[eDebate] SILLY RULES!
debate at ou.edu
Sun Apr 9 11:53:50 CDT 2006
As i stated months ago, is this rule for real or a joke?
Does someone really believe that Team A is going to be reading just any piece of evidence debater G or
Coach B hands them before a critical round at the NDT?
I know I am on a big squad now, and cant talk like a "small" school, so lets not be confused on where I stand.
As Vine Deloria would say, you must be suspect of a people who would dig gold up in the west only to bury it in
Parity is in the resolution, not the rules controlling who can attend tournaments.
Uh, lets make a rule that we charge people who come to watch. Okay, well how about a rule that makes every
judge who is capable must judge a minimal of four rounds. That didnt solve our problem, lets mandate
scouting requirements. Not quite there, maybe we should limit number of coaches. Maybe next we can limit
the number of tubs a team carries, how many files can be on a laptop, and even advance to everyone wearing
the same clothes, reading the same evidence! Maybe restrict the amount of money we can all spend on meals,
since we eat take out while others get a phatt set - down meal. I think this effects competitive equity! Or maybe
everyone has the same travel budget, and those whose budgets are too large could help support schools like
SELA or Denver who have less than 12,000 to travel with. U know, buy their rooms, pay their fees, even a meal
or two here and there. (the rule would have to be more specific)
Debate is a competitive event that should only find restrictions on time allotments for the purpose of allowing a
tournament to occur in an adequate amount of time. We all have access to the same words, and some of us
have access to new and creative jargon. We can question language, rearrange it, and redelploy it. This is
where students find agency in debate. The ability to discursively contest and persuade other peoples
Why is managing information so important?
We should be encouraging people to participate in the comepetiive event of debate. If you cant beat Goliath,
then learn from David. Dont appeal to God to make things more fair.
Just because we can think of clever ideas does not mean we should codify them into rules that bind the other
participants who are not in agreement.
So if less than 50% of the community support this rule, should we have a rule? How about 10%?
What type of organization is this, if rules that are supported by a very small percentage are capable of dictating
to the whole community? (I am not positive this is the case, but it seems this way)
I must be knieve, stupid and obtuse to not understand why this rule could serve any positive incentive towards
participation in debate or make debate more "fair".
Are you gonna make the coaches cut? This will be healthy for teams!
I hope the public shaming list of those who do not conform is long, it seems like the only avenue of expressing
(I created the whole post without saying the C-spiracy word)
More information about the Mailman