[eDebate] Re: Topic Wording Suggestion
blakejohnson at ou.edu
Mon Apr 18 16:55:46 CDT 2005
> Hello Blake,
> > "In our rush to be uber
> > strategic and to only debate things that matter to us personally
> > continually miss that an untested idea is probably a BAD idea. "
> > ----does this seem like dangerous logic to anyone else?
> Well articulated, dangerous why - because testing ideas is somehow bad
> in your world? You think we should just accept everything as
> true/good. This is where you will say something about how I caused
> the Haulocaust because I made people actually defend ideas against
> counter-ideas. Let me suggest, that the logic that allows untested
> ideas to be accepted as true (Stalin, Mao) might be just a bit more
> dangerous than the other option.
this was a misreading. i thought that you were suggesting that the endurace of "traditional" debate attests to its strength.
but this still seems true. i cant imagine that "predictability" refers to anything other than what is arbitrarily routinized, also read uncontested.
> > ----critical teams also debate critical teams. we seem to
> manage. but
> > your probably right, discussions about whether or not Senator X
> will be put
> > off by an otherwise benevolent idea thereby sinking bush's
> chances at social
> > security reform crushing russian relations and triggering german
> > renationalization and 9 other scenarios for nuclear war that
> were hardly
> > realistic in 1995, when the card was written is probably much more
> > "meaningful."
> That is so absurd. The impacts on both sides may be fantastic but are
> you really saying its irrelevent how senator X reacts to policy Y?
> Come on Blake, that is critical to your project (whatever it is) being
> successful - the minds you have to change are the ones that follow
> senator X. Are you really saying you never have heard of a case
> debate or case specific das? Are you saying that the DA impact
> conceit is more rediculous than abandoning the whole project of
> actually researching both sides of an issue and calling that academic
> and educational?
no im not saying that it is irrelevant how senator x reacts to policy y. im saying that "meaning" might be found, for some, at a deeper level than implementation and procedure. it must be something in the pipe...
> > -------this last crack is especially witty to those whose
> relatives have
> > been killed by the state.
> No, that is my point - my point is that a state cant KILL anyone -
> people like Senator X that you seem so un-concerned with kill people.
> Understanding the inner workings of power and those people in power
> seems more productive to me than sitting around passing the pipe and
> talking about that damn state. We clearly disagree about this.
hmmm. we certainly do disagree. i think that the contention made by a lot of people is that the identity/nature of the state is violent.
there is also an enormous difference between "we need to appeal to senator x" and "dont do your plan because then senator x wont vote for highway reform."
> However, why does everyone always assume because I am not into the
> uber K that they "know me." Be honest, you have no idea how many of
> my "people" have been affected by agents of government. Maybe you
> should ask before assuming. And maybe you should read more into what
> I am saying than just being flippant.
when did i devictimize "your people?" who are "your people?" i think your being flippant.
all i said was that that comment might be distasteful to someone like jackie massey whose relatives have been/are being victimized by state --- a circumstance you trivialize. but, then again, youve made it clear that you're not to interested in "the painful exposes of jackie massey."
> > -----i thought that this entire conversation began with a
> proposal that if
> > the topic was worded appropriately then critical schools might
> actually> defend the state. have i missed something?!
> If the topic was sufficiently meaningless as to no longer serve a
> ground dividing function K teams might be Topical - Eureka.....You are
> actually right, however, I was trying to talk about the educational
> importance of meaningful topic construction which is at odds with this
no you werent. you were talking about the importance of defending the state. here ill paste it again:
YOU MUST DEFEND THE STATE
"You will say - well we shouldnt have to locate ourselves "as the
state." First, this goes back to the fairness point above. There is
lots and lots of academic literature on state action good/bad.....Not
so much on Jackie Masseys personal expose of the pain of state
sponsored genocide as it applies to native occupation. I have
exaustively explained the education benefits of a fairness based
debate experience above"
> > -----really? huh! will you send me the zizek 'sanctions good'
> Look, I am pretty sure that Zizek at one time or another has said just
> about everything.
i think you get my point. let me know when you come up with a way to run contain china with a spanos advantage.
> > ---who is saying no topic? what are you talking about? i didnt
> hear the
> > "aff choice" arg from the fort or long beach this year. i think
> that it was
> > typically a favorite of the other (your) end of the spectrum.
> Ummmm, when did I say aff choice? I am not talking about the "aff
> choice" silly forum shopping argument anyway. I think you misread me
> here - I am talking about the radical notion that the affirmative
> should be able to choose whatever they want to discuss no matter what
> the topic is. I suppose that justifies the aff choice argument you
> are talking about.
i think that the "silly forum shopping argument" is fundamentally no different.
> As for your other concern, what you are all saying is strict topic bad
> - super duper broad topic good. In my mind there is little difference
> between an ultra broad meaningless topic and no topic. My arguments
> equally apply to both.
im not saying anything about the topic the breadth of the topic. just that a strcit mechanism like "containment" or "security assistance" does not excite me. i think that there is a difference here.
> > ----whos the conspiracy theorist now?
> Ummmm, I really did get my K card revoked. I was kicked out. Not a
> conspiracy, didnt pay me dues :)
> > --uniqueness is clearly on your side here. michigan state has
> tried to
> > squeek out of using the state every debate i watched this year.
> damn> hippies.
> Well you ought not let them
> > ---whoah, who called you mr big school?
> Its called a pre-empt hence the "before you call me"
> > welll id better go. ive got zizek on the other line. ive got
> to get him a
> > guest pass for the next "Cool K club" meeting. Weve gotta get
> started soon
> > if we want to pump out "1 million" poetry/personal expose affs
> before> september.
> Nice, sounds like a fun time - have a good herbal tea
-----ha, i like that one.
More information about the Mailman