[eDebate] steve? sawyer? -- your answers
debate at ou.edu
Fri Jun 15 19:03:31 CDT 2007
Some questions for steve since you wanted to join the conversation
1 - No this is not my suggestion and it is not "necessarily like" sound like the beginning of a bad argument. (see your Kunta
Kinte analagy) -
oh wait, there is no argument here.......
who's the troll now?
2 - i am trolling for kelly young and he hasnt responded yet -- i know he usually diagrees with me
i need to respond to ken sherwood, but havent read his whole post yet.........
Yesterday, Jackie asked: "does verbalizing things you
disagree with change your perspective." It can, but
to suggest that reading an aff that you disagree with
is necessarily like Kunta Kinte calling himself "Toby"
seems pretty absurd to me. Collegiate debate is a
relatively free forum. It's totally possible to
verbalize something while disagreeing with it. See
the WGLF. It's called trolling, and aside of its
political implications, it's also a great way to get
off some steam.
See the Wiki:
Some examples, a "not news" site:
(attention to KrispieKringle there)
(attention to Skleenar and skookum)
(advanced exercise - spot the trolls on your own.)
Trolling solves Jackie's concerns about banking and
verbalizing because it allows you to test the extremes
of ideas that you find repugnant. If your concern is
that switch-side debate forces people to the center,
trolling totally obliterates any hope of finding
common ground. The entire purpose is to force the
debate to the extreme, and it works.
Of course there are some negatives to trolling. For
the political activist, it could backfire and cause
people to question your actual motives. For the
debate community in general, it can be patently
uncivil and irritating. Yet, it is a valid option for
those who disagree with any given topic.
Lastly, for those who think that "topicality still
sucks" may want to consider what happens to political
activists who decide to totally avoid the topic:
Formerly Catholic Debate
More information about the Mailman