[eDebate] A More Cordial Reply to Jackie

Stephen Weil stephen.weil
Sat Jun 16 08:23:37 CDT 2007


First, I'd like to make somewhat of an apology to Jackie. I'm a very
sarcastic person and sometimes its hard to see how what you are writing
instead of saying will be interpreted by the other folks reading it. On a
second glance-through, my post could certainly be interpreted as a personal
assault instead of developing an argument. In that regard I'd like to extend
an apology and make a few more arguments.

"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
guess??"

That's true. I also don't feel like getting stuck a drawn-out 9 page
e-debate war that will consume 2 hours a day. But the other problem is that
the whole content of this discussion up to this point has been X person (not
just you, Jackie) picking a few points from the other persons post and
pressing them on it. Just as I spun your words, you chose to quote mostly
parts of my post where I was sarcastically mocking you and not parts of my
post where I was making more reasonable arguments (at least I thought they
were). I'll probably do the same here. It's only human.

Later in your post is the first explanation of what your "alternative" would
be.
"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."

1) Still links to your own "people will quit DA." When you say that we need
to have a direction, this still excludes people who don't agree with that
"direction" and don't want to vocalize things they don't believe in. If your
direction is functionally "help" the middle east, and I'm a conservative who
wants to invade the middle east, I don't get to say what I believe. My
point? We can't make a topic that will make everyone happy. Where do you
draw the line?

2) What is a direction? There is no stable literature definition or even
general sense of what that means in the context of the middle east. Is
security assistance the same direction as economic assistance? Is an
invasion in that direction? (It would make whichever states don't like the
one you invaded feel secure?maybe) I made this point in my first post, but
you can't make a "be nice to the Middle East" topic. It's too broad and most
of those affs don't have common negative ground. A topic constructed in such
a way links to the predictability DA.

3) So you're admitting topicality is a voting issue?

"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
think)"

Well, I have some impact defense against your aff=bad solutions arg (i.e.
those affs are good solutions to most folks) and DAs to the alternative. I
did the impact calculus in my post, the part of your post that best responds
is:

"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??"

This doesn't respond to
a) turns the case?unpredictable means we never have in-depth debate. As in,
when we have a debate, the arguments get deeper and deeper as we go from the
1NC to the Block to the 2NR and the interactions and subtleties play out.
It's thinking through these strategic interactions that makes debate totally
sweet. If the affirmative picks something where the negative doesn't have
that in-depth research, even if the neg can think of something off the top
of their head (like a DA that might link), they'll never get into the
valuable part of the discussion (like having developed case arguments).
b) Education inevitable?do your education outside of debate and when you are
in debate get the form of education that debate offers.

"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""

I really don't agree with this. I really don't see where you draw the line.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I just don't. We probably don't agree on
what's educational.

"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."

So are you saying that moderate politics in general should be replaced by
more radical ones? Because if you are eliminating a moderate training ground
in favor of a radical one, you have lost out on developing the political
minds of a valuable segment of our population. This is where my argument
about "leave debate a moderate training ground, find a different training
ground for radicals" comes in.

I don't really think I'm closed-minded. I am just making a point that your
"radical politics" at some point have to be balanced with the competitive
concerns of the game. Any of the arguments you think are solutions on the
aff would be great on the neg. It's not that they are excluded from our
activity entirely. It's just that when they are negative arguments instead
of affirmative arguments they are held to the burden of rejoinder and the
affirmative at least gets to defend their policy without it just being
permuted.

I really wish you'd chosen to respond to more of the substance of my post,
but I hope maybe the toned down language of this post (I hope) will garner
some more relevant discussion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070616/4e0efaea/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list