solid ethical material that will be valuable for a debater's entire career) is way more important than writing their first case a week after they join the team, and all the perfected cases in the world won't substitute for the debater understanding the underlying principles. (In fact, I would love my team to work hard on perfecting their novices!) But even more than that, the first few times one debates, one is usually more worried about clarity, flowing, responding, standing up straight, not throwing up, etc., except in some cases where people are, so to speak, born to the activity. Even with these so-called perfected cases, going through these motions of learning the give-and-take would be actually quite valuable.
This is not to say that the topic couldn't change every year, as you suggest, but there may be benefits to reusing the same one that makes this unnecessary. Part of the issue is just trying out things and seeing how they work, versus trying to predict. I trust we will be nothing if not flexible.
Finally, I should point out that, in policy, many regions do practically what you're talking about to novices, as in limiting arguments, providing case positions, etc. This allows them to learn how to debate, and to come on to more sophisticated things over time.
While it is true that writing out cases and the other good jazz isn't the primary concern of novice debaters, I do believe that at least half the fun (and up to 95%) is making up your own arguments, and I'm the most fearful that if the topic never changes, then schools and coaches will eventually just have a huge file of cases/blocks for ever specific argument, and then just train their novice debaters to "listen for argument x, then read page y. It's all covered in the Book". Such a scenario would turn off people who actually would enjoy making up arguments on the spot.
I'm not saying that there are no benefits to having one set resolution, but such benefits might be outweighed by making the novice resolution one big "go through the motions and don't think" event instead of actually showcasing what makes debate both hard (and fun).
But how many novices really make up their own arguments the first month of their career, which is all we are talking about here? Nevertheless, nothing stops a novice from writing cases. Your assumption that everyone will somehow shrug off their responsibility to their novices runs rather counter to most coaches' approach to their new students. You're really indicting bad coaches, not this topic proposal. And bad coaches are, as I'm sure you were quick to point out when you wrote your first case in September of your novice year, a non-unique argument.
Our team, at the very least, had our novices write their own cases. Even if they weren't original or creative (or good, or cases), the very process is a necessity for future debate success. Also, our coach did not have the time to write cases.
I would think (though I could be wrong, especially since I'm basing this off only personal experience) that coaches do not write entire cases under the status quo, whereas with one set resolution they could write and/or conscript/enslave the varsity debaters to write cases, blocks, essentially the world's greatest scripted round. This might seem like a silly concern, but there is an incentive to do this if:
1. Coaches want to justify their programs with success.
2. Coaches realize that a large part, aside from learning the process, during novice year comes from the confidence boosting done by winning.
I have never indicted the general concept of a novice topic, but I do believe that the harms of scripted rounds (and novices not learning how to argue/write cases) can be avoided. Granted, the harm's possibility of occurring seem slim, and unlikely. It's still not something to be preferred, though.
Post a Comment