Topicality Standards in CEDA Debate.
Saved in:
| Title: | Topicality Standards in CEDA Debate. |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Voight, Phillip |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 26 |
| Publication Date: | 1993 |
| Document Type: | Speeches/Meeting Papers Opinion Papers |
| Descriptors: | Debate, Evaluation Methods, Evaluation Problems, Higher Education, Judges, Persuasive Discourse, Standards |
| Abstract: | One way to improve topicality debates in CEDA (Cross Examination Debate Association) debate would be to thoroughly study the field contextual meanings of propositional phrases prior to submitting them to a vote. Judges need to reward exemplary arguments and "punish" poor arguments by substantially lowering a team's speaker points for presenting such arguments. Well planned topicality arguments are as research-intensive as disadvantages or counterplans and require the same attention to organization and structure. While not a panacea, a reinvigoration of the importance of topicality argumentation could help restore the balance between impact-oriented arguments and case-specific refutational styles. Absent a plan statement, debate critics could evaluate topicality in the same fashion as "extra-topicality" arguments would be evaluated in a policy format. Topicality standard debates are generally not well presented. Confusion arises in two broad areas concerning topicality standards: the host of arguments that masquerade as "procedural" questions; and arguments that are related to the disposition of topicality claims. The nature of standards debates would be drastically improved if judges refused to consider assertions as arguments absent an explicit application of the "standard" to the opposing interpretation. The topic of a recent CEDA debate (regarding implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations) typifies the difficulties faced when propositions are poorly worded. Neither a true policy proposition, nor an explicit question of value, the proposition lurked in the shadows that separate those two realms. (Fifteen notes are included.) (RS) |
| Entry Date: | 1994 |
| Accession Number: | ED367027 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| FullText | Text: Availability: 0 CustomLinks: – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED367027 Name: ERIC Full Text Category: fullText Text: Full Text from ERIC |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: ED367027 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Conference PubTypeId: conference PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Topicality Standards in CEDA Debate. – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Voight%2C+Phillip%22">Voight, Phillip</searchLink> – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: N – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 26 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 1993 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Speeches/Meeting Papers<br />Opinion Papers – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Debate%22">Debate</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Problems%22">Evaluation Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Judges%22">Judges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Persuasive+Discourse%22">Persuasive Discourse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Standards%22">Standards</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: One way to improve topicality debates in CEDA (Cross Examination Debate Association) debate would be to thoroughly study the field contextual meanings of propositional phrases prior to submitting them to a vote. Judges need to reward exemplary arguments and "punish" poor arguments by substantially lowering a team's speaker points for presenting such arguments. Well planned topicality arguments are as research-intensive as disadvantages or counterplans and require the same attention to organization and structure. While not a panacea, a reinvigoration of the importance of topicality argumentation could help restore the balance between impact-oriented arguments and case-specific refutational styles. Absent a plan statement, debate critics could evaluate topicality in the same fashion as "extra-topicality" arguments would be evaluated in a policy format. Topicality standard debates are generally not well presented. Confusion arises in two broad areas concerning topicality standards: the host of arguments that masquerade as "procedural" questions; and arguments that are related to the disposition of topicality claims. The nature of standards debates would be drastically improved if judges refused to consider assertions as arguments absent an explicit application of the "standard" to the opposing interpretation. The topic of a recent CEDA debate (regarding implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations) typifies the difficulties faced when propositions are poorly worded. Neither a true policy proposition, nor an explicit question of value, the proposition lurked in the shadows that separate those two realms. (Fifteen notes are included.) (RS) – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 1994 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: ED367027 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=ED367027 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 26 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Debate Type: general – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods Type: general – SubjectFull: Evaluation Problems Type: general – SubjectFull: Higher Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Judges Type: general – SubjectFull: Persuasive Discourse Type: general – SubjectFull: Standards Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Topicality Standards in CEDA Debate. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Voight, Phillip IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 11 Type: published Y: 1993 |
| ResultId | 1 |
