[eDebate] The Answer to Ellis post I keep referring to
Fri Jun 22 16:12:15 CDT 2007
Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com> date Jun 21, 2007 11:14 PM subject
Re: [eDebate] question mailed-by gmail.com Ok,
Steam, Smoke, Fire clear.....I will try this in a better frame of mind:
Andy is saying, as I understand it, since many are going topic wacky with
the Aff in the SQ what if his teams went less wacky but remained Non T. The
Less wacky caveats are 1) they wont change affs and 2) they will defend a
previously announced "alternative topic" that they will defend as superior
to the original topic.
First, Andy is getting frustrated because I am not giving his compromise
solution any love as being any different from the rest of the full-on screw
the topic folks. I guess I do come across a bit too "we dont make deals
with terrorists" for comfort here. I realize his compromise is different,
that it is BETTER than the SQ Hijackings and that if I was forced to choose
between the two options his is superior. However, all of the criticisms I
have made (as nauseum I am afraid) of the topic hijackers does apply to his
compromise....Hence his uniqueness arguments.
Second, Andy is frustrated because he believes topic hijacking is inevitable
- is happening now - and will continue to happen. I might as well accept a
bite of the less-poisoned apple and at least get to glance back at Eden even
if I am still banished from it. If I believed that there was no hope of
convincing people to at least consider arguments for why a return to big T
topic was a good thing I might give up...But I clearly dont believe that is
the case. In this sense, uniqueness is a bad metaphor to use here because
it is an academic argument about what OUGHT to happen in my mind...Not a
discussion about what IS happening in the debate SQ. In addition, linearity
is a better metaphor because, in my mind, it is a battle to increase
participation on either side of a line. It is more analagous to a party
boss trying to increase support for his party when his party has lower
membership then the competing party. Finally, while the genie is OUT OF THE
BOTTLE the majority of people still sit on the T side of the fence...I think
that means U is on my side and I am trying to dominate U. This doesnt
mean I am right...Just where I am coming from intellectually.
Most important, I dont believe that all the other schools will follow the
Ellis model...which means in point of fact that functionally - his teams
arent a compromise position - they are just another non-topical set of cases
we could lose to in debate rounds. In this sense, maybe if people would
join the Ellis model who were hijacking now it would at least be a superior
compromise to the sq. One that still irks me for the reasons I have vomited
for years...But, in a sense, superior to the SQ.
Anyway, hope this shows that I am listening to what you are saying
Andy...And that I understand what you mean by U. Still hoping to hear why
Democracy bad someday.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman