[eDebate] David Staiti
Mon Nov 7 11:29:18 CST 2005
As for Brett, I interpreted your statement about him moving tournaments to accomodate one team to suggest that Brett was playing to a favorite. If that wasn't the intent, my apologies.
My thesis remains this: Policy debate should be about debating policies. Perhaps you can explain to me how rapping, dancing, debating naked, or reading poetry that suggests I'm an oppressor fits into policy debate. Granted, my view on debate may be to the right. For example, I won't vote on a K because it is just a non-real world DA that lacks an impact.
Maybe it is wrong to say that these students don't do work and that they are lazy. However, they are misguided. They probably belong in the Theater or Dramatic Arts departments at their respective schools. They would probably get a much larger audience for thier performance as a result.
So, what is your case for the departures from traditional policy debate? What are the merits? What does it seek to accomplish? I am really seriously interested in hearing an answer to this.
Dirt Fish <dirtfish at gmail.com> wrote:
Something that I find funny is this statement:
" First, don't assault my state of mind because you happen to not agree
with me. That seems pretty narrow minded of you."
You make this comment then go on to say that non traditional teams dont
do research, and dont practice. I am sorry I am sure I just missed the
part in your posts where you explain this claim. How can you say that
these teams dont do research and practice, when you refuse to watch
these debates. I guess what I am saying is that it is kinda insulting
to assume that non-traditional debates dont do any work and just show up
to debates and say the first thing that comes to mind.
So... if you are going to whine about people insulting you STOP
leveling broad claims about teams that you have ZERO experience judging.
Now back to the masturbatory practices of economics and math.
David Staiti wrote:
> Well, I feel that the largest contradiction on exhibit is the fact
> that people have decided to abandon policy debate for an activity that
> hardly resembles a policy debate in any way. Why do you continue to
> show up for tournaments and pay dues to an organization you don't seem
> to agree with?
> I'm not sure how the participation at tournaments has trended, but if
> the number is going down, I believe that the reasons are more
> representative of a victory than a defeat. If schools are choosing to
> not show up because they aren't allowed to rap, dance, or read poetry,
> then I say good riddance. I would rather see tournaments with a
> smaller, higher quality field of participants that are actually
> engaging in policy debate, then large fields filled with teams that
> are not. It genuinely annoys me to see the dejected look on the faces
> of young debaters who hit a team that is going to argue nonsense
> against them when they find out that they have a sympathetic judge.
> The kids who actually work hard, prepare, and practice get penalized,
> and it isn't right. I hope and believe that there will always be a
> large enough field of schools like Liberty, BC and others that see the
> value and merit in traditional policy debate. Which gets me bac! k to
> my original suggestion in my philosophy statement: if there are so
> many schools with complaints about traditional policy debate, why
> don't they form their own debate organization on their own? I suspect
> that part of the reason is that you would find a certain challenge in
> getting funding, but I could be mistaken. I know that we've all
> laughed about what some school board of trustees member would think
> about the spew fest that happens in a good varsity round -- but
> whether or not you want to admit it, there is a clear case for the
> beneficial merit of policy debate. I doubt that same trustee would
> agree that rapping and dancing in round have the same merit.
> As for your knock on Brett, you can complain all you want. I have
> nothing but respect for Brett, my former coach John Katsulas, and
> others like them for helping to keep the activity great. I believe
> myself and my opinions to be in excellent company.
> */NEIL BERCH /* wrote:
> No time to address the various contradictions in Mr. Staiti's various
> positions today (have to do some of that ivory tower "intellectual
> masturbation", by teaching State and Local Government to 100
> students and
> Politics of Economic Policy to 50 students, plus get debaters
> ready for
> tournaments this weekend at UMass and App. St.), but:
> Staiti says: "Perhaps my mindset is based too much on a "if it
> ain't broke,
> don't fix it" mentality. You can call that elitist, exclusionary, or
> whatever you like. I call it practical because I've seen the
> formula work."
> If you don't think your model is broken, you're in a really
> serious state of
> self-delusion. Check out the numbers at ADA tournaments. Check out
> numbers at Liberty this year, compared with a few years ago
> (though, in
> fairness, some of that was due to Brett graciously shifting the
> date! s to
> accommodate another school). So, if your model is correct, and
> your way is
> correct, it's reaching fewer and fewer students. I know, that doesn't
> matter if it's the only way to provide that great training, but
> how great
> will that training be when every round is the same thing (Liberty
> vs. Boston
> College, with Warren Decker in the back of the room looking very
> dapper in a
> warmup suit)?
> --Neil Berch
> West Virginia University
> >From: David Staiti
> >To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> >Subject: Re: [eDebate] David Staiti
> >Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 06:45:16 -0800 (PST)
> >I'm happy to engage you about this. First, don't assault my state
> of mind
> >because you happen to not agree with me. That seems pretty narrow
> >of you. Your tone seems to suggest debate is about inclusion,
> unless of
> >course it is my opinion and it doesn't jive with yours.
> >You are also quick to try! and point out a contradiction that
> doesn't exist.
> > We are talking about opinions, mine vs. yours so there aren't
> >answers here. My OPINION is that in the world we live in, there is a
> >framework. There are rules, customs, laws, etc. that set up the
> >for what is acceptable and what is not. Traditional policy debate
> >this in many ways. I have a problem with gross departures for
> this because
> >they bastardize the purpose of debate. I've read both yours and Mr.
> >Snider's judging philosophies. I suppose you can do whatever you
> like on
> >setting up the "framework" on the fly in a round. I'm not going
> to do it
> >because that wouldn't fly in any real world setting I've ever
> seen. In my
> >opinion, there is no room for rapping to me about why you are
> oppressed in
> >a round. This teaches the student a lazy cop-out whereby they
> don't have
> >to do any real work. I will not vote for suc! h things because
> they do a
> >disservice to the debaters.
> >As for presentation, your reference to Ghandi is a poor one.
> >dress is traditional for his culture, much like a suit and tie is
> in the
> >corporate world of the West. I'm not suggesting that debaters
> come in with
> >three piece suites either. However, debaters should be
> presentable. I've
> >seen students show up in pajamas for out rounds on Sunday. That
> is not
> >acceptable in my narrow minded, confused opinion. I'm not sure
> why so many
> >in debate have found it to be so acceptable, but it isn't for me.
> >Your invitation to vote against your debaters because of their
> dress is
> >also based on a poor assumption. I will not vote against a
> debater for
> >sloppy dress. I feel that debate is primarily concerned with the
> >argument and my role as a judge is to determine that within the
> >Luckily, there are speaker points tha! t I can use to make my
> statement here.
> >As for Neil Berch's comments, I'm not even sure what your point
> is here.
> >Like John, I do not travel in a shirt and tie either. You just
> choose not
> >to not listen to my position. I've never seen John, Brett or any
> others in
> >flip flops and ripped t-shirts. I'm reasonbly sure John doesn't
> own either
> >of these items as a side note. Also, I'll be willing to bet a
> >amount of money that your debaters who are off to Yale and
> Berkeley will
> >quickly find themselves in Brooks Brothers (or similar) soon after
> >Just so we are clear, before my philosophy is further distorted,
> here is a
> >reference guide for you all:
> >--As a policy debate judge, I feel as though I should adjudicate
> over a
> >policy debate. This means that there is a PLAN that the affirmative
> >advocates, that this plan is within the TOPIC set by the
> committee e! very
> >year, and that the negative introduces policy options or DAs with
> >as to why the aff plan isn't a good idea. The most convincing
> team wins.
> >--Wear whatever you like, but I'm in control of the prized
> speaker points.
> >If you look like you just rolled out of bed, you probably won't
> see a 30
> >out of me.
> >--Like all of you who seem to be so critical of my opinion, I am
> >in debate because I love the activity. I've had the pleasure of
> >great friends in the activity, I've personally learned a lot, and
> it is
> >very rewarding to see what young people get out of debate.
> Perhaps my
> >mindset is based too much on a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"
> > You can call that elitist, exclusionary, or whatever you like. I
> call it
> >practical because I've seen the formula work.
> > Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
> >eDebate mailing list
> >eDebate at ndtceda.com
> Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman