Africa Wording

Eric Morris erm892f
Thu Apr 27 12:25:48 CDT 2000


I'm not convinced such a wording change will really undermine critique links
too much.
Not only are there still agent of action links, but the notion that the
affirmative
can defeat a critique by showing they are 'more consistent with the
criticism than
vulnerable to it' does not always match reality. I've seen several debates
where the
negative has won that an affirmative which was 'more consistent with the
critique
than vulnerable to it' was still judged to link, and linked more than the
negative
who defends only the critique (not the status quo) and hence is allowed a
level
of 'purity' unavailable to any topical affirmative (probably on nearly any
topic).

I enjoyed immensely the focus in the NDT finals this year on the question of
what does it mean to 'link' to a critique, and I hope that the public
posting
of insights (from the critics who voted either way) will challenge us as a
community to examine more clearly how much of a link is a STRONG
enough link to make the critique relevant. I wonder if the critique should
need to link to a cental concept in the case as opposed to a part that,
if conceded out, would not particularly devastate the case.

Seen too many debates where 'talking about' other peoples was a sufficient
link to an orientalism critique,

Eric Morris
SMS

----- Original Message -----
From: The Coop <CoopDB8 at AOL.COM>
To: <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 12:15 PM
Subject: Africa Wording


> Ryan Galloway notes:
>
> " We should move to find other ground rather than
> a rehash of a previous PIC.  I would prefer a topic that had a small
> amount of countries and greater range for the action that the Affirmative
> could undertake.  In many ways, last year's topic was good, because we
> only talked about 5 countries.  But by forcing the Aff. to lift sanctions
> in every debate, the topic became stale quickly.  My idea:  Few countries
> but greater range for action.  I would be up for even "change foreign
> policy" or "change foreign aid policy" if I knew we were only talking
> about 5-6 countries  (sidenote:  PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE list the
> countries)."
>
> HERE HERE!!
>
> I concur.  A topic wording that utilizes some "change" function and limits
> resolutional action to a small list of countries would elp diffuse the
> dependence on generic kritik strategies (which would otherwise dominate
any
> Africa debate, I think).  Quite simply, "changing" would force better LINK
> debates on kritiks by shifting the focus of the debate away from whether
ANY
> action towards Africa constitutes a "link" (most of you probably recall as
> fondly as I do those debates where the negative claimed every SNEEZE was
> another link), and towards whether the ACTION taken by the Aff. is more
> consistent with the criticism or more vulnerable to it.  This would also
> entail more in-depth debates about the practical manifestation of
> "permutations" to critical args. (a-la the NDT final round).
>
> Using some form of "changing" action would also render incoherent Neg.'s
> reliance on "negation theory" (the odd notion that the negative can
advocate
> 'nothing' as a rejection of the aff. plan) when making critical arguments
> because it opens more possibilities for the affirmative to "change"
current
> policy to claim the kritik as an advantage.
>
> Still thinking these things out, but I may write a wording paper,
>
> COOP
>

>From  Thu Apr 27 13:49:01 2000
Message-Id: <THU.27.APR.2000.134901.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 10451 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:49:47
 -0400
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA21340 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:49:40 -0400
Received: from CoopDB8 at aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id
 w.be.3290b26 (4262); Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:49:01 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 106
Message-ID: <be.3290b26.2639d78d at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:49:01 EDT
Reply-To: CoopDB8 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: The Coop <CoopDB8 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Africa Wording (Ans. Morris)
Comments: To: erm892f at mail.smsu.edu

Ermo writes:

<< I've seen several debates where the negative has won that an affirmative
which was 'more consistent with the critique than vulnerable to it' was still
judged to link, and linked more than the negative who defends only the
critique (not the status quo) and hence is allowed a level of 'purity'
unavailable to any topical affirmative (probably on nearly any topic). >>

Exactly.  I have seen many of these debates also, and have found them
incoherent.  Advocation of a utopian ideal will always trounce advocation of
action OR inaction.  Action or inaction is saddled to a world where "good"
and "bad" exists.  Utopian ideals, by definition, operate outside the
concepts of "good" and "bad" because they are self-justifying.

I'm not saying these same kritik debates will not occur.  I am just
suggesting that a resolution that utilized a "change" function would be more
likely to focus attention on the incoherence of these negative strategies by
focring more debates wherin the practical action advocated by the affirmative
(which is consistent with the criticism) would be WEIGHED (something
painfully missing in kritik debates) against the residual LINK to the
criticism.  This is, in my estimation, where we get the most benefit out of
critical args.

COOP
Univ. of Miami

>From  Thu Apr 27 13:55:48 2000
Message-Id: <THU.27.APR.2000.135548.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 10960 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:57:37
 -0400
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA20566 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:56:43 -0400
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id
 n.d9.361b60b (6964) for <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 27 Apr 2000
 13:55:49 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 100
Message-ID: <d9.361b60b.2639d924 at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:55:48 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Please go away, Dr. West

This is the threat of violence that Terry West alludes to from me:
____________________________________________________________________
Terry,

If you could force yourself to lighten up and not take everything so
seriously, I'll guarantee you'll live longer. I know you nominated and voted
for me. It adds greatly to the frustration I feel everytime you initiate
these conflicts. And you did initiate the current round by ridiculing me
first over the concept of suing the CEDA EC. Don't worry.

I'd really rather know what I need to do to have you as a friend, as opposed
to an enemy. Don't just say "respect" without reflecting on the disrespect
you have shown me. I've been very restrained. There's been times when you
have said things to me that left me wondering to laugh or punch you. I've
come damn close to the latter with some of the comments you shared with me
regarding XXXXXXXXXX. You need to reflect just where your karma is headed.

I'll do the same.

____________________________________________________________________

Here's Dr. West's reply:

 Reflect on your own comments to me regarding XXXXXX.  If you want to have a
"who is telling the truth" contest, my reputation is pretty good.  Again, I
am saving this message regarding your threat to punch me (a small threat, I
might add; if you physically attack me, I will defend myself and you will get
hurt really badly).

____________________________________________________________________

Bear sez:

Draw your own conclusions. Personally, if I hear sexual slurs from Dr. West
about one of my students again (I got witnesses), I promise to pull out his
remaining hair and buff
that shiney forehead.

I challenge the "Cedar City Wonder" to three rounds with gloves and a
referee. Loser leaves the region. But "fair" fights are hardly his forte.

Bryant,
Should we start discusing why your debaters had to wait in the van so long,
Dr. West?




More information about the Mailman mailing list