![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It provides an opportunity to remove a lot of the unnecessary junk that's still notable from the main policy debate entry and doesn't need to be solely about policy debate either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.204.32 (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
What about things like E-Spec, O-Spec, etc.?
I think those are considered theory arguments.Eebster the Great (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I had always been told that the first intercollegiate debate was held at Southwestern College in Winfield, Kansas. http://cat.sckans.edu/frederick_debate/history.htm "Although dates vary, Southwestern is still recognized as the host school for the first intercollegiate debate tournament"
Why is the phrase "except for colorado and Missouri" in the time listings. I am a Missouri debater, and those times are correct.
Are you kidding me?
you are retarded. I also debate in Mo and the times for the 1ar, 2ar, 1nr, and 2nr are 4 minutes. Not 5.
In colorado, the times are 4 minutes for all of the rebuttals.168.103.80.159 05:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there any proof that the list of famous policy debaters is correct? I think that the names should be attached to legitimate citations or removed.
Is anyone here actually a current high school policy debater? --Mr Anthem 10:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am becoming one.. --Geobeedude 15:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Geobeedude
You debate at Groves? Do you know Jonathan Warsh?
Ok folks, essentially everyone participating in editing this article is a policy debator. Who else would WRITE this stuff? That said, as a long-term judge, I am embarassed by the total lack of citations in this article. Frankly, we suck.
To that end, I have just added to references to Rostrum articles on judge qualifications. I encourage you all to find references to support the other assertions and stuff in the article. The total lack of cits and footnotes in an article about policy debate is just freaking EMABRASSING!!!! Does no one HAVE a copy of "Mastering Competative Debate" we can put into a = = REFERECES = = section at the bottom? Come on folks, let's get busy.
See Wikipedia citation sources for sample citation templates or use WikiBib to build them for you. No excuses. Imagine how this article would LOOK on a flow with no cites. Ick. Rick Boatright 14:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I need help with debate
Still could use some work of course, but this is way, way, way, way better than the original. It actually makes sense and no longer reads like a how-to (see history of 1AC). StopTheFiling 20:46, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
The statement about the Kentucky Fellows (under Institutes) seems a bit un-encyclopedic to me. Also, we might want to consider getting rid of the names of the TOC winners. Only the 2005 winners are mentioned right now, and even if we do include every team who ever won the TOC, then we should also include the names of every team who won NFL Nationals, and Catholic Nats, and every TOC-qualifying tournament, not even to start on college tournaments... I just don't think this information is important/interesting/encyclopedic enough to include here. What does everyone else think? Hollyvic 21:39, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
This page is overly long, complicated, and technical. I would suggest paring it down for reasons of simplicity.
An anon editor added the following:
There are overall three types of judges: 1. The "Lay" Judge- the Lay judge is generally a parent or other relative of a student debater who has signed up to judge. The Lay judge generally has judged either no or very few debate rounds before. 2. The "Flay" (False Lay) Judge- The Flay judge is considered by most debaters to be the most "dangerous" of the three judge types. A Flay judge is essentialy a Lay judge who thinks that he is a Flow judge (see below). These judges generally flow horizontally on long pieces of paper. 3. The "Flow" Judge- The Flow judge is generally the most appreciated of the three judges. The Flow judge is usually an ex-debater. They know what they are doing, and can generally be trusted to make well informed decisions.
I have several problems with this:
The editor who wrote this is confusing and confounding "flow" judges with "young, college debator style judges who will vote on crap."
If we must catagorize judges, can we please use a taxonomy which provides a useful service to the individual reading an encyclopeadia article? Isn't a taxonomy by judging paradigm PLUS experiance enough? I am an ex-debator, ex-coach, fifty year old, stock issues flow judge. I've probebly judged a couple of thousand rounds of policy debate from in-school practice rounds to nationals. I know well what I like and don't. I am utterly consistant. I am well respected on my circuit, and students are very happy to see me in the back of the room 'cause they know how I will vote and can accomodate me easily. I flow horizontally. Rick Boatright 22:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
My high school flows horizontaly. It has no Advantages or D/A's, It is merely a different style. And in fact, my Highschool has won 1st or 2nd in our state for the past 10 years flowing that way. Don't Diss it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.126.92.60 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that this page consists of about a dozen articles which should be separated and listed in Category:Policy debate as a subcategory of Category:Debating. What remains here should be an overview.
On a different note, those elements of the "Resolutions" section that are copies of external websites should be dramatically reduced and replaced with the relevant links. Melchoir 09:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
66.112.37.194, thanks for your introduction to the Resolutions section; it really helps, although I hope more can be done.
I'm not quite bold enough to radically alter an article on which I have no expertise, but I can certainly make suggestions. The following topics seem to be specialized and self-contained enough to merit their own articles:
If such articles are created, they would belong in Category:Policy debate along with the existing articles:
among others. How does that sound? Melchoir 00:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Many of the policy debate stubs are labelled as "law", "evidence" or other types of stubs. I think that there should be a "policy debate" stub category (perhaps a subcategory of something else) which could eventually provide a method for organizing the daughter articles of this article. 66.112.37.194 00:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
If you dont like my pictures, someone please upload some. Masterdebater 04:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and tried to create a template for a series to tie these articles together. Comments or improvements would be appreciated. Template:Policy Debate Masterdebater 02:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be a lack of explanation about permutations. They're a tricky little topic that should probably be covered a little more. Thinking back oh those many years I recall time permutations, actor permutations and other slippery devices. Any other suggestions? By the way, this whole collection is really well done.
I've never heard this was the origin of the term, and I've been around the debate world a bit. It doesn't seem obvious to me, and in the study of slang a lot of things that seem to be apparent in retrospect do not represent the true origins. I would ask someone associated with the old Georgetown debate institutes or perhaps someone who was around the time of Tribe. But original research is not allowed on Wikipedia anyway. There needs to be a published source making these claims or it should not be included. Tfine80 05:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad someone acknowledged the 7 week debate camp in this article. It's really the best program in the nation. I went to it, so I should know. -User:Afghan Historian
Someone should acknowledge a major current policy debate star, David Gobberdiel.
This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because of severely insufficient citations and lots of original research. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is the debate theory section in the middle of the article? It clogs up a lot of space, and explains little to the uninitiated and casually interested. It should be a separate article. Further, it's extremely confusing which of these theory issues are obsolete and which aren't. A better way to do it would be just to say in the theory section that there are multiple branches of debate theory (link to an article) and then just say the basics: in a typical debate, the aff gets a plan and the neg gets the squo or a counterplan (and explain what all these means). Then in the actual theory article, you can explain which regions/circuits adhere more strongly to which theories, as well as explaining the mutability of debate theory in general. Nnn9245 00:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The list of popular camps is good and all those camps deserve to be on it, but can someone clean it up along the following lines: (1) consolodate programs under the same camp (eg northwestern and miami one link each not two) and (2) clean up the ENDI link? Thanks!
if you care so much and dis it so much, why didnt YOU write the article??
The edits I made Aug 8 seems to more accurate than the original text regarding paradigm, judging, and some minor awkward language. The first two points matter most to me. I noted that the term "paradigm" is largely obsolete in NDT/CEDA and it is. Second, I eliminated the idea that experienced judges tend to get "caught up" which seems to assume the POV of someone who does not prefer lay judges. Instead, I emphasized common differences between their perspectives. So why did was it changed back to the old, more inaccurate version?
Should there be a link to the NFL's (and similar organisation's) archive of old topics or perhaps an article which manifests the information? http://www.nflonline.org/uploads/Main/poltopics.pdf
A note to the policy debate fans. I have just moved a lot of pages like Topicality, Solvency, Inherency and so on to the more proper X (policy debate). This will probably create some problems with the templates and so on so be sure to check them out. Frankly it's a bit annoying to follow a link from a financial article and see solvency defined as a stock issue. It's great that there's room on Wikipedia for things like policy debate but people have to realize that it is a marginal subject and should name pages accordingly. Pascal.Tesson 04:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone should nominate it. I don't have the time to perform the subsequent tweaking, but this article is definitely worthy, of even featured status!
It seems from this article that policy debating only takes place in the US. Is this in fact the case? The geographical scope of policy debating should probably be discussed in the lead, as it is important in definining the term. MLilburne 16:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This article failed the GA noms for the following reason:
Feel free to renominate this article when all problems have been addressed. Tarret 23:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
why is this still here? I thought we got rid of it Earendilmm 18:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I checked out the drills link, and noticed that it should link to the 0402 article, not 0302. Confirm?
I think "350-400 wpm" is too low of an average for the "national circuit" - I'm universally considered slow in comparison to national circuit debaters and I can handle 350 wpm at http://spreeder.com/ with minimal difficulty - 75.17.149.251 (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason to change it unless you can get any evidence backing you up. And 350 wpm is in fact very fast, although it depends on whether you're talking about high school or college. I have heard that rates faster than 450 wpm are extremely rare, so perhaps you could up the maximum to 450, but I wouldn't do so without some evidence to cite.Eebster the Great (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:Flow.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Is the image under 'flow' a flow at all? It looks nothing like a spreadsheet or paper flow- in fact, looking up the author, it's just a summary image from someone's project! --138.88.133.164 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I am in a homeschool debate club (so it may be different than other rules) but there are only 4 stock issues; topicality, inherency, significance, and solvency. The harms kind of fall under inherency and significance, but don't get counted as a stock issue in and of itself. Is it just me or is it actually not a stock issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.63.239 (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be a section, or entire page, devoted to framework debate. It's an essential part of high level policy debate these days and deserves a concise, informative explanation.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/1 (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I've been away too long.
In the 1970's "policy maker" meant one was arguing as if one was a real policy maker, such as a legislator, and a win would become law.
Hypothesis testing meant one recognized we were students in cheap suits, arguing interesting topics, but not law makers.
The hard-core policy-maker school was Georgetown; the hypothesis testing school was Northwestern.
I'm suprised inherency arguments have lost favor. How long can one argue topicailty? How long should judges listen to such stuff? Once upon a time when 1AC presented a non-topical case, 1NC would demur and let the judge decide.
Professor Chemerinsky gave one of the best lectures I ever heard, about inherency, in the late 1970's. There was a standing ovation, which is unusual for a techninal talk. Perhaps Dr. Zarefsky has a recording. 2.718281828plus (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. But for some reason, thirty years later, I still think people with part-time jobs and flammable suits (myself included) shouldn't be making policy. Many debaters I faced (the Georgetown crowd especially) argued they were actual policy makers, within the the limits of the debate. I don't recall too many judges caring one way or another paradigms; most cared about argument and evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.718281828plus (talk • contribs) 17:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following from the speed section:
The fastest speaking debaters in the nation speak at around 6-8 words per second. An average speed debater on the national circuit will speak around 350 to 400 words per minute.
It references words per minute, which in turn referenced this article. Therefore, there was no real citation. It also conflicts with a cited statement on the words per minute page. Ajonlime (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I changed the following line from the speed section:
With the notable exception of certain regions, most of the debate community has come to the consensus that, since the debates are held for the debaters, whether an outsider can understand the style is a moot point.
to this:
However, with the notable exception of certain regions, most debates no longer include outside perspective as a criterion for judging the debate itself.
I'm still not entirely satisfied with the line, so perhaps it should be removed, but it is definitely an improvement. It's impossible to prove that the debate community has come to a consensus on a theory issue still sometimes used in debates.
I think the whole section needs some reform, since it summarizes relatively complex arguments in the debate in a few lines. Obviously speed is no longer an issue in debate generally speaking, but it is sufficiently notable to entitle it to a real discussion of both sides. On the other hand, if the arguments aren't going to be fully explained here, perhaps a summary isn't needed at all. After all, speed is not the only, nor the most common, procedural or rhetorical "real" issue in debate. Eebster the Great (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
As an Australian who is somewhat aware of the British tradition of debating, this article was almost incomprehensible.
Reading the history section, it appeared that debating in the US sprang from the same tradition as the debating I know of, but it's completely unclear if a "policy debate" sits within the US mainstream, is one of several schools of debating, or is an obscure offshoot.
Generally speaking, the article is also full of jargon and seems to have been written for those already in the know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.162.238 (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
why does db8 redirect here?
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |