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] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog
    limited warrants debaters should be able to dissect refute it especially if the argument is wrong Who cares about the authors qualifications Its hard to make analytics count as much as a card but that is part of the game I hope we can teach debaters how to beat a bad argument quoted from the most qualified source imaginable We may need to work on that but I hope that debaters in general become conversant enough in a subject matter to tell the experts when they are wrong Debate judging is part of the problem How long will the you are right but they have a card excuse last I hope no one uses similar reasoning in their daily decision making We got rid of the parts of Stock Issues that made no sense Why do we follow argument from authority to its extreme If a debater is right an authority wrong why do we keep rely on authority JP ps I don t get this whole The blog is without authors argument Subscribe to the blog with an RSS feed you ll see all the authors Jason Russell 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

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-September/079764.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive


  • [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog
    argument with limited warrants debaters should be able to dissect refute it especially if the argument is wrong Who cares about the authors qualifications Its hard to make analytics count as much as a card but that is part of the game I hope we can teach debaters how to beat a bad argument quoted from the most qualified source imaginable We may need to work on that but I hope that debaters in general become conversant enough in a subject matter to tell the experts when they are wrong Debate judging is part of the problem How long will the you are right but they have a card excuse last I hope no one uses similar reasoning in their daily decision making We got rid of the parts of Stock Issues that made no sense Why do we follow argument from authority to its extreme If a debater is right an authority wrong why do we keep rely on authority JP ps I don t get this whole The blog is without authors argument Subscribe to the blog with an RSS feed you ll see all the authors Jason Russell 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

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-September/079765.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog
    rather than 1st yr CSIS intern Warden because to me that is VERY different Let s don t pretend that this doesn t happen at time when debaters and coaches look at a card and say I can t really defend this individual but the organization they work for or magazine paper they re writing for is very reputable I ll cite that This is the practice I m trying

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-September/079766.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog
    print or in an un evidenced speech delivered by a debater If someone makes an argument with limited warrants debaters should be able to dissect refute it especially if the argument is wrong Who cares about the authors qualifications Its hard to make analytics count as much as a card but that is part of the game I hope we can teach debaters how to beat a bad argument quoted from the most qualified source imaginable We may need to work on that but I hope that debaters in general become conversant enough in a subject matter to tell the experts when they are wrong Debate judging is part of the problem How long will the you are right but they have a card excuse last I hope no one uses similar reasoning in their daily decision making We got rid of the parts of Stock Issues that made no sense Why do we follow argument from authority to its extreme If a debater is right an authority wrong why do we keep rely on authority JP ps I don t get this whole The blog is without authors argument Subscribe to the blog with an RSS feed you ll see all the authors Jason Russell 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

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-September/079767.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog
    all members of the editorial staff Journalists often co operate on articles And some articles are heavily edited The main reason for anonymity however is a belief that WHAT IS WRITTEN IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHO WRITES IT As Geoffrey Crowther editor from 1938 to 1956 put it anonymity keeps the editor not the master but the servant of something far greater than himself You can call that ancestor worship

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-September/079768.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog
    watching this same argument play out in another forum JP you re wrong Way wrong I remember Josh Branson s long post of reflections a year or several ago about adjusting to how people argued in his post debate life Many of the arguments he d constructed were revealed to be comic oversimplifications of the way things really were I also remember that we used to brag that our debaters could hold their own with law professors on legal topics and with climatologists on climate change issues I now think that s silly When experts in a field argue among themselves they use a lot of shorthand They don t go back to square one to argue step by step through every bit of settled lore in their field If they did you d need a forklift to move a single journal article What seems to us like a limited warrant may really be someone with twenty years experience researching and writing for an audience of peer reviewers not precocious nineteen year olds who is aiming the current writing to the intended audience not the recently arrived dilettantes I worry and this is a study waiting to happen that debaters

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-September/079769.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, Virginia is looking for traveling judges/coaches for the 2009-2010 school year.
    a void of judging T C Williams has a fast growing debate team that has become regionally competitive in the last several years We have a great group of diverse debaters with passion for the activity Most tournaments are held in the Northern Virginia area This year we plan to travel to several away tournaments including George Mason James Madison Pennsbury Fairless Hills PA and Lakeland Shrub Oak NY We compete in both Policy and LD The tournaments we compete in the following leagues Virginia High School League Washington Arlington Catholic Forensic League and Northern Virginia Forensic League The team primarily needs judges but coaching assistance never hurt either I m looking for current or former debaters with two years of combined debate experience prior coaching and or judging experience is a plus good track record of working with high schoolers or college novi dependability Unfortunately we don t have much in the way of financial support to provide beyond room and meals and maybe a couple bucks per round so at this point you should consider this a volunteer position When we do have the money I ll be sure to direct it toward anyone who helps out Email

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-September/079770.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] Northwestern Looking for GSU and Kentucky Judges
    at Mo State Messages sorted by date thread subject author Northwestern is looking for judging for both the GSU tournament and the Clay Please backchannel lukephill at gmail com if interested We pay well and in cash LH Luke P Hill Program Coordinator Northwestern Debate Society 847 467 0345 o 678 852 9280 c next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20090910

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-September/079771.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive



  •