[eDebate] Re: Zomp & James

[Mick Souders]

[JR] hat the resolution means to JP and what it means to other people are 
not necessarily the same. Where you look at the resolution and see it is as 
a question to be answered via roleplaying or simulation AS the federal govt, 
others see it as a call for action by a group to convince the federal govt 
to act, or as a call for reflection on how we relate to the federal govt. 
Others see prior questions as informing this discussion. This is what I 
meant by what the resolution IS. No amount of listing the previous groupings 
of words illuminates what these groups of words means outside of a normative 
evaluation of one's interpretation of those words.

[MS] under these circumstances, why bother having words at all?  russell, 
you seem to be arguing that no one can ever dictate what words mean.  I 
suspect you ground this in literature you have read indicating that definite 
definitions of words are impossible because of issues of perspectives, but I 
think you taken this the word direction.  the argument is that specific 
definitions are difficult, not that any interpretation is reasonable.  
certainly, most topicality debates should give the critic the opportunity to 
judge the the most reasonable interpretation of the topic.  while the terrm 
'reasonable' itself is heavily loaded, it at least means that not everything 
is possible.  the rest of the parameters of the term are determined by 
debating what expectations the negative should have.  while i realize i do 
not have a incredibily compelling affirmative argument here, i at least 
believe i have articulated why the anything goes standard is not compelling.


[JR] These debates about debate are why framework discussions exist. They 
are relevant questions. Both traditional and nontraditional debaters can and 
ought to defend that their look at the resolution is good for both debate 
and for how we look at the world. To pretend as if it clear cut what the 
resolution OUGHT to be is to obscure the fact that one is making a choice in 
viewing the resolution in a particular way and that this choice occurs at 
the exclusion of other approaches.

[MS] They should exist.  Agreed.  They are relevent questions.  As I've 
articulated before, I think that the community should perhaps alter somewhat 
their think on the discussion.  I think that "creative" teams get away with 
murder at the expense of dullard teams.  Correct, it is not clear cut what 
the resolution means, but many creative teams seem to (a) actually abandon 
the resolution wholesale (b) make up something so it doesn't appear to 
abandon the resolution wholesale or (c) try to convince critics the 
resolution can never have any understandable meaning in the first place, so 
fuck it.  BUT, the resolution DOES have understandable meaning.  Even 
creative teams usually acknowledge that they are not taking the route of 
general understanding (the one that creates predictable ground) but that 
they are taking another route.  This alone is an admission that there is a 
predictable interpretation and they choose not to engage in it.  Some teams 
will win that there are "prior" questions and do so handily.  I think we 
should simply regain some parity so that these teams don't get a pass on the 
topicality questions.

[JR]James said it best when he said that teams running framework args 
against teams taking nontraditional approaches to debate need to have an 
IMPACT to their argument beyond uiegfyiwegif and unfair. All debate 
arguments are designed to take some ground away from the other team; it is 
the job of debaters to be prepared to either debate their opponents on the 
ground that they are given or to win a normative impact (about debate or 
about the world) from losing the ground which has been taken away.

[MS}  It is.  Teams that do not do this should lose.  We'll call this: 
Dullard teams need to get better about their boringness.

[JR] You say that my complaint about "do it on the neg" args can be answered 
before the year begins by crafting a different kind of topic doesn't do 
debaters who have different approaches to debate now much good. Once we get 
a USFG topic (which we have every reason to believe we will) Ft Hayes, 
Louisville, Fullerton, LBC, Texas AM, Harvard LM, WGA and everyone else 
doing something that doesn't simulate policymaking just have to wait and try 
again next year? If these arguments are predictable on the neg how are they 
not also predictable on the aff? Why not run your aff as a counterplan and 
claim the same net benefits you would when they can/do run it on the neg? It 
seems to me that one can't have it both ways -- either it is predictable or 
it aint.

[MS]  Easy.  A 1AC gives a lot more ground to start from and the negative 
has to have LINK EVIDENCE, or at least compelling link arguments.  Thats the 
trick about the critical affirmatives (or, non-topical critical 
affirmatives), they don't need link arguments to another argument and don't 
have to prove competition.  An AFF can write link takeoutand competition 
blocks that leave the 1AC as offense.  The negative can run link arguments 
(you dont link to the topic) but has no default offense and there seems to 
have a higher burden of proof on the topicality question.  Further, the 
negative has to have more intricate STRATEGIES--something affirmatives 
should have, but less so because of their built it offense.  Also, this is 
the same argument as I complained about before.  This is not an affirmative 
predictability argument--it is a "its just as predictable as everyone else." 
  I think that considering the differences between creative and dullard, 
there needs to be an articulation of warrants as why it is predictable.


[JR] I don't think that there is anything silly about this discussion, 
except maybe the ellis/duck rape thing. The left has often done a poor job 
or articulating their framework args causing frustration and 
misunderstanding on the part of the "policy only" community. And the left's 
judges have at times given too much latitude in interpreting arguments for 
the teams that they judge. At the same time, judges who refuse to consider 
that their are alternative approaches to the topic are equally to blame for 
a hardening of the attitude of both left-leaning teams and judges toward 
their approach to debate. And "policy only" teams almost always miss the 
boat in articulating IMPACTS to their framework arguments, assuming that 
fairness, ground, and education are the only concerns that exist and 
pretending as if these arguments means something automatically without 
fleshing out the warrants for their significance.

[MS] Generally agreed.  I hope I don't fit into the policy only world.  I do 
try to be honest about my concerns in my judging philosophies and etc.  I 
judge the debate in front of me and often policy teams ARE weak about 
defending themselves.  But the global argument above remain.  A general 
community feeling reinstating some parity in the topic question would go a 
long way to alleviating my and others concerns.