Jump to content
Chaos

Number One Tool to Teach Novices

Recommended Posts

I think the activities should be done in class / at debate practice rather than outside of it, either once daily or a couple times a week. The activities only take about 20 minutes each. They don't need to read the entire book, just to perform the activities, because the rest of the information can be conveyed in person by coaches. And most other things we make novices do aren't fantastically entertaining either. 

That said, point taken. This should probably be complemented by more enjoyable sorts of learning as well, so no one gets frustrated or overwhelmed.

Also, it would be important for coaches to create a nonjudgmental/noncompetitive atmosphere if kids would be measuring their reading speeds with others nearby. Maybe what complements this activity should be lighthearted, only slightly intellectual exercises, mostly aimed at boosting team cohesion and cooperativeness. From what I can see those activities are mostly undervalued anyway, and even without this exercise they would still be a good addition to most team practices.

The thing about this book I most like is that in addition to improving debate productivity directly, it would also reduce the amount of time students have to spend on other sources of homework. It would be an immediate tangible benefit to their lives, and could do a lot for convincing newcomers that the skills they learn in debate will be useful.

Team building exercises would do similar things. I expect making friends in debate is the best predictor of continued participation, so increasing total friendship seems like an easy way to improve the lives of students while also benefiting the team competitively. It would likely also increase participation among those already involved. And I also expect that teams which are highly cooperative do better brainstorming on topics or collaborating on files.

Edited by Potatoes
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, he means disad dan:

 

UNIQUENESS -- Dan is standing on the top of a cliff

LINK -- Congress passes the plan, which pushes him off of the cliff

INTERNAL LINK -- He falls

IMPACT -- Dan has died. You are a monster.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, he means disad dan:

 

UNIQUENESS -- Dan is standing on the top of a cliff

LINK -- Congress passes the plan, which pushes him off of the cliff

INTERNAL LINK -- He falls

IMPACT -- Dan has died. You are a monster.

He said I can't beat Disad Dan, I beat it with the SHITS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the SHITS uhhh. Too much cap K in one round... never... again... *squeeze* *plop* (SolvencyHarmsInherencyTopicalitySignifigance)

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a minor update to this thread, for anyone who comes across it later on, I've learned that stopping subvocalization is a lot easier if you count inside your head "one, two, three, four, one, two, three, four". You can't count and subvocalize at the same time, but counting is simple enough that it doesn't distract from reading. It's working quite well for me. I've yet to finish the book linked above, however. I'm midway through about a dozen useful books right now, not sure if I'll ever finish any of them, very frustrating but a good problem to have.

Edited by Chaos
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smart thinking & knowing the arguments > Speed

 

I significantly disagree with the premise of the thread....even if it includes reading other documents faster.

 

I do think that people should learn the various ways in which you can read a particular piece, however.  I do think that is helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Honestly think SHIT (No one even talks about Significance anymore, lets be real) is a bad way to teach affirmative strategy. For starters Topicality has become an offcase position. Also very few people still say harms: they say advantages, and inherency tends to be built in to advantages as uniqueness. Solvency is Really the only Remaining part. I would teach it as (if your presenting a traditional plantext): Plan is the center of the debate then you weight the benefits of the plan versus the drawbacks of the plan.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plan is the center of the debate then you weight the benefits of the plan versus the drawbacks of the plan.

what does that entail?

how do you do that?

this/shits/ithst is fine as is

Edited by Zuul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This entails reading a 1AC that has 2 or so advantages and solvency, and the negative reading Disads. SHITS is outdated: You will never win a debate on inherency, Significance, and topicality is a negative strategy not something the affirmative has to present in there 1AC. Then you are left with HS (Harms and Solvency). SHITS is just really outdated. Obviously this is just an introduction to simple affirmative strategy not how advanced debate works. But for beginning novice tournaments it works pretty well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This entails reading a 1AC that has 2 or so advantages and solvency, and the negative reading Disads. SHITS is outdated: You will never win a debate on inherency, Significance, and topicality is a negative strategy not something the affirmative has to present in there 1AC. Then you are left with HS (Harms and Solvency). SHITS is just really outdated. Obviously this is just an introduction to simple affirmative strategy not how advanced debate works. But for beginning novice tournaments it works pretty well.

 

SHITS isn't really used as a way to make cases anymore, just a way to remember the necessary parts of an affirmative plan. It's a great tool for explaining the concept of a plan - in no particular order, you need to be pertinent to the resolution, you need to be a significant part of the resolution, you need to indicate that there are problems that can be solved, you need to indicate that the problems can be solved by your plan, and you need to indicate that your plan hasn't already been done, or that there are things keeping it from being done. I don't think people have a T contention or a Harms contention anymore, or at least it's not common - it's just a smart acronym to remember the necessities by, not a way to organize the case (except insofar as you make sure your case meets these requirements).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SHITS isn't really used as a way to make cases anymore.

 

try telling that to my old coach.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SHITS isn't really used as a way to make cases anymore, just a way to remember the necessary parts of an affirmative plan. It's a great tool for explaining the concept of a plan - in no particular order, you need to be pertinent to the resolution, you need to be a significant part of the resolution, you need to indicate that there are problems that can be solved, you need to indicate that the problems can be solved by your plan, and you need to indicate that your plan hasn't already been done, or that there are things keeping it from being done. I don't think people have a T contention or a Harms contention anymore, or at least it's not common - it's just a smart acronym to remember the necessities by, not a way to organize the case (except insofar as you make sure your case meets these requirements).

Clearly you've never been to Missouri then.

"Where's your inherency?"

"It was the first card we read in Advantage 1"

"But it's not it's own Contention!“

"It doesn't need to be and it's only one card, I mean its pretty obvious the USFG isn't currently doing X."

 

* Their 1NC had a minute of no inherency, no cards or counter arguments, just saying we didn't read any inherency arguments*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly you've never been to Missouri then.

"Where's your inherency?"

"It was the first card we read in Advantage 1"

"But it's not it's own Contention!“

"It doesn't need to be and it's only one card, I mean its pretty obvious the USFG isn't currently doing X."

* Their 1NC had a minute of no inherency, no cards or counter arguments, just saying we didn't read any inherency arguments*

And if it was at NCFL Nationals they would have won.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...