archive-org.com » ORG » C » CEDADEBATE.ORG

Total: 418

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • [eDebate] Judging Available at Georgia State
    message eDebate Opencaselist formatting Messages sorted by date thread subject author I can judge a full commitment if you are in need please contact me Andy PS I am sure there are lots of need judging announcements but im not really following edebate so much right now so please pardon the message next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20090909 7407d99f attachment

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-September/079756.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive


  • [eDebate] Opencaselist formatting
    if you are the first person to enter intel from a particular tournament feel free to add this organizational heading yourself to the page you are editing 2 Heading 3 will NOT be used for the round tourney information as JP previously said this information should be in normal style making this info Heading 3 will end up making the table of contents unwieldy Heading 2 will still be used for the team and opponent information See Cal BP s neg page for an example http opencaselist wikispaces com Cal BP Kathy Bowen 26 Jacob Polin NEG Other things to note 1 copy and pasting from files using these new paperless templates including from the cite list if you are using that macro is creating weird spacing issues cites are copying as 1 5 paragraph spacing instead of normal even if you clear their formatting first I m trying to figure out a way to fix this if you have ideas let me know 2 If you use the aff and neg scouting templates that are at the bottom of the caselist home page they will create the wrong heading levels if you just copy and paste them into the

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-September/079757.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog
    can be turned on its head in Soviet Russia debate produces knowledge Less colloquially we might consider the possibility that if we really believe in the ol debate project and some of our best and our brightest are writing on the blog at a respected think tank instead of recoiling in fear that they are writing cards we might instead acknowledge that what they are producing is actually the sort of education research that we especially the committed framework types have so often exclaimed debate SHOULD produce Basically the people who are blogging at the CSIS aren t changing the contours of the debate topic Rather debate is changing the contours of what the CSIS is working on At the very least they are mutually informing areas of knowledge and separating them out isn t an easy task The eight years of debate or so give or take I dont know them personally very well that each has are literally informing what they re doing it how they re doing it and why they re doing it So while it may seem like John Warden or Chris Jones is at the CSIC writing cards there s not really a need

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-September/079758.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog
    problem that the cards on the CSIS blog are too good to be true if debaters and judges take the mere existence of a piece of evidence as somehow making the claim of the card true Rather if we treat evidence appropriately as just one factor among many to be considered in evaluating an argument it doesn t matter how good a card is since its mere existence doesn t insulate it from rebuttal Authority matters sure but it s never a trump On Wed Sep 9 2009 at 12 55 PM Paul Johnson paulj567 at yahoo com wrote Just a couple thoughts I don t understand why we think that the debate community is somehow hermetically sealed from the outside world of knowledge production The idea of having concerns about debaters writing cards can be turned on its head in Soviet Russia debate produces knowledge Less colloquially we might consider the possibility that if we really believe in the ol debate project and some of our best and our brightest are writing on the blog at a respected think tank instead of recoiling in fear that they are writing cards we might instead acknowledge that what they are producing is actually the sort of education research that we especially the committed framework types have so often exclaimed debate SHOULD produce Basically the people who are blogging at the CSIS aren t changing the contours of the debate topic Rather debate is changing the contours of what the CSIS is working on At the very least they are mutually informing areas of knowledge and separating them out isn t an easy task The eight years of debate or so give or take I dont know them personally very well that each has are literally informing what they re doing it

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-September/079759.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog
    to say that debaters aren t qualified is a semi veiled indict of the entire activity What else did John and Chris and really the rest of us spend several years learning how to do if not learn how to think carefully and construct arguments to be released into the public domain We should glad that trained debaters are making their arguments in public The issue it seems to me is not that John and Chris have done something wrong but that the way people interpret evidence has gone awry It s only a problem that the cards on the CSIS blog are too good to be true if debaters and judges take the mere existence of a piece of evidence as somehow making the claim of the card true Rather if we treat evidence appropriately as just one factor among many to be considered in evaluating an argument it doesn t matter how good a card is since its mere existence doesn t insulate it from rebuttal Authority matters sure but it s never a trump On Wed Sep 9 2009 at 12 55 PM Paul Johnson paulj567 at yahoo com wrote Just a couple thoughts I don t understand why we think that the debate community is somehow hermetically sealed from the outside world of knowledge production The idea of having concerns about debaters writing cards can be turned on its head in Soviet Russia debate produces knowledge Less colloquially we might consider the possibility that if we really believe in the ol debate project and some of our best and our brightest are writing on the blog at a respected think tank instead of recoiling in fear that they are writing cards we might instead acknowledge that what they are producing is actually the sort of education

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-September/079760.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog
    Sep 9 2009 at 7 13 PM Tripp Rebrovick trebrovick at comcast net wrote Paul s hit the nail on the head to say that debaters aren t qualified is a semi veiled indict of the entire activity What else did John and Chris and really the rest of us spend several years learning how to do if not learn how to think carefully and construct arguments to be released into the public domain We should glad that trained debaters are making their arguments in public The issue it seems to me is not that John and Chris have done something wrong but that the way people interpret evidence has gone awry It s only a problem that the cards on the CSIS blog are too good to be true if debaters and judges take the mere existence of a piece of evidence as somehow making the claim of the card true Rather if we treat evidence appropriately as just one factor among many to be considered in evaluating an argument it doesn t matter how good a card is since its mere existence doesn t insulate it from rebuttal Authority matters sure but it s never a trump On Wed Sep 9 2009 at 12 55 PM Paul Johnson paulj567 at yahoo com wrote Just a couple thoughts I don t understand why we think that the debate community is somehow hermetically sealed from the outside world of knowledge production The idea of having concerns about debaters writing cards can be turned on its head in Soviet Russia debate produces knowledge Less colloquially we might consider the possibility that if we really believe in the ol debate project and some of our best and our brightest are writing on the blog at a respected think tank instead of recoiling

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-September/079761.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog
    is basically a Masters student without a completed degree which is better than most journalists probably not the NYT LAT WP or major news magazines but should not put them on par with true academic experts This is not to say that their evidence should be ignored but it is to say that like Josh notes they re probably not qualified to make the very specific claims they re making

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-September/079762.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog
    or John seem to have intended this in any nefarious way they were just doing what they do for a living etc Josh On Wed Sep 9 2009 at 11 46 PM Jason Russell jasonlrussell1 at gmail com wrote I couldn t disagree with Paul more about the qualifications of the CSIS interns And I ironically enough think Josh makes an important point that helps my argument I ll say this they re not automatically unqualified BUT citing this evidence as CSIS Nuclear Topics Blog would in my opinion overstate the role that either plays in the CSIS Effectively either of these folks is basically a Masters student without a completed degree which is better than most journalists probably not the NYT LAT WP or major news magazines but should not put them on par with true academic experts This is not to say that their evidence should be ignored but it is to say that like Josh notes they re probably not qualified to make the very specific claims they re making with the very limited warrants they provide in some places I don t think that the guys tried to hide their qualifications but I do think it

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-September/079763.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive



  •