[eDebate] REOPEN DEBATE ABOUT SS DEBATE - HALL - AND THE MONKEY
debate at ou.edu
Thu Apr 13 14:41:53 CDT 2006
Just to answers Mike briefly, just cause you know them does not mean you know them.
I like this resolution better than the monkey dances right right right resolution -- sqoooooooo
Brad Hall writes:
I am confused as to what type of "space" you are looking for on the
affirmative. On the four topics I debated in college, there were room
for good critical affs where one could have challenged the
exceptionalist nature of American hegemony (death penalty, withdraw from
NATO, reduce all fossil fuel consumption, and on this year's topic:
Northwestern's adoption aff, Dartmouth BM's AIDS aff, Whitman BM's
dissidents aff, Emory GP's Tibet aff, Uighurs, and many many others).
You are right that the topic called for "pressure", but many of these
teams were able to interpret pressure beyond comprehensive sanctions on
China by using mechanisms like cutting off international aid and arguing
we give it to China but not others because we perceive China as a useful
ally in the war on terrorism.
YOU DON?T GET IT ? TALKING ABOUT REAL PEOPLE IN YOUR IMPACT IS NOT THE SPACE I AM TALKING
?GOOD CRITICAL AFFS? ? I REALLY DO NOT COMPREHEND WHAT YOU MEAN. I SAID NOTHING ABOUT
?CRITICAL AFF GROUND? -- TOO MUCH JARGON
?AS FOR THE OTHER TOPICS ? REMEMBER HOW YOU HAD LIKE 4 CHOICES OF ACTION ? ONLY SO
MANY TREATIES AND YOU COULD ONLY DO SPECIFIC THINGS WITH THE OTHER TOPICS ? NOT BEING
ABLE TO ACCESS THE USFG CONSUMPTION OF FOSSIL FUELS ON THE AFF IS SOME REAL HIP
?CRITICAL AFF GROUND? ? THERE ARE MANY TEAMS THAT MAKE DUE WITH WHAT IS GIVEN ? SO HAVE
WE ? I AM TIRED OF MAKING DUE!
Perhaps this isn't the "space" you were looking for -- maybe you wanted
room to discuss some specific convictions you or your debaters have.
NOT REALLY ? DO YOU HEAR ME WHINING ABOUT WHAT TOPIC AREA WE CHOOSE ? ONLY HOW WE
CONSTRUCT THE TOPIC! I EVEN SKIPPED OVER THE ABSURDITY OF NO COMMUNITY CHOICE IN MOST
THAT HAS HAPPENED TO BRING US TO THIS CURRENT TOPIC AREA ? THRoW IN ANY AREA YOU WISH
If so, what topic do you propose that would allow everyone to speak with
conviction about the issues important to them (whether they be the
genocide of Native Americans, the lack of women in the Senate, a living
wage, or abolishing the designated hitter).
YOUR MAKING THIS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN IS NECESSARY ? I SAID NOTHING ABOUT
TOPICS ? JUST THE WAY THE RESOLUTION STEALS PERSONAL AGENCY BY DEFINING VERY FEW
CHOICES FOR ACTION! I WILL BE AT THE TOPIC MEETING WITH ALTERNATIVES AFTER WE GET AN
AREA! WE TRIED THE NATIVE AMERICANS TOPIC - BEING AFF WAS SO REVOLUTIONARY!
It seems difficult, if not impossible, to find a topic for everyone to be able to express their
true convictions on, but as far as I can tell, all recent topics have
allowed teams to discover *new* convictions (about energy, the death
penalty, gender protections in China, etc) and argue in favor of those.
NOT MY GOAL ? I NEVER SAID ?TOPIC? ? YES PEOPLE MAKE DUE AND TALK ABOUT ?REAL PEOPLE?
AND NOT NUCLEAR WAR. THEY STILL BITE THEIR TONGUE AS THEY ARE TOLD TO PUT ECONOMIC
PRESSURE ON CHINA.
MY QUESTION TO YOU ? HOW MANY DEBATERS JOINED DEBATE THIS YEAR BECAUSE THEY LIKED TO
PUT PRESSURE ON CHINA. I KNOW FOR SURE DEBATERS WHO QUIT BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WANT
TO DO SUCH, AND WERE TIRED OF ARGUING TOPICALITY.
The last concern I have is about the type of negative arguments that
would be used on an overly broad resolution. If the resolution is so
broad that the aff can discuss any of a number of issues, especially if
they can advocate relatively non-controversial issues like
"racism/sexism should be eliminated", it seems like the negative will
likely run to the margins and begin to prepare more generic arguments like "the state is bad,"
IF SOMEONE CAME UP WITH A PLAN TO ELIMINATE RACISM OR SEXISM ? YOU SHOULD LAUGH AT
THEM ? DO NOT BE SCARED ?
NEGATIVE TO THE MARGINS ? NOT THE WAY PEOPLE DO RESEARCH ? AND I THINK A STATE BAD
DEBATE IS BETTER THAN A ?COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS? DEBATE.
"the English language is bad," "rationality is bad," "the debate community uses too much paper," etc just
because it will simply be impossible to keep up with a specific debate against each case being run.
I AM SURE TEAMS WILL JUST THROW UP THEIR ARMS AND GIVE UP ? WITH OUR CURRENT CASELIST
MENTALITIES ? NOT A CHANCE! ALSO YOU REPRESENT MY IDEAS AS HAVING NO TOPIC? NOT ME!
Jackie, you may feel that your teams are able to compete
on the negative, but many of the rest of us are just not as good at
researching as you are apparently,(APPERANTLY NOT - sarcasm) or else we want a different type of
interaction between the aff and neg.
THERE ARE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF WHAT IS IMPORTANT. THIS IS WHERE MY EDUCATION
IMPACT OF ALLOWING STUDENTS THE ABLITY TO BECOME BETTER ADVOCATES AT LEAST WHILE ON
THE AFFIRMATIVE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR CLAIM THAT WE NEED MORE SPECIFIC
ARGUMENTS. ALSO, ALL FIVE OF MY IMPACTS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR FEAR! HAS THE
CURRENT MODEL INCREASED MEANINGFUL LATINO PARTICIPATION IN DEBATE? WHERE IS THE
ARGUMENT THAT BEING ABLE TO READ A COUPLE OF CASE CARDS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A
MODEL THAT MIGHT INCREASE ?NON-WHITE MALE? PARTICIPATION.
After all, what is the purpose to debating about something you feel strongly about if the debate is not at all
about your chosen topic, but instead about a tangential issue?
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF PRETENDING TO BE POLICY MAKERS IF MOST STUDENTS WONT BE,
BUT MANY STUDENTS, MAYBE NOT YOU, WILL BE FACE TO FACE WITH RACISM, COLONIALISM, SEXISM
AND INDOCTRINATION. DO THEY RESPOND WITH A TACTIC OFFERED BY THE FRAMERS ? OR SHOULD
THEY BEST BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE TOOLS THAT ARE BEST FOR THEM. TO TRANSLATE INTO
DEBATE, IF WE WANT TO CHANGE X ? LAW, SUPREME COURT, PRESIDENTIAL POWERS, LETS LEAVE IT
UP TO THE AFFIRMATIVE TO DECIDE HOW WE ENGAGE IN THAT CHANGE.
YES YOU CAN STILL HAVE POLICY DEBATE.
Yes, this happens now with agent cplans, politics disads, etc but this
happened much less on more limited topics like treaties where there were
in depth debates about abolishing the death penalty, testing nuclear
YOU KINDA ADMIT MY ARGUMENT HERE, PEOPLE DO IT TODAY ANYWAY. SOMETIMES PEOPLE READ
SPECIFIC CASE CARDS, AND THINK THEY HAD A CASE DEBATE THAT LEGITIMIZES SPECIFIC
EVIDENCE. MOST OF THE TIME, PEOPLE HAVE THEIR STRATEGY WITH VERY FEW SPECIFIC CASE
CARDS. TO ME IT SOUNDS LIKE A SOUND BITE TO STAVE OFF A LOSS OF ELITISM IN THE COMMUNITY.
More information about the Mailman