[eDebate] an actual contribution to the t debates....

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Sat Jun 9 18:47:55 CDT 2007


Ok,

1) Sports analogies only work because the non topical people dont know jack
about sports....

otherwise they fall down beyond anything that says lowest common denominator
agreement fosters competition.

There is not really an equivilant penalty in sports to the absolute nature
of the T penalty, in most other sports the penalty operates in the
disadvantage model where the team committing it is punished but not
prevented from winning because they committed the penalty incurring
violation.

Now yes there are forefits for players actions or fans actions but these
things are a) far less frequent and b) usualy far more dangerous than the t
penalty.

Furthermore for most players the penalties are part of the strategic nature
of the game, hack a shaq? patently against the rules, and as long as you
dont break the rule enough times it becomes part of the game. Any number of
illegal blocks in football? totally against the rules, but part of strategy.
Hell even a hand-ball in soccer(isnt that the usual analogy) wont usually
get you kicked out of thegame the first time it happens and even if it is a
red card it is still not a forefit, its the dismissal of one player.

Now of course if you showed up at a baseball game with a lacrosse stick you
wouldnt get to swing at a fastball(well as long as you refused to put the
lacrosse stick down), but really is that the extent of the applicability of
the analogy?If so it seems like a lot of other things are equally true, if
you showed up at a pork bbq with a pine cone would you get to eat pork? If
you went to a concrete factory to buy some peas what would they do? if you
got in a cab and said i didnt get my fortune cookie would the cabbie give
you one? If i order cole slaw and you give me a hi liter should i shop at
your business in the future? If sports are so applicable as a model for
analogies why exactly is it that we dont use their penalty
mechanisms...competition mechanisms..etc ...i think i know the answer to
this thats not the point, the point is put the sports analogies to rest they
are not a good model for t...or at least not absolutist t....maybe for t as
a weigh able disad they are good....

Yes yes i know but what is happening is syou are showing up to play baseball
and some teams are coming with a lacrosse stick and they do get to
play...look i think the answer to this argument lies in what the most simple
agreement we can come to about what we are doing at debate tournamets is, i
dont think the lacrosse teams think that you get to use the baseball field
only for baseball, and that in the same forum multiple sports can go on in
the same setting, inevitably the schools baseball field because it is the
best forum for playing sports is goig to be a contested space, the baseball
players will argue its a baseball field, and the lacross players will argue
its a field, and they came there because its a place to play games, the
baseball team may say that the pristine nature of the field as it is needed
for baseball is destroyed when the lacrosse players come on to it and the
lacrosse players may say it doesnt belong to you, it belongs to all of
us...we can solve this in this community with less brawls and less pta
involvement than baseball or lacrosse players, but we have to understnd that
no not everybody agrees its a baseball field and, we all come to debate,
different people have different ideas of what that means, but with a very
few exceptions everybody comes to have a debate against another schools team
with a judge....thats whats agreed upon...the invite says this is the res
this is true, just like the baseball field is called the michael k davis
baseball field....no


2)K's of t need Alt's

without a good alt most "framework" debates unnecessarily conflate the
current topic with topics as a general concept. I can agree that a topic to
debate is a good thing, even if i dont think that topic should have to be
"the" official topic. But in the current theoretical thinking about T,
attacks on the officical topic are left defending a standard that either
ignores or abandons T without the possibility of an alt. This bushian logic
of you are either with us or with them is not just responsible for producing
t debates that are more militant and dogmattic than they need to be but also
an arcane approach to evaluating and comparing arguments where the internal
logic of the t debate is using an old skoll stock issues paradigm while the
rest of the debate is using a alternative comparison or net benefoiits or
some other comparitive model that allows each side to suggest and defend
alternatives to the squo...im not just making this arg cause t is a stock
issue...but because the internal logic of the t debate is not an attempt to
compare options thus like being neg on a stock issues paradigm its the aff
or the squo....or in the case of T the offical res or no res...what then
needs to happen is to bring debates about what frames a good debate into
more modern theories of alternatives and competions and competiting worlds.



3)Oh my god that's a the worst idea you have ever had andy, now you are
legitmating departures from the resolution and EVERYBODY AT CEDA WILL HAVE
THEIR OWN RES?DUDE NO.



Not exactly?here is a scenario



there is a ceda res
some people like it but there is a solid block of people who don't,
they write a paper in support of the second place resolution, set up a
blog and provide supporting theoretical and research material which
supports why it is a competitive option with the current resolution.
Jackie massey doesnt like either and writes his own, in his
justification he doesnt write as much but makes that a benefit of his
res, many disagree but he attracts a strong following to a decent res.

Going into the start of the season both of these have some work and
credibility behind them but also have some built in disads.Topic
loosening, predictability, research agenda, etc...but they also have
some work put into why they are good, lot of content for a good
debate.

Fullerton louisville and towson form a peoples resolution that debate
should be about the liberation of the oppressed. It comes out in
february, there is some work for this but not a lot of dissenting
content but it has support from vast swaths of forme udl students.It
has some preparability disads built in due to its late arrival, and
some applicability problems because its myopic, but it has other
benefits.

Debater b, with out any preperation or any work says that debate
should be about yellow banannas in rd 5 at binghamton. Pretty steep
aff burden on this on, its not a good question for debate, its not
predictable, its not fun...and if they cant generate as much offense
from breaking the rules then there is less chance post my alt that
they would do it then now.

Debates would then be in part not about wheter we should have a topic
but about if this topic is bad what would be good, then competeing
visions can be evaluated....




4) This is the start of an idea, not the end
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070609/747add20/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list