[eDebate] Building Bridges
Fri Apr 16 17:01:19 CDT 2004
This is my initial thought after reading Ben's
Participants could decide on a mutually perferred
communication style and when one cannot be agreed upon
the default should be the communication style that
allows for all the debaters to "actively" participate.
If there is an Emory PW and Alabama GS round and Bama
GS chooses to play wiley coyote feebly attempting to
catch the roadrunner, I say more power to them.
However, if either team debates long beach hp they
should embrace a communication style that accounts for
the LB's round expectation.
For those wanting a content focus debate this seems to
be a small sacrifice to make. You don't get to read as
many cards as you like but you do get to read a couple
It also seems the most ethical choice to make.
Speaking in a way that allows all the participants to
engage just seems like the right thing to do.
--- dbteam <dbteam at westga.edu> wrote:
> dammit Ben, can't you just flame like the rest of
> us? damn nice people always
> ruining it for everybody.
> okay, here's my off-the-cuff idea about how we might
> approach this.
> what if we crafted a resolution that allowed AFFs to
> choose what they wanted
> to debate about in more broader terms that currently
> is formulated.
> Resolved: The Affirmative supports one or more of
> the following:
> USFG withdrawal of its tactical nuclear weapons from
> enactment of a US policy of regime change in North
> Korea including but not
> limited to invasion and occupation;
> internal reforms within the intercollegiate debate
> community to substantially
> reduce discrimination based on race, gender, and/or
> and one theoretical caveat. NO topical CPs allowed -
> (a drink for me and one
> for my homey Katsulas)
> already some teams have employed the 'aff has the
> right to define ground'
> oldie-but-goodie theory. this res would make that
> more obvious. when Lville is
> AFF, they can choose a topic area they like. when
> Wake CH is AFF they can
> drone on about classism in debate and how they want
> to tear the walls down.
> one of the args that have been made by Hoe, Parcher,
> etc. that has a lot of
> merit is the idea that debate-as-educational loses
> alot when the debates
> become so internalized that we neglect the parts of
> the world that are foreign
> to us. learning means becoming familiar with
> previously unknown material. the
> problem that Lville teams have articulated is that
> exclusive focus on the
> 'outside' world has resulted in the here and now of
> the community being
> ignored. i'm sure there are problems with my
> resolution [insert Kuswa passive
> voice complaint here], but the spirit does seem to
> address a compromise of
> sorts: NEG teams have to adapt to what the AFF wants
> to talk about, but the
> resolution provides some prior notice so that it's
> not a case of anyone just
> making up whatever it is they want to talk about.
> >===== Original Message From "Benjamin Coulter"
> <bbcoulte at samford.edu> =====
> >As a coach at Samford, a school in Louisville's
> district, I have more
> >than a passing interest in the conservation/debate
> going on about the
> >methods/movements/projects advanced in different
> rounds involving
> >Louisville in particular. I am not writing to
> criticize or applaud,
> >people are doing that enough. I will limit my take
> to two points: I
> >share the desire to have all sorts of people
> debating, and I love policy
> >debate and many of its practices.
> >Which leads me to this question, what kind of
> bridge can we build
> >between differing styles/approaches to allow access
> to all and still
> >benefit from helpful policy debate practices? I am
> asking this question
> >in good faith, I really want to know. Can someone
> describe a policy
> >debate to me that would meet the goals of those
> acting against the SQ?
> >Being negative seems pretty intuitive in that
> Louisville/etc will stake
> >out particular ground and we are responsible for
> crafting a strategy
> >against the advocacy of the affirmative. The
> affirmative seems a little
> >more problematic. What can we do that will make it
> a debate like the
> >debates Ede/Darryl/others have envisioned? In
> other words, I am
> >interested in a "debating philosophy." We try to
> adapt to the types of
> >debate that certain judges enjoy, why not adapt to
> the types of debate
> >that certain teams enjoy? While I recognize that
> Louisville debaters
> >are not a monolith, I think it might be very
> helpful to the community
> >and the cause to outline the alternative world of
> debate that a
> >successful Louisville movement might ultimately
> result in. If we could
> >have discussion along these lines, squads/teams
> could choose whether or
> >not to engage in that framework/methodology or to
> argue against it.
> >I want a community where people of all sorts feel
> welcome and included.
> > I want debate. It is obvious to me that debate is
> important to
> >Louisville, why else would they argue so strongly
> for its evolution?
> >How can we build a bridge?
> >Ben Coulter
> >eDebate mailing list
> >eDebate at ndtceda.com
> >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber
> list, go here:
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber
> list, go here:
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
More information about the Mailman