You can now get email alerts from google scholar
Monthly Archives: May 2010 - Page 2
Google Scholar- now with Email alerts
Posted by Scott Phillips
on May 17, 2010
Comments Off
New Topic Article
Posted by Scott Phillips
on May 14, 2010
1 comment
Stefan has written a piece for the Rostrum about debating the upcoming military deployment topic. You can find it here
The Lure of the Debate
Posted by Kaavya Ramesh
on May 14, 2010
1 comment
It’s a Wednesday afternoon. The last tournament of the year is over. Things seem to be winding down, drawing to a close, giving us that freedom we always craved while we spent late nights cutting cards—yet, we come back. For some, inexplicable reason, we come back—we read the 3NR, we write our judging philosophies (and how excited we are, about the fact that we can do that now), we fill out surveys about our thoughts on the season, and we generally keep thinking about debate, although everything has now been said and done for the entire year. Why do we come back?
Is it because debate has ultimately shaped who we are, as people? Is it because we are perpetually drawn to the rush of competition, in an oddly addictive sort of sense, like moths to lamps? Or is it just because over the past four years, we’ve come to feel like we are part of a community, and that is a community that we can never truly walk away from?
Correcting Misinformation and a Recommended Journal
Posted by Bill Batterman
on May 13, 2010
1 comment
The Center for Economic and Policy Research posted a blog entry today by Shawn Fremstad entitled “How Do We Correct Misinformation in Public Policy Debates?”. The author cites a recent article in The Forum about the health care debate and the role that misconceptions played in it. Both Fremstad’s post and the journal article—by Brendan Nyhan, the Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in Health Policy Research at the University of Michigan—are interesting reads that provide important insights into the way that public policy arguments are won and lost. Fremstad’s conclusion, in particular, seems like prudent advice for debaters:
Where does this leave us then when we’re responding/defending against misinformation in the public sphere or even in non-elite private ones, like discussions with friends and family? Instead of just providing the fact or data that rebuts misinformation in a narrow or technical sense, it’s important to identify the frame or mental preconceptions that likely underlie or reinforce the misinformation, and then come up with an argument or response that seeks to undermine or replace those broader preconceptions as much as it does the specific piece of misinformation.
Beyond this particular article, however, The Forum is an excellent journal that every debater should add to their bookmarks and RSS feeds. Published four times per year, each issue focuses on one subject that is timely and important. The July 2009 issue, for example, focused on immigration policy and will be highly useful for college debaters researching next year’s resolution. The journal is available free of charge to “guests” via The Berkeley Electronic Press, itself an essential source of electronic journals.
Bronx Science Wins The Inaugural 3NR Spirit of Disclosure Award
Posted by Bill Batterman
on May 13, 2010
24 comments
In February, we announced the creation of The 3NR Spirit of Disclosure Award to recognize the team that best represents the spirit of disclosure throughout the season. In announcing this Award, we established five criteria: completeness of information, organization of information, consistency of disclosure, responsiveness to requests, and post-season disclosure practices. Our goal was for this Award to become a coveted honor that would motivate students and teams to improve their disclosure practices for the benefit of the entire community. After just a few months, we are confident that this has indeed been the case and have plans to continue (and perhaps expand) this Award in the future.
After careful review of The National Debate Coaches’ Association National Argument List wiki that took into account the stated criteria, the writers of The 3NR have submitted their ballots and the votes have been tabulated. Each ballot included an ordinal ranking of five teams and the results were then compiled by assigning a point value to each placement (5 points for a #1 ranking, 4 points for a #2 ranking, 3 points for a #3 ranking, 2 points for a #4 ranking, and 1 point for a #5 ranking). The authors were free to name any team on their ballot; there was no list of finalists from which to choose and there was no set criteria that must be followed.
Despite the open-ended nature of the voting system, the results were very consistent across all three ballots. In total, seven teams appeared on at least one ballot and three teams appeared on all three. The top five teams (as well as two honorable mentions) are listed below the fold along with an explanation of their placement. In parentheses, each team’s rankings on the individual judges’ ballots is also provided (in the order of Bill, Scott, and Roy).
Congratulations to all of the teams that received votes.
Answering some of Roy’s questions
Posted by Scott Phillips
on May 10, 2010
17 comments
Journal Update
Posted by Scott Phillips
on May 10, 2010
8 comments
The Last Word seems to be progressing nicely. Here are answers to some commonly asked questions, and at the bottom a list of topics that people have volunteered to cover in case you were still thinking of writing something.
If anyone would like to try designing a logo that would be sweet as my ms paint skills leave something to be desired.
Publication
-will be for free online through the 3nr
-I am going to use the creative commons share alike 3.0 which basically means people can use anything in the journal for further academic work, distribute it freely etc.
-the font garamond will not be used in any way shape or form
Review Process
There will be 2 separate reviews of each article- one for spelling/grammar/style, and one for content. The 2 reviews will be conducted by different people. After review authors will get a chance to fix/resubmit for publication. A lot of people have volunteered to review so this process will be pretty quick I think. Submitted articles will be commented on in word using the comment function.
Topics being covered- Theory articles- most of which have someone arguing for each side
-intrinsicness
-plan inclusivity
-consultation
-functional/textual competition and word pics
-conditionality
High school topic papers
-Foucault/agamben and police
-Butler on Afghanistan
-Gender critics of IR
-US leadership
Non policy debate topics- Here quite a few people emailed me about the exclusion of other kinds of debate but so far very few have put their money where their mouth is.
TOC Finals 2010 Videos
Posted by gulakov
on May 9, 2010
77 comments
Westminster TA (aff) d. St. Mark’s MB (2-1) *Bricker, Greenstein, Herndon
The negative went for economic growth bad.
1AR by Ellis Allen from Westminster
Debate simpsons episode
Posted by Scott Phillips
on May 7, 2010
3 comments
Like me many of you probably missed this at the toc: Here
