Talk:Classic debate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Relevance
Please remove the Relevence Tag, This article is certainly relevent to a large amount of people. Communities it could be relevent to include, Competititors, schools (in minnesota), wider debate communities with intrest in the topic. This constitutes a very large group of people in access of 20,000 who could easily have intrest in the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.55.16.10 (talk • contribs) 23:39, June 23, 2006.
[edit] Bias
This page seems a little bit bias... it avoids all the negative aspects of other forms of debate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.117.70.252 (talk • contribs) 23:13, September 6, 2006.
I would like to respond and help resolve this issue, but im not sure i understand you. You think that it is unbalanced in that it doesnt critise the other debate formats? That doesnt make sense to me, could you please explain further. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.184.195 (talk • contribs) 18:49, October 9, 2006.
- I think that what 68.117 meant was that the page overemphasizes the positive side of Classic. Truth is, though, pointing out deficiencies in Classic would be original research, unless there's a comprehensive critique of Classical debate (one good enough to cite in tihs article) out there, which would be very hard to come by. If anything else, though, the article seems to be bashing Policy and LD. Ourai т с 01:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, but im not sure i understand how the article is bashing LD or Policy. It doesnt say anything from an authoritive point of view that is negative about either. It doesnt say much that is negative about classic, but im not sure what you would have me add.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.184.195 (talk • contribs) 09:22, October 13, 2006.
- I was referring to an old version of the page in which the intro paragraph read that "[Classical debate] is a debate format that emphasizes intensive research, logicaly sound argument, and excellent speaking skills, in contrast to other debate formats that allow participants or judges to ignore one of these aspects." Just after posting that above comment, though, I reworded the line in the intro. Though I agree with the statement that, in other forms of debate, the actual debate becomes secondary, the statement is still original research. Ourai т с 20:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
