[eDebate] SILLY RULES!

Josh Hoe jbhdb8
Sun Apr 9 13:06:23 CDT 2006


Dave you are stirring up a hornets nest here - Jackie and I have had about a
three year argument about just this subject in this forum.

I have decided that I have made my arguments like 100 times now as has
Jackie - so I am not going to go back through it again this year.

Josh


On 4/9/06, David Romanelli <dromane at luc.edu> wrote:
>
> Jackie says "Parity is in the resolution, not the rules controlling who
> can attend tournaments.
>
> Haven't you been out front on the aff rejecting the resolution? The fact
> that the resolution is often ignored by affirmatives in debate is one of
> the most difficult issues for small budget/novice programs to overcome.
>
>
>
> >>> <debate at ou.edu> 04/09/06 11:53 AM >>>
>
> 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
> the east.
>
> 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
> arguments.
>
> 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
> dissent!
>
>
> Massey
>
>
> (I created the whole post without saying the C-spiracy word)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060409/0f71a86c/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list