[eDebate] Re: Confusticated Louisville debate
Sun Apr 25 23:02:11 CDT 2004
Y'know, an argument with Jeff Parcher is always a good scratch for
that itch to have an argument feel like a life or death struggle, like
I'm choking the life out of a midnight burglar.
Except, well, I guess I never did have that itch. It's more like a
painful duty, I suppose.
> > Parcher wrote:
> > > Doyle, of course, knows nothing of what he speaks.
> > Clearly. Lots of times I sit back and think "Y'know, maybe I
> > stop taking potshots from the outside, stop belittling, and make a
> > greater effort at authentic engagement." Like, um ... Jeff.
> By "knows nothing of what he speaks", I mean you have not
> seen Louisville debate or coached against them. Or counseled
> debaters in tears after debating them.
> If I am wrong about that, then set me straight. When did you
> actually hear Louisville debate? OR are you basing this all
> on hearsay and innuendo?
Your claim that I haven't seen them debate is accurate. Savor that
Your claim that I know nothing of what I speak, however, is your usual
asinine hyperbole. (Digression -- the problem with running the world
on atomic power is that so much of the energy gets lost to flash and
heat and general pyrotechnics; see any parallels with Parcher's
brain?) Not only have there been scouting reports and endless
discussion with details, but I have a long enough view of debate (~
twenty years) to make some historical claims about argument fad vs.
argument change. Granted, you've been around longer, but you have yet
to engage me on that topic, which is all I've talked about. Virtually
none of what I've said has relied on the specifics of what Louisville
says, as much as the profile of their success. You, of course, need
something to rant about, so you change the subject.
> > Breaking it down further, in deference to the man who believes
> > words = a more in-depth debate:
> > There is debate. It is not being destroyed.
> > There is debate AS YOU KNOW IT. Yes, IT is being destroyed.
> > Your reply is, "The entire point is to end modern debate."
> > Yes.
> > That's the part that's "debate as you know it."
> > At one point in history, need-plan and endless discussions of
> > inherency were "modern debate."
> > At one point in history, debate with no prep time and no
> > was "modern debate."
> > In both cases, along came a spider and destroyed debate as
> they knew
> > it.
> > And here we are today, holding onto the last shreds of an
> activity you
> > think is close to perfect just the way it is.
> > Exactly the same as all those folks.
> > Their warnings are rotting on the trash heap of history.
> > Yours are headed that way as well.
> This is hilarious. When was the last debate you coached or
> judged? Trash heap of history? One team in the QTRS of the
> NDT? Hey, EDE, stop all your work. It's over, Doyle has
> announced that modern debate no longer exists.
> It's done. Game over. You won!! Hey, topic committee you
> can stay home - Doyle has (I believe, while sitting at a desk
> somewhere) proclaimed that Louisville has won - no need for
> any topics voted on by the community or anything. Screw
> democracy, Doyle and Da'ville have decided we are going to
> talk about black empowement for the rest of time.
Next time, answer your email over breakfast, because your spoon-sized
Shredded Wheat has to have better reading comprehension than you do.
I've tried breaking this into simple sentences with a line break at
the end of each. Didn't work. Foolish me, I'm going to try it again.
What is going on the trash heap of history is not modern debate.
What is going on the trash heap of debate is your claim that an
innovation which (a). renders obsolete much of what's gone before, and
(b). wins, is destroying debate.
No, it's just destroying debate as you've know it.
Other coaches have made this claim.
Virtually all have been wrong.
You will be wrong too.
I've made this claim three times now, each time simplifying it for
The dust mites on your monitor figured it out the first time through,
and are now laughing at you.
> > Maybe you should see that they've been working along these
> lines for a
> > number of years, that their success rate has kept climbing,
> and that
> > they made the quarters of both national tournaments this
> year. Whoops!
> > You DID see that. You just refuse to be confused by facts.
> Look, they
> > aren't breaking into the tournament in the middle of the night and
> > signing ballots to themselves. They aren't hustling the
> opposing team
> > out the door at gunpoint and then giving the judge a monologue.
> > They're executing their strategy, withstanding opposing team
> > refutation to the judge's satisfaction, and winning. That's what
> > cemented the legitimacy of disadvantages, counterplans,
> kritiks, and
> > it's what is cementing, or has already cemented, the legitimacy of
> > Louisville's array of innovative approaches to debate.
> Yeah. I was an active coach and judge up until last year.
> We debated Louisville a fair amount. And yes I saw them
> debate at the NDT. Didn't see you around too much. And
> unlike you, I will not insult the debaters of Louisville by
> laying their success all at the feat of one set of arguments.
"Array of innovative approaches" = one set of arguments. No deliberate
misreading there. No sir.
> Hey, Doyle, you think maybe EDE did some coaching over that
> period time? Ya think maybe the debaters got better?
Yep. Try to find somewhere in any of the above, anything I've posted
so far, that denies that, or is even inconsistent with it. I mean, not
like you've tried to locate anything you've said in anything I've
said, or anything.
> Teams have had some success with a wide variety of arguments
> that did not become permanent fixtures of debate. This isn't
> the first go around for speed bad. How many counterwaarants
> debates did you see this year. Oh wait, I mean how many
> counterwarrant debates did you judge. O wait, I mean how
> many counterwarrant debates did you hear about on edebate this year?
Hombre, this argument might get some traction if you were still an
active director, but it's not a terribly strong argument as a
comparative when you're also an ex-coach. As it happens, I showed up
to judge a tournament or two worth of debates for each of the first
several years after my departure (Baylor, UNT, District Three),
further attenuating your pointless slam. And if you'd understood
anything about the historical argument I was making, you wouldn't be
fixated on this. But understanding arguments does get in the way of
letting the fur fly, doesn't it?
> Plan-plan? Alternative justification? Even recent
> innovations like planless rounds, music, narratives, irony -
> - none of it has supplanted "modern debate". Excuse me if I
> suggest the topic committee go ahead an pick something to
> debate next year. Just in case 1 or 2 teams don't follow in
> Louisville's shoes next year and decide to debate the actual
> community sanctioned resolution. We'll need it just as a back-up.
Did you hurt your head coming up with so many bad analogies? Want to
recall for me the furthest anyone penetrated at a tournament with
plan-plan as their mainstay? Or the biggest debate? And then shall I
lay my Louisville Project answer to those questions next to it?
> > I've made the argument a bunch of times that it doesn't appear
> > Louisville has flown under the radar for quite a while -- they had
> > some success last season too as I recall, and by the national
> > tournaments this year I think it was clear to everyone that
> they were
> > a force, so I think the evidence for your "under the radar"
> claim is
> > thinning rapidly. But it's clear that one of us will be right.
> > time I said that, it was in response to Dallas saying "Write your
> > uniqueness blocks for politics debates, because Gore is
> sure to beat
> > Bush." This time, as last time, we'll see. I know who I'm
> rooting for.
> One thing about debate: "Forces" tend to graduate. Yes,
> indeed, one of us
> will be right.
Hey Jeff, you think maybe EDE will coach the ones that follow? Can you
keep your story straight for even two consecutive paragraphs?
And, yeah, NOW I remember! As soon as Goodman & McBride graduated,
kritiks went away. I mean, Brody. I mean, Ramsey & Regnier. I mean ...
Doyle Srader, Ph.D.
Lecturer, Speech Communication
Stephen F. Austin State University
More information about the Mailman