[eDebate] "Traditional" debate, my hiney-Fullerton AFF?

[ucodebate at att.net]

Doyle,

A very interesting post.  I have a question about this part of it:

(And now I will sit here and wait for someone to say "Would you say
the same thing if they were fabricating evidence?" And then I will
destroy you with my scorn.)


I don't want to be destroyed by your intellect (which is substantial)  I never invite scorn, although I frequently provoke it:(  So let's intellectually and respectfully engage each other.

With the caveats aside, I would say that some teams are "producing" evidence, not necessarily fabricating it.  If others want to split that hair I invite them too. I will refrain However, the Fullerton team in semis at CEDAS in Octs? at the NDT performs an affirmative mostly consisting of answers to pointed/slanted/biased interview questions of a migrant farm worker impacted by agricultural subsidies.  

This "evidence" isn't posted anywhere.  This worker, contrary to the debaters CX rhetoric, isn't available for a cell phone interview during the debate, no transcripts are made available.  They have an amazing aff win percentage.  Should the community be upset about that?  

We PICed their advocacy and said that visual images and voice appropriation were bad.  We lost.  They are a great senior team.  They would have beaten my frosh 2NR i'd estimate 90% of the time.  Hence, i'm not as upset as some other people.  but, that is where the "game" is at.  

Not sure how I feel about it, but if that is cool, I know I could write some crazy cards with my M.A.  Has the taboo on that been broken with the above affirmative?  Or was the Pittsburgh project last year about interviewing CTBT experts already let the cat out of the bag.  Can I start writing "energy" or "healthcare" cards?  Not taking a stance here, but curious as to what those involved in this thread think?

Jason Stone-
Director of Debate
100 N. University Ave.
Department of Communication
University of Central Oklahoma
Edmond, OK 73034
(405) 974-5584 (o)
bronze.ucok.edu/debate_team/


> I just backchanneled some thoughts to Ede, and was motivated in the
> process to post one of them publicly.
> 
> Don't you people who are defending "traditional debate" realize what
> you're saying? What you're signalling? What you sound like?
> 
> Ede's debaters in actual rounds are persuading actual judges to give
> them actual wins. It's not once or twice, it's enough to clear at
> Kentucky, to take down NDT winners, to make the quarters of both
> national tournaments.
> 
> This move of sitting at your desk announcing the end of debate, just
> because you may be seeing the end of debate as you've known it, is the
> same thing that happened with kritiks, with counterplans, with speed,
> with strategic use of topicality, with frockin' comparative advantage
> affirmatives and generic disadvantages. 
> 
> Ede is just dead right about one thing: nothing will change until
> debaters who look like him are winning. Bulletin: they are. And from
> my remove out here in the pineywoods, I call that an unmixed good. And
> it's going to continue, unless some seriously unholy collusion moves
> debate decisions out of the realm of who argued better, and into the
> realm of "what must be done to save debate." People have taken that
> tack with all the innovations I listed above; I hope you've moved
> beyond that. I don't know how you could look at yourself in the mirror
> if it came to that. Why do I even bring it up? Because from what I
> observe, it seems the Louisvillians are getting better at what they
> do: more savvy, more sophisticated, more finely tuned. And absent the
> collusion I alluded to in my last paragraph, I'll bet a tidy sum that
> they're going to win more and more debates. And still more.
> 
> One of the folks I worked under once told me, "Kritiks are just a fad,
> like WOMP." Yep, just a fad. Like the Louisville Project. Bad for
> debate, too. Think about it.
> 
> History is not one damn thing after another; it's the same damn thing
> over and over. And what I'm seeing directed at Ede & his debaters is
> the same old dressed up rationalization for a deep-down fear. Quit
> being afraid and get back to debating.
> 
> One more time: nothing will change until debaters are not just
> included, but are winning. Winning. They're winning. And that's the
> proof of it.
> 
> (And now I will sit here and wait for someone to say "Would you say
> the same thing if they were fabricating evidence?" And then I will
> destroy you with my scorn.)
> 
> Doyle Srader, Ph.D.
> Lecturer, Speech Communication
> Stephen F. Austin State University
> http://www.faculty.sfasu.edu/f_sraderdw/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate