filmov
tv
Writing good case feeback (what to look for, reading cases, reading ballots, and writing feedback)
Показать описание
Proteus Debate Academy is a project by Sasan Kasravi and Paul Villa to increase equity in academic debate by providing high quality coaching resources for free.
0:00 - Introduction
1:08 - Who Sasan is
2:20 - Someone reached out for feedback on their case
3:53 - I've been working on designing debater assessments
7:00 - The case evaluation tool we built (what to look for in a case)
10:40 - Why I don't recommend using our evaluation tool
13:13 - Weaknesses in debate stem from oversights/misprioritization
16:24 - The role of a coach
25:46 - 3 things that make an argument good (Relevance, Accuracy, Significance)
34:06 - PF focuses on comparisons of significance
35:36 - Let's take a look at Contention 1
38:25 - Advantage Structure (what arguments need to work well)
43:26 - These debaters should put more focus on the outcomes and impacts
44:00 - Checking for the same issue in Contention 2
46:56 - Contention 2 does have the same problem, causing it to have "no link"
49:10 - Denying the Antecedent: The most common logical error in debate
54:28 - Checking second case for issues
59:56 - Checking ballots (Tournament 1)
1:06:11 - Checking Ballots (Tournament 2)
1:09:42 - How the issues we noticed ealier are presenting themselves
1:10:23 - Counterplans/not defending Status Quo as neg in PF
1:12:00 - Power matching and lay judges
1:14:07 - The issues we noticed earlier present themselves again
1:18:06 - This judge might have made a mistake?
1:19:42 - Third example of the same issue
1:20:16 - Reminder: limit the amount of feedback
1:20:56 - Writing feedback (what's good, what to work on, framing)
1:26:36 - That's it for this awful video, what's coming next time?
0:00 - Introduction
1:08 - Who Sasan is
2:20 - Someone reached out for feedback on their case
3:53 - I've been working on designing debater assessments
7:00 - The case evaluation tool we built (what to look for in a case)
10:40 - Why I don't recommend using our evaluation tool
13:13 - Weaknesses in debate stem from oversights/misprioritization
16:24 - The role of a coach
25:46 - 3 things that make an argument good (Relevance, Accuracy, Significance)
34:06 - PF focuses on comparisons of significance
35:36 - Let's take a look at Contention 1
38:25 - Advantage Structure (what arguments need to work well)
43:26 - These debaters should put more focus on the outcomes and impacts
44:00 - Checking for the same issue in Contention 2
46:56 - Contention 2 does have the same problem, causing it to have "no link"
49:10 - Denying the Antecedent: The most common logical error in debate
54:28 - Checking second case for issues
59:56 - Checking ballots (Tournament 1)
1:06:11 - Checking Ballots (Tournament 2)
1:09:42 - How the issues we noticed ealier are presenting themselves
1:10:23 - Counterplans/not defending Status Quo as neg in PF
1:12:00 - Power matching and lay judges
1:14:07 - The issues we noticed earlier present themselves again
1:18:06 - This judge might have made a mistake?
1:19:42 - Third example of the same issue
1:20:16 - Reminder: limit the amount of feedback
1:20:56 - Writing feedback (what's good, what to work on, framing)
1:26:36 - That's it for this awful video, what's coming next time?
Комментарии