[eDebate] re: ADA rules etc

Sat May 8 07:46:37 CDT 2004

Well, I wasn't attempting to treat you like another outsider...mostly
just kidding. It's probably the frustration with seeing the debate and
the ADA that I love attacked. Not that you were...just in general.
Mostly, I was just kidding. My answer to your serious questions was in
the first part of the post. I think that Allie wasn't serious when she
said people would ignore the proposal just because it comes from someone
they disagree with. I think that the coaches in the ADA are better than
that. I think her point was just that the way he presents his arguments
really tends to alienate people and create division instead of fostering
an attitude of cooperation and compromise. Which is why I think that if
someone were to seriously sit down and undertake the task of coming up
with a reasoned argument they wanted to present at the ADA meeting, that
that would go well. I really think that the coaches in the ADA would
listen, they are all, in my experience, incredibly reasonable people who
just want to promote debate. And there are a lot of args about why
having hybrids be allowed to clear is good for debate. Especially for
novice debate. I think the frustration most of us feel is not with
Andy's argument but with the way he treats us. I'll answer a couple of
your specific points, just to make things slightly clearer than I did in
my tired, frustrated post last night:

You write:
" I still haven't seen a defense of the "no-hybrid" and "plan required" 
rules, 'cept that Andy's rude."

I don?t think that Allie or I are necessarily against hybrids or
planless debate (don?t get me wrong we love us some plan-centered
debate, but we've both debated teams without plans, or teams in the ADA
who have plans but don't defend them - which is similar). I, personally,
think that hybrids should be allowed to clear. As I mentioned in my
earlier post in response to Andy's args, I think whatever brings the
activity to more people is good. That's not to say I agree with
everyone's methods, but when it comes to who gets to compete at
tournaments, I'm all about that being as inclusive as possible within
reason. As far as planless debate and the rule about that, well, that's
something I think was sort of addressed in Jane's earlier posts. If a
team doesn't run a plan at an ADA tournament, REGARDLESS of there being
a rule or not, they will have to deal with the judges (which is the case
at most national tournaments too). I have been debating in the ADA for
three years and have never won (or lost) a debate on "you violated ADA
rules."  The rules are helpful because I think they express the opinions
of a lot of people in the ADA about debate and can serve as a guide to
competing at ADA tournaments and what you might find, but there are
always exceptions. For example, I've never beating a k team at an ADA
tournament on "you must have a policy alternative cause it's in ADA
rules." There are theory args for that that seem to work okay in the
ADA, but again, the rules have never been the deciding factor in my
round. 
In fact, I've heard of several debates where teams went for theory args
based off of ADA rules like "full cites good" and won based on the
theory or lost cause they relied on "ADA rules" and less on actual
reasons they are good.

You write:
" I'll spot you: Andy was rude (and I 
think I'm sort of beginning to understand why)."

I really don't think you can understand why he's rude. None of us do.
Look, D7 and the ADA are used to getting teased about being
"old-school". They don't call it the "Land of the Dinosaurs" for
nothing. And we joke about the reputation ourselves. And being teased
and all is one thing. It's when someone like Andy continually insults
the coaches, the debaters, the programs, the tournaments and glories in
our losses that at least I will get ticked. For example, I may not agree
with most K teams, but I certainly don't feel a sense of pleasure when
they lose. Especially not NOVICES. How can you glory in seeing a novice
team, who's worked hard to come from knowing very little about debate,
to reaching high success in the novice division, lose?? I'm sorry, but I
don?t think that I, even at my most bitter, could ever do that. And I
think that's the difference between Andy and a lot of the ADA. The
entire ADA (and I think I can make this claim without overstepping any
bounds) is really supportive of novice debate. Like Jane, debaters in
Varsity might whine when we don't get the best judges, but honestly, we
enjoy watching novices learn about debate. For example, there was a
healthy rivalry this year between the Liberty novices and the George
Mason novices. And that came to a head at ADA nats. Liberty won. Well, I
don't think anyone from Liberty was *happy* to see Mason lose. I know
our novices were glad they did well and that they won, but they
certainly weren't like "well I'm so thrilled that no George Mason team
got past sems". And this same phenomenon carries over to national
tournaments. When any d7/ADA team is out of the tournament, you had
better believe we will do everything to see someone else from the
district to do well...from helping them prep for their debate, to
donating extra-flow paper, to showing up at their rounds for support, we
are seriously (and it sounds clich?) a family. A very very close-knit
community. And I wasn't prepared for that at all coming in from high
school and it BLEW ME AWAY. My earliest memory of this was when, my
first year, the Liberty team attending the NDT didn't clear. Neither did
catholic..no one from the district did. Except for Georgetown. And I
remember being in the squad room at LU and seeing that the results were
updated on our dry-erase board every so often. And what was written up
there was "Georgetown is in octos. No one else from the district
cleared." And I remember sitting in the squad room talking to our older
team members and I was like "why do we care that Georgetown cleared?"
and the response I got was "cause they are from the district and we
always cheer for any district team who's still in, even if it's not us."
That was overwhelming. And that right there is why it inspires so much
anger when Andy attacks ADA and d7 or any school from that group. So I
guess the frustration is that nearly everyone in the ADA has attempted
to deal respectfully with Andy and yet he continues to post things like
"I was glad no ADA team made it past semis". That's just uncalled for
and tends to bring out the defense mechanism in everyone in this
community. 
I wasn't trying to be rude (the deal about how the ADA is hegemonic etc
was sorta just my way of noting that, yeah, we might be different, but
we sure aren't evil, guessing the exhaustion from the drive from Va to
Florida hadn't worn off cause that didn't come off clearly), or to imply
you're just another idiot who knows nothing about the ADA, and I did
have an actual argument... it just got lost. Sorry about that confusion.
Anyhow, I still don't think there's ANY thing reasonable or justified
about Andy's treatment of the ADA and our teams and debaters...but
that's just me.

- Alyse

-----Original Message-----
From: edebate-admin at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-admin at ndtceda.com] On
Behalf Of matt stannard
Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 12:54 AM
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Subject: RE: [eDebate] re: ADA rules etc

OK, so I ask a couple of serious questions and I get treated like just 
another idiot outsider who dares question ADA rules.  Be careful, or you

might blur the distinction between who is being rude and who is being 
reasonable.  And once that distinction is blurred, what will you fall
back 
on?  I still haven't seen a defense of the "no-hybrid" and "plan
required" 
rules, 'cept that Andy's rude.  OK...I'll spot you: Andy was rude (and I

think I'm sort of beginning to understand why).  Now what's your
argument?

stannard

>I think that Allie's post was an answer to Andy's rudeness. I'm sure if
>someone made good arguments for hybrids, people would listen. Although,
>I'm guessing the fact that Andy phrases those args as "the ADA sucks,
>now let me debate the way I want to" well...that might not go over too
>well. I mean, if it sucks, he most likely wouldn't want to bring teams
>to the tournaments anyhow...just a thought. But serious well presented
>args would probably go far.
>I also don't think that Allie meant that not allowing hybrids and
>requiring plans is the nature of the ADA...just that they are two parts
>of it Andy seems to be attacking. We all know that the true nature of
>the ADA is being exclusionary, hegemonic, racist, oh..and sexist
>too..it's why we give so many awards to women...
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: edebate-admin at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-admin at ndtceda.com] On
>Behalf Of matt stannard
>Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 11:59 PM
>To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: RE: [eDebate] re: ADA rules etc
>
> >Let's suppose I am the coach of a team that is an ADA member.  Why
>would I
> >vote to allow a policy that is primarily supported by someone who
hates
>
> >everything the ADA stands for, insults our members, cheers for our
> >failures, and is seemingly unable to have a constructive
conversation?
> >
>
>Umm, because the policy in question is alleged to be unwarranted,
>independent of the tone or manner of the person who objects to it?  I
>mean,
>essentially what you're saying is: I won't consider the merits of your
>argument because you are rude.  Am I missing something here?  My
>argumentation textbook calls that fallacious.
>
>
> >This is the D7 love in me talking, but I really do not appreciate
your
> >insulting my friends.  I have to echo Jake's sentiments that I find
the
>
> >idea of calling on the ADA to "Debate as you will and let us do so as
> >well."  I think that's what we are trying to do.  We realize that the
> >planless form of debate that so many of us despise exists at national
> >tournaments, but we just want to be left alone to debate as we want.
>If
> >you want to create the "planless debate association" and exclude me,
by
>all
> >means do so.  I won't rant on edebate about it. I certainly won't
cheer
>for
> >your failure, call you names, or try to get you to change the rules
>that
> >define the nature of your organization.
> >
>
>Are you saying that _disallowing hybrids_ defines the nature of the
ADA?
>Or
>that _requiring plans_ defines the nature of the ADA?  Or both?  Just
>curious.
>
>stannard
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
>http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
>http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar ? get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com
To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate