[eDebate] Judging Philosophies and Policy Debate
Wed Sep 25 11:32:48 CDT 2002
I have been following some of the posts regarding a revolution back to
policy debate and I want to put my note of support in for Jake, Jay, and
whoever else feels that this activity has disassociated itself from policy
debate. Though I still have eligibility to debate, I don't -- the main
reason why is because of the insistence and subsequent (and somewhat
irrational) support of arguments that involve performance, music, and real
world shunning of a team who doesn't want to play this "speech"-imbued game.
No longer are teams debating the policy implications of affirmatives,
counterplans, and disads, but we are debating the morality and philosophy of
nothing and everything all rolled in to one. I think Ivan Susek put it best
when judging one of my high school teams last year: "You are the reason I
got out of debate."
I didn't enter this activity to get in an argument about the merits of rap
music and why it makes a statement; I got in this activity to debate the
merits of a TOPICAL plan, a counterplan, maybe a couple of disads, and maybe
some theory. If we want to talk about morals, philosophy, and value
judgements, maybe we need to start Lincoln-Douglas debate in college.
sydney a. howard
"government is the great fiction through which everybody attempts to live at
the expense of everybody else."
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
More information about the Mailman