[eDebate] Massey's cordial response to Stephen
debate at ou.edu
Sat Jun 16 09:40:46 CDT 2007
Same here, no discussions get very far if people are an ass to each other, I do my part.
------- 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
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.
When I read your post early in the morning, FRIEND, was not the first thing that came to mind. I will try and address your
arguments more specifically this time.
Later in your post is the first explanation of what your "alternative" would
"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
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?
Here is the logic I am getting from this. More people will quit debate because the resolution does not limit the other team to
say -- four solvency mechanisms? Or More people quit debate when the solutions they can access are limited? The problem
is somewhat of uniqueness (yes only correlation to some) but the trend in debate is causing debaters to quit now at an
unprecedented rat,e, and the lack of increased participation from narrow topics effects the numbers of participation more than
those who would quit if topics become broader. I even support the high school topics as promoting better debate than the
college resolutions. Look how many high school students participate in relation to college students.
Here is where we find a compromise. I like ?change foreign policy to the Middle East? I would take this topic any time. Now,
the conservatives can invade and the liberals withdrawal. Why would that be bad? You should be able to debate both sides,
and when your aff, you get practice advocating what you do or do not believe, but you get that choice. Is it that unreasonable.
I know I get painted as anti-debate, even though I just created my own team, and anti-topic, even though I used to run res
focus as an off case?
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.
?Change? to me is a direction that meets. Some would say ?adopt a new policy towards?, but this debate between you and I
on how to word is not productive because it will have zero effect. I have accepted that those who see debate from your
perspective control the topic wordings, we get to vote, but only on what the committee gives us. Solvency mechanisms they
researched with their own standards and views of what a topic needs for good debate,, many of which I disagree with.
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
I am admitting that there are arguments on why topicality is good, but I have spent years investigating how this argument has
flaws also. Topics good, if it?s a voting issue or not will have be debated out. I vote on topicality when a team wins the
argument in front of me. I am biased, but understand debate is for the debaters, and if they win T is a voter, they win. So
sometimes it is, sometimes it isn?t. Those who have their mind made up already are attempting to defend a static view of
debate without understanding the exceptions.
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
"Those aren't answers, only more questions. I say education over game. Game
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.
That is not true, and usually overemphasized to its benefits. The process debates aren?t deep, only numerous in evidence.
More critical affs will get way deeper than any process aff limited to security assistance via tri-lateral etc?.. The extensive
nature of case lists will help make these debates better. Why do you use ?never? and ?essentially? ? I am not an absolutists by
any means, and I feel your move to use these words only attempts to fill the grey areas logic cannot. All debates will proceed
the way you described, or most, with my visionary topics or not.
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).
I am not fooled by the tag line of developed case arguments. Usually debates are
A ? Kritik with alternative
B ? X actor Counterplan with politics DA
If we were having extensive case debates on these topics you might be right, but that is not how they are played out. Case
args don?t win, so why fool people into thinking they are good? I am not saying ignore case, I am saying that good case
debates are not the staregies people are choosing to win. Even if we have a good counterplan debate on counterplan solvency,
it is the almost irrelevant risk of a link DA that decides who wins or loses in the end.
b) Education inevitable?do your education outside of debate and when you are
in debate get the form of education that debate offers.
Are you saying that there is no education with debating differently? Or that being fair to all perspectives is not education? Get
off the do it our way or the highway mentality, and focus more on how to progress forward ??..
"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
I am a holists, you see things in parts. This could be our difference.
"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
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.
Actually, I was saying random things here. I guess you could best interpret it as make room for the radicals. Debate can be
for all, no reason one needs excluded. I even like having Liberty around. I like having the clash of civilizations debates. I like
the conflict in debate right now, I think it is healthy for the future of the community. But yeah, we aint leaving, so quit asking.
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.
I have heard this argument over and over. Your neg has to switch sides remember, argue against what the aff says. Aff is for
advocacy, neg is for refuting the affirmative.
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
And the perm saves the establishment, you got that one right. Your alternative you list at the bottom does not access the
value in lost debate and advocacy skills that we encounter when the game is rigged to allow one perspective the ability to reap
all the benefits. All of your alt args would be true with a broader resolution for your ideas. Read them on the negative. I say
Palestinean State, you say invade. That?s competitive.
I think I focused on your arguments more.
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 --------------
More information about the Mailman