[eDebate] For the long and impotent T GOOD JUDGE post....
debate at ou.edu
Sat Jun 16 07:30:44 CDT 2007
For the Stephen guy who chose to engage in a festive game of quote Massey and then misinterpret what he means to my
1 Your post is too long for a cover all answer ? I will answer a few of you?re your ?presses? and unveil what you cant see I
2. You miss the point on the topic could be good, but the impact of verbalizing things you disagree with along with the
resolution forcing he affirmative into bad solutions so the negative can have something to say. Yeah that part swamps your ?I
am a debater I want to know what the affirmative will say? ? it?s deeper than that. My novices can answer a non-topica aff,
surely someone with a 9 page edebate post has the same ability? (sometimes closed mindedness inhibits peoples ability to
3. Your explanation of the topic balancing aff and neg wins is dumb, just like the topic framers. I am criticizing this process
your defending. Its not so hunky dory.
4. Everything might be education, but my use of the term is not as broad as you want to paint it. You know this, you just
hope dumb people that agree with you read edebate and go ?yeah? ?yeah?
5. You say
Then Jackie asks (well, rhetorically),
"It serves no educational function to learn how to criticize bad forms of
education?...There was once a routinized form of education in Germany that
was pushed upon people for many years."
You caught us. Policy debaters are part of a secret Neo-Nazi plot to take
over America. But aside from just attacking your absurd analogy, I'll
actually answer your argument (something that hasn't happened much in this
lovely e-debate, but then again, people's analogies really have sucked).
Rhetorically huh? When is it not? If you understood my argument, then you could poke fun at it. However, you do not get my
part about how debate promotes routinized decisionmaking. I think some people in debate do bread nazi like ideologies, I
would be afraid to identify, you might be one yourself since you admit it. Who is the ?us? in you caught ?us?? Are we picking
teams now? Or, do you hope someone reading with identify with you which makes you feel good about your post? Read
Your answer then was ?
Sure, it serves an educational function. The question is
a) does that educational function maintain the competitive balance of our
b) does that educational function have to happen in our competitive game.
Those aren?t answers, only more questions. I say education over game. Game 1st bad.
Good argument 1st good
Forcing aff to defend bad argument because of reasons you describe ? bad???
This summarizes your whole post for those tired of reading??
6 ? Then you tell me how to direct my team ? I needed your help whoever you are?..
It is a competitive activity in which we research a topic and argue about it. Jackie
says "If your moderate debate is your training ground." Alright. Debate is a
training ground for moderates. If you want to train liberal activists, go to
a training ground for liberal activists. You don't have to leave. You can do
both, as long as when you're in debate, you do debate
How about debate was a training ground for moderates, now those days are over. The radicals are here, debate will change,
pull up your pants and quit whining and trying to tell me how to approach debate. I love this activity, just not when closed
minded shallow individuals like yourself cant? handle change and difference. You should go to parli... (just kidding - stay here
7 ? My onslaught on policy debate --- how about we discuss your love for carl rove??
FYI ? I don?t have to avoid the topic to beat Mead and Beardon. Very few teams even say the world nuclear war against our
teams, mostly because they cant spell ?critical? or ?kritical? - take the challenge, next time you debate OU, read every
beardon and mead card you have. We might spot you links??
? your assertions are bleeding
8 ? ?Of course Jackie says? - I probably say it every year about this time. Is this your way of trying to ridicule me? Your such
a BIG SHOT!
But of course, Jackie says,
"Until we get topics that allows the affirmative to truly provide'solutions'
to the problem areas we vote for, people will be non-topical for many
legitimate reasons that are impacted via education."
I'm pretty sure a topical aff is a "solution" to a problem (advantage). Many
teams have even won on the aff before by proving this. Ohhhh, but you don't
personally think they are good solutions? Why have the topic committee go
through the literature on the topic area to find solvency for predictable
plan mechanisms when we can just all ask Jackie what the best solution is?
Duh waldo, i dont want to pick the solutions for each person to defend, people should pick their own based on the problem
area. You say "security assistance" i say "recognize a Palestenian state" -- two "different" solutions.
Your are so borderline irrelevant and definitely non-attentive. My argument is we shouldn?t have the solution, just an actor and
direction. Dont call me, you can come to my high school camp though. I will tell you the answers. Before that though, go
back and read my argument before you waste my time like this. Your post is chaos, just like a ineffective kritiks bad frontline
from the late 90?s.
Your analysis on switch side debate that follows is irrelevant also.
My advice for you, since you offered plenty of unsolicited advice for me.
Next time read my arguments, don?t attempt to construe then to say what you wish it said, and quit defending traditional
debate for a slap on the back from your friends.
Since you have gotten nothing right at this point except you captured direct quotes, I think I am done.
The rest of your attacks are somewhat personal in a sense that you only disco through my posts offering no substantive
discussion and definitely have not began to access the impact part of my argument, only to admit that debate breads more
PS ? My alternative is to not let people with your mindset frame the topics??.
More information about the Mailman