[eDebate] perhaps i was a bit hasty...some paris some more final thoughts on t stuff)
Tue Jun 26 22:16:20 CDT 2007
paris may not be able to leave the country that could put a major problem
into my plan...hmm probation is a pain some time...
And perhaps i bowed out of the conversation too early i will answer a few
things i left dangling.
1) Why is the democracy unjust.
The democracy we have now tends to favor competition over controversy. The
fact that we are debating the middle east without debating iraq makes total
sense from a competition point of view, but from a controversy point of view
Policy debate about iraq as a central problem and solution is perhaps one of
the most important debates in the current public policy dialog. To debate
about iraq next year, one must a) risk a potentially extra topical plan
plank while filtering the iraq debate entirely through an engagement with
another countries policies b) debate why iraq is more important than t or c)
dissolve the borders or something...all of these are viable and educational,
however the main controversy regardless of how it is put is skirted for
The arguments about public debate, other leagues, and parli aside, what we
have sacrificed for what by all means seems to be a good competitive topic
is one of the biggest public policy debates of our time.
1) I am not overfocusing on iraq i understand there are other controversies
which are as important which are going on in the topic area, however we
should be debating iraq. If for no other reason than to truly engage the
stannard hanson hoe
ross smith standards on the benefits of the policy making paradigm.
2)I dont have a ready made alternative that would be suitable to a wide
variety of people in the community but ill try R: The Us military should
increase or decrease by 50 per cent its troop presence in iraq. You could
tack that on to the current resolution and it wouldnt be a huge research
burden and if it was a huge burden to have to engage public policy about
iraq i think that would be my argument.
Now why does this make the democracy unjust? Benefits that we could offer
are being denied in the sake of a competitive balancing. If the arguments
melissa wade and countless others have made about the unique need of public
policy debate amongst urban public school system students and if the
argument ross smith makes about the importance of every policy round and the
arguments matt staannrd makes about a thourogh and deliberative engagement
are true then we must see their denial of those benefits for the competitive
balancing tyranny of the majority (let me say i do agree that this democracy
is more accessible and more open than others, however that does not mean
that it cannont serve the interests of those that like the topic to be
skewwed toward competition and at least in part away from major
You may not call this unjust, but when the majority makes choices for their
benefit that deny potential educational and political benefits to others
especially those that perhaps more need those benefits i begin to see the
topic and the commitment to it serving an unjust function
2)Be creative within the topic. This makes me cringe, i think this kinda
thinking is what puts ken sherwoods studnets in a terrible box, what allows
semi-topiccal case, trusism-, affirming the resolution AS something, and all
the other stuff considered to have creative interpratations of the
resolution. I love that stuff too, but topicality is a tool best used when
there is some rigidity to it. "At least i have an interpratation" is a
meaningless response to the fairness da, the research da, and all the
others, when the novelty of the interpration is that it winks at the topic
while denying or reshifting the research.
Being creative within the topic is the biggest way policy debate rounds are
lost to the stuff that pisses jim and scott and ken off so much. Because
once you open it up a little judges and teams will find the cracks and well
you know the rest...topicality becomes a malleable thing...but in the
current structure in order to keep some folks around we need middle of the
road topics and malleable topicality...
3)The ellis compromisse can't work...well it could, it would start with
people changing their judging philosophies to be more strict on T debates,
but in turn accepting alternative resolutions , however a stricter t would
allow you to hold the aff to their res. Judging philosophies could also set
standards they think an aff needs to win if suggesting an alternative
resolution. some examples Relevance to public policy, Accessibility, Good
well divided ground. What it would mean is that "we dont discuss iraq, that
sucks man lets discuss iraq" args that some people might find themselves
voting on become less acceptable but a plan to decrease troop strength by 50
per cent becomes more accessible on the above mentioned resolution.
But you are probably right it probably wont work, and all the people who are
the friends i am selling out would just gain link ground out of it.
Really im not getting into another month about this, but ill engage in back
channel or even on line if i have time...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman