Ohio Wesleyan Tournament

Image via

Wikipedia

Greetings from Delaware, Ohio and the first Ohio Wesleyan debate tournament – at least of the modern era of debating.

I am pleased to be here. Looks like there will be about 20 teams in the tab, which might sound low. But you must remember this is a part of the country where Worlds style debating is virtually unheard of. Debating in Ohio is mostly Lincoln-Douglas with a dash of NPDA style debating, or American parliamentary as it developed out of American policy debating.

I’ll be updating here throughout the day tomorrow with motions and other information as it happens. So keep refreshing throughout the day to see what’s happening! I hope to shoot some videos for the very popular and very exciting Progymnasmata YouTube channel as well!

Zemanta helped me add links & pictures to this email. It can do it for you too.

Ohio Wesleyan Tournament

Image via

Wikipedia

Greetings from Delaware, Ohio and the first Ohio Wesleyan debate tournament – at least of the modern era of debating.

I am pleased to be here. Looks like there will be about 20 teams in the tab, which might sound low. But you must remember this is a part of the country where Worlds style debating is virtually unheard of. Debating in Ohio is mostly Lincoln-Douglas with a dash of NPDA style debating, or American parliamentary as it developed out of American policy debating.

I’ll be updating here throughout the day tomorrow with motions and other information as it happens. So keep refreshing throughout the day to see what’s happening! I hope to shoot some videos for the very popular and very exciting Progymnasmata YouTube channel as well!

Zemanta helped me add links & pictures to this email. It can do it for you too.

Eliminated Debaters as Adjudicators?

In the Northeastern US we are having a bit of trouble, in my opinion, with judge diversity in elimination debates. I think that an important element of a good debate regimen is having to persuade a wide and varied group of people as opposed to having the convenience of targeting your arguments for specific types of people or even for specific individuals.

Here are some arguments from Paul Gross of the University of Vermont in favor of allowing debaters who did not break as judges in elimination rounds. I find this issue quite interesting and totally unresolved in my mind. I think it contains some elements of both issues – too much variety and at the same time too much specific targeting. But let me know what you think. We should have a wide and detailed debate about this idea.

Hi Steve,
It's my view that debaters who reach elimination rounds, but are eliminated before the final round, should be added to the pool of judges.
1) Elimination rounds, uniquely, benefit from an excellent panel of judges. Though it is not always the case, elimination rounds tend to be closer, more complicated debates that get decided based on small issues–the sorts of debates where the 2nd and 3rd might be separated by only a speaker point. Also, unlike in preliminary rounds, debaters do not have the opportunity to recover from a 3rd place they might not have deserved. For these two reasons, decisions in elimination rounds are especially tricky and important and would benefit from having the best variety of judges on the panel. 
2) Strong debaters tend to make strong judges. Again, this is not always the case, but oftentimes those debaters who perform well at the activity (as evidenced by their reaching the elimination rounds) benefit from the perspective of being a current competitor and being familiar with the ever evolving norms and standards of the activity, which is an important (but certainly not the only) lens through which to view the debate. Also, if you look at the many of the most respected judges around the world in this format, they tend to be recently graduated or even current debaters. (Chris Croke from Sydney and Doug Cochran from Cambridge, for example, were high ranking judges at Worlds 2009 and 2010, respectively). Seeing this trend, and recognizing that elimination rounds require strong panels of judges, it makes sense to include current strong debaters in the pool. Of course, there is no obligation to include all debaters who fall out before the final round in the pool. Indeed, it is likely that debaters who are also strong judges will emerge and that debaters who feel less comfortable judging will recuse themselves anyway.
3) For the most part, debate communities are civil, friendly, and compassionate groups of people. Undoubtedly, debaters who lose rounds sometimes feel resentment towards the teams that beat them immediately after the round. However, typically this resentment is short-lived, as debaters are likely to get another chance to face each other only a few weeks later and may even socialize that very evening. Especially in a small community, like our own in the Northeast, it is probably even the case that almost all top performing teams have both won and lost against most other teams who are likely to reach elimination rounds. Partially for these reasons, it seems unlikely to me that debaters will hold grudges or make unfair decisions based on the results of previous debates they may have had with the competitors that they are now judging. Furthermore, if this practice became the norm, there would be an additional deterrent against making unfair or biased decisions, namely that you might be judged in an elimination round by one of these debaters next tournament. If, in fact, there were some kind of extreme circumstance where it was likely that a debater could not make a decision fairly, that debater could recuse herself or be recused at the behest of the chief adjudicator.
Paul

Eliminated Debaters as Adjudicators?

In the Northeastern US we are having a bit of trouble, in my opinion, with judge diversity in elimination debates. I think that an important element of a good debate regimen is having to persuade a wide and varied group of people as opposed to having the convenience of targeting your arguments for specific types of people or even for specific individuals.

Here are some arguments from Paul Gross of the University of Vermont in favor of allowing debaters who did not break as judges in elimination rounds. I find this issue quite interesting and totally unresolved in my mind. I think it contains some elements of both issues – too much variety and at the same time too much specific targeting. But let me know what you think. We should have a wide and detailed debate about this idea.

Hi Steve,
It's my view that debaters who reach elimination rounds, but are eliminated before the final round, should be added to the pool of judges.
1) Elimination rounds, uniquely, benefit from an excellent panel of judges. Though it is not always the case, elimination rounds tend to be closer, more complicated debates that get decided based on small issues–the sorts of debates where the 2nd and 3rd might be separated by only a speaker point. Also, unlike in preliminary rounds, debaters do not have the opportunity to recover from a 3rd place they might not have deserved. For these two reasons, decisions in elimination rounds are especially tricky and important and would benefit from having the best variety of judges on the panel. 
2) Strong debaters tend to make strong judges. Again, this is not always the case, but oftentimes those debaters who perform well at the activity (as evidenced by their reaching the elimination rounds) benefit from the perspective of being a current competitor and being familiar with the ever evolving norms and standards of the activity, which is an important (but certainly not the only) lens through which to view the debate. Also, if you look at the many of the most respected judges around the world in this format, they tend to be recently graduated or even current debaters. (Chris Croke from Sydney and Doug Cochran from Cambridge, for example, were high ranking judges at Worlds 2009 and 2010, respectively). Seeing this trend, and recognizing that elimination rounds require strong panels of judges, it makes sense to include current strong debaters in the pool. Of course, there is no obligation to include all debaters who fall out before the final round in the pool. Indeed, it is likely that debaters who are also strong judges will emerge and that debaters who feel less comfortable judging will recuse themselves anyway.
3) For the most part, debate communities are civil, friendly, and compassionate groups of people. Undoubtedly, debaters who lose rounds sometimes feel resentment towards the teams that beat them immediately after the round. However, typically this resentment is short-lived, as debaters are likely to get another chance to face each other only a few weeks later and may even socialize that very evening. Especially in a small community, like our own in the Northeast, it is probably even the case that almost all top performing teams have both won and lost against most other teams who are likely to reach elimination rounds. Partially for these reasons, it seems unlikely to me that debaters will hold grudges or make unfair decisions based on the results of previous debates they may have had with the competitors that they are now judging. Furthermore, if this practice became the norm, there would be an additional deterrent against making unfair or biased decisions, namely that you might be judged in an elimination round by one of these debaters next tournament. If, in fact, there were some kind of extreme circumstance where it was likely that a debater could not make a decision fairly, that debater could recuse herself or be recused at the behest of the chief adjudicator.
Paul

Threats to the Bookstore, Antilogoi

Image via

Wikipedia

Been spending the week in Texas, where I grew up, with my Mom who just got out of the hospital after having surgery. It’s been a good visit, except there are a few things that we usually do that we couldn’t because of her health.

One of the best things is going to the local Border’s books – which is a mega-retail chain bookstore – here in her small town. Good size, not too massive, and pretty nice. It was a good place for me to get a couple of books off the shelf and try to expose Mom to some new ideas here and there, always sparking some conversation.

Even though Mom couldn’t go,  I thought I would and was saddened to see that the store is closing. Going inside saddened me – it looked like a refugee camp for books. Of course, I have no love lost for a mega-corporate retail giant’s failure, but for the loss of those remainders from the presence of that bookstore – the space where I had such a nice time over the years.

I felt incredibly guilty on the way home because earlier, talking with my sister about her Kindle, I decided that perhaps the time had come to buy one. Looking at the prices and the ebook selection was really persuasive to me that I should get one. I have been thinking about it for a while, but was really getting close to getting one. After amassing some old gift cards, I decided to go ahead and get one, realizing that I could read more and more regularly the sort of pop non-fiction that I really like.

Then today there’s this nice article which I felt was indicting my very reasons for joining the ebook market. The internet as a positive feedback loop, only exposing you to what you already think and believe is a fairly compelling argument. The bookstore allows you to find things that you wouldn’t normally look for, encounter, or seek to purchase on your own.

But do ebooks really differ from the corporate dominated paper book market? Is the physical bookstore really that different than Amazon.com? I have found, with about the same amount of serendipity, pretty interesting books and things to read via poor decisions made by Amazon’s algorithm.

Also, people continue to share things they’ve read, even if they can’t physically give the book to someone (although the technology will eventually allow it) which exposes people to a similar “feedback loop” as the internet would – my friends will probably only recommend things I already like or already am interested in anyway. And if they don’t, they have the human ability to persuade me with ethos that the book is worth reading.

But on the other side, the loss of that physical space is pretty disheartening. Talking in a forum about books is a bit different. Not sure how that will change. I have a sneaking feeling though that the corporate bookstore’s physical space is used for the same sort of positive feedback loop that the internet provides. When I look around at others, I get the sense they are not interested in reaching out to other people or exploring books that they have never heard of or by authors who they know will challenge their ideas. They have selected the comfortable and familiar.

Furthermore, the corporate bookstore model ensures that the field of choice is going to be limited either way. Amazon has a high stake in making sure I don’t get access to particular titles on my Kindle. Barnes and Noble and Borders also have the same motives. I can use the internet to both find the books I think I will like and also perhaps research some of those limits or find the independent presses that might provide me something new and interesting.

I suspect that for many years I will work in a mixed medium of print and electronic reading materials. I already do. I think the loss of the physical space of the bookstore is pretty sad, but hopefully another alternative will come along.

I also wonder how much the fear of the new medium motivates the gloom and doom “end of the local bookstore” rhetoric. I think they are almost already gone right now. Maybe the ebook will force the corporate bookstore to adapt or die. Perhaps we will find the shelves smaller but populated with more interesting titles as the major presses and mass market novels all move to electronic format. Not sure, feeling somewhat guilty, but also quite interested to see what the electronic book reader does to my reading habits and interaction with books.

Related articles

Zemanta helped me add links & pictures to this email. It can do it for you too.