[eDebate] Massey

Scott T. Phillips stphill
Thu Apr 13 18:03:17 CDT 2006

Ok since everyone seems to be misinterpreting your args, I will only respond to
your like 2AC pre-empt block

"1. A Public utterance is public commitment ? We should not separate speech
from conviction "
This is pretty dangerous to debate as an activity. How could you ever debate a
team who said things you agree with. This is basically the epitome of turning
debate into a truth seeking enterprise (unless you dont believe the truth,
something we can get to later). Why even show up at that point? I don't even
need to go for hyperbolic "rape bad" examples, what if we had to debate wayne
state at the NDT and they ran Tibet and we agreed with them? What do we do?
Everyone could just read your own case agaisnt you.  This has nothing to do
with switch side debate. No matter how many sides to an issue there are, you
can't argue against what you believe in here. 

"This debate is important, discourse creates reality,"
Another incredibly dangerous claim you advance without a warrant. I think you
smell bad. I just said it. Does that make it so? While descriptions of reality
may not exist pre-discursively, reality certainly does (whether it is objective
or subjective is irrelevant). To say we must be wary of what we say in debates
because it will create a reality we don't want is silly. And link turns every
single one of your agency claims (if we say things and they become reality, we
are pretty powerful, and can tell bush what to do)

 "and we must examine the effects that verbalizing things you  might disagree
with could have on the people who are listening to you, especially if they
believe you. "
I don't mean to roll gewirth on you here, but this is messed up as well. This
is like saying a stand up comedian can't make fat guy jokes because the
audience may develop a hatred of fat people. If people walk into debates with
the mindset of "i must now go listen and believe whatever I hear in this debate
with no critical thought" than it isn't our fault when they gather together to
drink poisoned cool aid. There has to be some responsibility (AGENCY) in the
listener to make an informed decision. There is a speech from like Goebbels in
the 40's were he is talking to a sea of germans about total war and he is like
" This is necessary for the german people, for our people" and everyone yells
"yes". And he says "you want to work longer 18 hour days" and they scream "yes"
and he says "You want to give up luxuries, you want to give up superflous
pleasures" and they all scream yes. Goebbels is clearly debating from
conviction. That doesn't mean it isn't fucked up. It also doesn't mean that the
audience of german people should not of thought 'hmm, wait, total war, that
sounds like it sucks' and actually thought about it instead of giving in to
fervor. The danger is not with the speaker (conviction or not)

And just in case you (or andy ellis) is foaming at the mouth with some kind of
arg about the nazi example, insert whatever example you want (cult, KKK, bush

"You have functionally changed their perspective and possible future actions
towards an ideology you actually do not 
agree with. "

You rail against people using "jargon" , wrongly I might add, and now you slip
in the term ideology. If I read a China threat K and i don't really believe it,
what dangerous ideology have i instilled in someone if they believe me?What
about if I read the politics da? Getting someone to believe one side of an
argument is not an ideology, it becomes ideology when they ignore dissenting
opinions which is a choice they make. By its very nature ideology cannot be
instilled, it must be chosen. 

"2. College debate is public debate "
Yes and no. It's public in that it doesn't occure in my bathroom. It's public
in that people are allowed to come if they want. It's private in that outside
of a few parents, very few non debaters ever show up. I'm sure you will say
"they dont show up cause its fast and people read aspec and politics". Nice
try. In minnesota it was nice and slow and no one did tech, and yet no one
showed up. 

"? when we separate the two is when administrators and communication 
professors see debate as a game, with minor educations benefits. This is when
debate dies."
Gonna have to disagree with you here. I would love to see the "data" that
people have for this claim they keep making (it doesnt even have to be social
science data in an SPSS print out, just like, a letter from an administrator
sayiing they dont like debate about the state or with switch sides or that
isn't from conviction etc). It is inconcievable to me that an administration
would say " We don't like that our students are engaging in an activity where
our students are forced to do research about US foreign policy towards china in
this day and age, and are forced to contemplate potential economic consequences
of promoting human rights there." Where is the gained educational benefit of
arguing from conviction that our current process stifles?

 "That is one  reason why CEDA Debate resolutions increased participation
amongst programs, not just amongst those 
within existing programs. "
I don't really know anything about this, but I would like to learn. What basis
do you have for these claims?

"3. Should not value technique over substance"
Claim without warrant. Where is the link? Are you referring to like Aspec or

 ? "We" 
Is this the royal we?
"will contend that this form of banking education"

 "divorces  debaters from their agency as individual actor"
More jargon.  And also , politically dangerous. I don't like believing in a
world where other people can strip me of my agency. I think it must be
surrendered. But more than that, I don't really know what's so bad at all about
that. You kind of take it for granted. Please elaborate.

 "and moves them into a game of techne"
Jargon. What is this techne? Are you equating debate "tech" with "alienation
from dasein"?

 "and domination"
You're probably laying it on a bit to thick here

 "without understanding the pedagogical justifications for such a game. "

What do you think the pedagogical justifications for the game are?

"***4. Speaking/Verbalizing evils does not help to understand, but draws one
close to the middle. This is a 
common tactic in attempts to liberalize the radical, the debate term for this
is cooptation. "

More jargon/warrantless claim. Who/what is being coopted? the debaters? the
arguments? And doesn this turn your whole post, aren't you verbalizing evils?
(i'm assuming you think domination is evil)

"This is specifically true for the debate community because those who support
the dominant ideology are for it on the affirmative, and 
work within it on the negative, never having to verbalize the minority view. "
1. What is "the dominant ideology" you refer to
2. If on aff they say "pressure good, solves shrimp crises in china, which is
bad" and on the neg say "claiming trade interdependence solves war advances
neoliberalism, which is the logic of sacrifice" how is this the case?
3.What is the "minority view"?

"5. Technique in debate does not translate into effective communication skills.
There is no other place on this 
planet where we would be respected or understood if we engaged in the
communication methods we use in 
debate. "
Not true. Were we to audition to be an auctioneer or a micro machines
commercial actor we would be.

But in all seriously, this is both true and false. Talking fast does not help
outside of debate usually, true. Learning how to organize arguments, present
them in a coherent fashion, and deliver them with efficiency does. Talking fast
forces you to do all of these things. And even if you argue that it doesnt,
since you present more arguments at a quicker rate , you get more practice at
it. Your arg is the equivalent of saying "Jumping hurdles doesn't translate
into effective walking, so don't do it". Hurdles are an attempt to make the
race harder, so that the small percentage of really fast people can be more
easily differentiated into who is the best. Same thing with debate tech. Lots
of people can talk really slow and explain one thing. Fewer can talk fast and
explain 10 things. Fewer still can go for ASPEC, a K, 2 DA's and the case in
the 2NC. Complex basketball plays don't help people like MJ play a pickup game
with me and roy. Should he slow it down when he plays with the Bulls since
these skills aren't used in the "real world". 

"6. Focus on technique is exclusionary on all levels"
This is also dangerous. The only way this is true is if some people are
incapable (nature or nurture) of learning tech. I refuse to believe this is the
case. Not even that . It assumes they are incapable of simply learning to
debate tech. 
" ? HS level/college level/and the judging pool by justifying  the minority
status as incapable of judging the techne of a conventional/traditional debate
round because they  might vote on substance rather than technique."
First off, I don't know what this means due to the way you wrote it. I think
you are saying "some judges can't handle tech, so they are excluded because
teams think they will make bad decisions", if that is not what you are saying,
please clarify.

Assuming thats what it is, I have a few objections
1. If people want judges who vote on technique instead of substance, they have
the right to fill out thier sheet appropriately. 
2. I dont know if you mean "minority" as in, non white males, or as in "most
judgs get tech". If its the first, that is quite essentializing and does not
warrant a response. If it's the second, if most people can do it, it probably
isn't a problem. That is like me complaining tha Thad shouldn't be able to run
when we play frisbee. 

 "Legal techniques marginalize, government bureaucratic techniques marginalize,
and the specialized debate techniques do the same. "
No. Warrant. None. How do conviction debates not marginalize? What if i can't
find an area of the topic I really believe in? What if making debates emotional
makes me uncomfortable? Seriously, I don not understand how people do not
understand that since people have different opinions, exclusion is inevitable.
Don't get it. At all. Should we attempt to be more inclusive? I don't know. But
I would like to hear how we get more inclusive without
A. excluding other people
B. Relying on democracy where there is a tyranny of the majority
C. become fascist

If one of the exclusion ranters on e-debate has the answer to this I would love
to hear it ,so that i can steal it, write a book, and win the nobel prize. 

"Those who aren?t good at it" 
Get better. Seriously, what? There is not a single place on the planet other
than debate that is a competitive activity where people who voice the concern
"but X causes good people to win" is met with anything other than a laugh. 
It's a competitive activity. Deal. 

"or  those who may have alternative approaches are denied legitimate access. "
I mean, this has a little more traction but not much. Your approach is a
choice. I don't like dribbling in basketball. I prefer to just stand at the 3
point line and shoot the J all day. That doesn't mean others shouldnt get to
dribble or that I am being excluded, marginalized, or dominated. This analogy
is not stupid or offensive, it is 100 percent accurate, and is a choice I make
in every BF pickup game. Also, denied access to what?

"8. We Should not divorce the rhetorical from the dialectical. "
More jargon. I thought I knew what dialectical meant, but I didnt get your
point, so I looked it up. Still don't get it. 

"This seems to be the problem of our modern day  politician is their ability to
lie in our faces."
this is really irrelevant, but what?
1. not modern- always lied
2. if not to our faces, then behind our backs
3. Sometimes they dont lie, they tell the truth and just crush dissenters, what
is your point?

 "My contention is that lyeing is bad, and making arguments for things  you do
not believe in to win a debate round attempting to separate the dialectical
from the rhetorical words. "
1.So lame. unbelievably lame. can i bluff in poker? can i play BS on bus trips?
2. Lying is good- Santa Claus, easter bunny, tooth fairy, "yes, it was good for
me too"

Here is why your conviction model fails:Look at bransons NDT strat of "dont
focus on china". So aff gets up and says, stop organ harvesting in china, we
believe in it. Neg says, we dont believe you should focus on china.... now
what? That debate has to be decided someone, are you saying it should be who
has more conviction? Is it a legitimate answer to the perm for the neg to say
"you werent showing that conviction in the 1AC" ? What if the aff's conviction
is changed by the 1NC? Do they just throw in the towel ?

I hav eno idea what this separating dialectical from rhetorical means, so I
can't respond to it. 

"9. Without conviction, narrow topics do not result in a positive educational
Again, claim without warrant. I learned a whole lot this year about all kinds
of things I don't believe in. 

 "Most of the topics that supporters of switch side debate endorse, assume
there is an ample space of maneuvering room within the 
topic to allow everyone to engage in the benefits of debate as advocacy. Our
current framing methods try to 
control this maneuvering space. "
I guess this hinges on your definition of ample space. This seems to just be a
"limits bad" arg. Some limit is necessary for education, otherwise one side
will always be caught with their pants down. 

"10. One Should not decouple the sincerity principle from argument presented by
debater. This is particularly 
true in relation to the use of sexist language, racist language, gendered
language and even exceptionalist 
langaguge. The discourse within the argument can have real effects on those
within the room. If we can 
decouple this principle, then that would make it Okay to read offensive
language to startle or anger your 
opponents without punishment. To be a community we have to respect the
sincerity principle. "
I dont know where to go on this one. I'm a pretty laid back guy, so I try to
avoid speech that others find injurious once they voice an objection to me. Not
because I agree with them or think I should, but just to avoid conflict. But
this is basically unadulturated fascism. See branson's free speech post. If
naughty speech is in fact bad, you should be able to debate them on it's
merits. Teams already do all kinds of things to rattle their opponents, they
read new affs, make jokes, be mean in CX etc. Your point here would basically
make talking smack illegal. Seriously, it wouldnt be a debate if I didn't tell
Klinger I slept with his mom and he didn't tell me i must have eaten her
etc(because im fat, not the other one...).

All that aside, your arg doesn't solve any of this. It just means that people
get to be "offensive" if they really believe in it.

This also turns your whole "train people to communicate in the real world", in
the real world people do not play nice most often.  

"11. Accepting strict notions of switch-side debate forces one to replace
beliefs with appreciation for the 
process. Our contention is that this process has detrimental global impacts
from the creation of the exceptional 
American. ( we can move to the impact if needed of what the exceptionalist
american does) "

I would love to hear the impact. But first you generally , in a DA, read the
link. Why does arguing from conviction stop this, and how does arguing for
competitive purposes cause it?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060413/f7ba4f90/attachment.html 

More information about the Mailman mailing list