Author: Lawrence Zhou, University of Wyoming & WYVA debate coach
The following essay is adapted from a presentation given at the Wyoming High School Forensics Association’s Fall 2021 Conference. Introduction In Part I of this essay series, we covered what the value criterion actually is. In Part II, we explored three common mistakes often seen in more traditional circuits as it pertains to the value criterion. In Part III, we will cover the state of contemporary criterion debate, why I find it subpar, and ways we can improve it. In particular, I think there are five things that make contemporary criterion debate abysmal.
Read the rest after the fold!
0 Comments
Author: Lawrence Zhou, University of Wyoming & WYVA debate coach
The following essay is adapted from a presentation given at the Wyoming High School Forensics Association’s Fall 2021 Conference. Introduction In Part I of this essay series, we covered what the value criterion actually is. In Part II, we will explore three common mistakes often seen in more traditional circuits as it pertains to the value criterion. I strongly suggest that readers begin with Part I as many of the answers to these questions assume familiarity with the concepts in Part I. These common mistakes commonly signal that debaters don’t understand what the role of the value criterion is and can sometimes even hurt debaters strategically in round. This article continues below the fold... Author: Lawrence Zhou, University of Wyoming & WYVA debate coach
The following essay is adapted from a presentation given at the Wyoming High School Forensics Association’s Fall 2021 Conference. You can find Part II here, and Part III here. [Editor's note: a future article by Matt Liu also addressed this topic here.] Introduction The purpose of this series of essays is twofold. First, I think that the value criterion is often poorly debated in local debate leagues. I think that is both painful to witness as a judge but also is a strategic error as debaters are forfeiting valuable opportunities to leverage their arguments in ways that pose serious threats for their opponents. Second, I think Lincoln-Douglas (LD) debate is a unique venue to teach philosophical concepts that most students will never get the chance to explore until their undergraduate studies. Nebel et al. write (2013) that “competitive LD debate as it is currently practiced brings students into contact with a considerable diversity of philosophical questions” and that “LD debate provides a unique way of appreciating the connections between different areas of philosophical investigation.” Being able to parse through complex philosophical concepts teaches a unique form of thinking that most other subjects are not able to impart. I think, pedagogically speaking, there is good reason for educators to demand higher quality debate about the value criterion. This series will be organized into three essays, published in three parts. Part I will provide a brief overview of the value criterion and its proper function. Part II will cover three common misconceptions about the value criterion and explain why these mistakes are so damaging. Part III will cover five worrisome trends in contemporary traditional LD debate and ways to correct or reverse these trends. This essay continues below the fold... |
MissionWyoming Debate Roundup is dedicated to providing quality debate content to Wyoming and Rocky Mountain area high school debaters. We’re a resource for Wyoming debaters by Wyoming debate coaches. Categories
All
Archives
February 2024
|