FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3109780> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3109780 endingPage "40" @default.
• W3109780 startingPage "30" @default.
• W3109780 abstract "Academic debate, as strange and idiosyncratic as it might sometimes appear, does not take place in a vacuum. General societal trends are manifested slowly in the ways in which we conduct debates. Perhaps nowhere is this societal influence more evident than in the academic debater's increased reliance on electronic databases. Debaters now depend upon extensive quantities of up-to-date information, and thus it is not surprising that they have begun to experiment with cutting-edge information retrieval technologies. Yet, the implications of this increased reliance on new information retrieval technologies has received little scholarly attention. The small amount of work that has been done on the subject has tended to assume that information gained from electronic searches is different from information gleaned from physical searches only in the heightened efficiency of accumulation (Fillipi, 1992; Sheckles, 1986). This essay will argue that the primary deleterious effect of the increased use of on-line databases in academic debate is not that it causes information overload, nor that it destroys the competitive success of teams without access to database services, although both of these concerns may well be true (Fillipi, 1992); rather, this essay argues that the most troubling aspect of increasing reliance upon on-line databases in academic debate is the irrevocable and often unnoticed changes in the nature of the information available to debaters and the corresponding changes in the ideological assumptions contained within their arguments. Academic debate has traditionally been justified, at least in part, by its ability to train students for participation in a democratic society. A necessary component of this claim would seem to be that debate in some way influences the ideology of its student practitioners, giving them training in the tolerance of alternative beliefs and allowing them to see the world from a variety of perspectives. An examination of the actual ways in which debaters, via exposure to electronic databases, are ideologically effected, thus seems to be of pressing interest for the debate community. In examining this issue, I will proceed as follows: First, I will briefly examine the traditionally asserted link between debate training and argumentative proficiency in a democratic society, focusing on the rationales that have been offered by debate educators for their activity. Second, I will examine the nature of the electronic databases that debaters increasingly rely upon, focusing on how these databases differ in both motives and content from traditional university research libraries. Finally, I will examine the likely consequences of politically homogenized debate and make initial suggestions as to remedial strategies debaters and coaches might adopt to combat this homogenization. Before an explication of these specific issues though, one final note is necessary. The vast majority of debate teams using electronic databases rely on one of two profit-driven information systems, Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw. The arguments presented in this essay are primarily intended to apply to those who use one of these two systems. Despite this specificity, though, it does seem safe to assume that any future corporate database would develop similarly, given a similar market context. The warnings contained within this essay thus seem applicable for the foreseeable future to profit-driven information retrieval systems in general, and to those who rely upon them. DEBATE AS DEMOCRATIC PRACTICE It has long been assumed that participation in debate imparts important skills that benefit the citizens of a democratic society. From the time of Isocrates, the figure of the citizen-orator, has emerged as one proficient in speaking skills who was able to influence the public policy of a democratically governed state. Much of the justification for academic debate in this country has derived from this model of civic benefit. …" @default.
• W3109780 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W3109780 creator A5024518582 @default.
• W3109780 date "1995-06-22" @default.
• W3109780 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W3109780 title "Argument, Ideology, and Databases: On the Corporatization of Academic Debate." @default.
• W3109780 hasPublicationYear "1995" @default.
• W3109780 type Work @default.
• W3109780 sameAs 3109780 @default.
• W3109780 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3109780 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3109780 hasAuthorship W3109780A5024518582 @default.
• W3109780 hasConcept C120912362 @default.
• W3109780 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W3109780 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3109780 hasConcept C158071213 @default.
• W3109780 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3109780 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W3109780 hasConcept C186625053 @default.
• W3109780 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3109780 hasConcept C2776675952 @default.
• W3109780 hasConcept C2777855551 @default.
• W3109780 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W3109780 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3109780 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W3109780 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W3109780 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W3109780 hasConceptScore W3109780C120912362 @default.
• W3109780 hasConceptScore W3109780C136764020 @default.
• W3109780 hasConceptScore W3109780C144024400 @default.
• W3109780 hasConceptScore W3109780C158071213 @default.
• W3109780 hasConceptScore W3109780C17744445 @default.
• W3109780 hasConceptScore W3109780C185592680 @default.
• W3109780 hasConceptScore W3109780C186625053 @default.
• W3109780 hasConceptScore W3109780C199539241 @default.
• W3109780 hasConceptScore W3109780C2776675952 @default.
• W3109780 hasConceptScore W3109780C2777855551 @default.
• W3109780 hasConceptScore W3109780C39549134 @default.
• W3109780 hasConceptScore W3109780C41008148 @default.
• W3109780 hasConceptScore W3109780C55493867 @default.
• W3109780 hasConceptScore W3109780C94625758 @default.
• W3109780 hasConceptScore W3109780C98184364 @default.
• W3109780 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W3109780 hasLocation W31097801 @default.
• W3109780 hasOpenAccess W3109780 @default.
• W3109780 hasPrimaryLocation W31097801 @default.
• W3109780 hasRelatedWork W1976648338 @default.
• W3109780 hasRelatedWork W1983640226 @default.
• W3109780 hasRelatedWork W1988307689 @default.
• W3109780 hasRelatedWork W2002506627 @default.
• W3109780 hasRelatedWork W2038614312 @default.
• W3109780 hasRelatedWork W2068319629 @default.
• W3109780 hasRelatedWork W2086708923 @default.
• W3109780 hasRelatedWork W2151909407 @default.
• W3109780 hasRelatedWork W2158869701 @default.
• W3109780 hasRelatedWork W2325329871 @default.
• W3109780 hasRelatedWork W3015096746 @default.
• W3109780 hasRelatedWork W3123355382 @default.
• W3109780 hasRelatedWork W3123431415 @default.
• W3109780 hasRelatedWork W3125259332 @default.
• W3109780 hasRelatedWork W3137362912 @default.
• W3109780 hasRelatedWork W31455024 @default.
• W3109780 hasRelatedWork W70202350 @default.
• W3109780 hasRelatedWork W75319076 @default.
• W3109780 hasRelatedWork W16552842 @default.
• W3109780 hasRelatedWork W2613035210 @default.
• W3109780 hasVolume "32" @default.
• W3109780 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3109780 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3109780 magId "3109780" @default.
• W3109780 workType "article" @default.