Talk:Classic debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

War with logic This article is part of WikiProject Debating, an attempt to standardize coverage of regional and world debate related articles. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

[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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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? —Preceding unsigned comment 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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.—Preceding unsigned comment 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)

[edit] Resolutions

The list of recent resolutions at the end of the Resolutions portion should be removed. It's not relevant to the article. It also presents statements which are highly POV in a manner which may lead the reader to believe the resolutions are some how binding or "official". It smacks of an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.183.113 (talk • contribs) 03:34, June 11, 2007

The resolutions are both binding and official, in the sense that every Classic debate round has to debate them, and they are selected through a parliamentary process composing all debate coaches (and sometimes debaters). In order to be good topics, they have to express a particular point of view, one that is large (slanted) enough so that both the affirmative and the negative sides have large areas they can research; in this case, the (sometimes) highly-POV nature of the resolutions is a good thing. Also, please remember that, since Classical debate is a Minnesota thing, the resolutions are written in Minnesotan context. Lastly, the resolutions should probably be kept: they give an example of what Classical debaters do for half the season, not to mention that the resolution is the central feature of debate in general. Ourai тʃс 16:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)