[eDebate] Um...Topicality still sucks

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Fri Jun 1 17:32:22 CDT 2007


you wonder why people feel excluded by the discourse of t ...i say because
you put it into a catagory of penalty and seperate from other
arguments...its like affirmative action for topicality...

On 6/1/07, Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My argument was not a fairness argument....and when a judge votes against
> an affirmative because they are "not topical" they do so because the team
> arguing they should be topical argued for it better than those arguing
> against it....Which is why debate is better than the simple sports analogy
> (you get to say T sucks).
>
> As for if its a penalty or a da....my point was only that the judge (who
> votes on T) evaluates it as a penalty or DA.
>
> Josh
>
>
> On 6/1/07, andy ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Wow thanks for t theroy from 2003....duh travis duh i think my ? Assumed
> > all of your answers...you havent justified why the language of penalty is
> > justifed in this instnce an not the instance in which an aff makes a
> > politicaly bad argument( a typical disad) as opposed to one which is bad for
> > fainess
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "Travis Neal" <travisneal at mac.com>
> > To: "Edebate" <edebate at ndtceda.com >
> > Sent: 6/1/2007 5:25 PM
> > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Um...Topicality still sucks
> >
> > Your question only makes sense if you assume that there is no
> > slippage between penalty and disad.
> >
> > The topicality argument is a disad, it is merely evaluated
> > differently than what is traditionally called a disad.
> >
> > When voting negative on T the judge is saying that there is a
> > disadvantage to allowing the 1AC to fulfill the resolution.  That is
> > why T arguments have violations (read: link), interpretations (read:
> > uniqueness) and voting arguments (read: impacts).
> >
> >
> > On Jun 1, 2007, at 5:02 PM, andy ellis wrote:
> >
> > > Why a penalty and not a disad to not being topical
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: "Josh" < jbhdb8 at gmail.com>
> > > To: "Adam Jackson" <baltimoredebate at gmail.com>
> > > Cc: edebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > > Sent: 6/1/2007 4:14 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Um...Topicality still sucks
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > When I was in high school, some parents got me and my debate
> > > partner to do
> > > research to try to help them (and lawyers) with an appeal for their
> > > son who
> > > had a life sentence.  After doing extensive research into the case
> > > (including multiple personal interviews) I became convinced that
> > > the person
> > > I was working to help was guilty.  Personally, I am very liberal
> > > and tend
> > > toward immediately believing that most people are railroaded by the
> > > justice
> > > system.
> > >
> > > Whatever your views of justice....Researching the question made me go
> > > against my personal beliefs and biases and made me reevaluate my
> > > predilections.  In this way, being forced to confront not just a
> > > generally
> > > held belief but both sides of a specific example really tested my own
> > > advocacy on a particular issue.
> > >
> > > A topic, much in the same way, forces both sides to investigate a
> > > position
> > > and test each other as to the relative truth/truths that position
> > > represents.  It is all well and good to be for saying and doing
> > > whatever you
> > > want whenever you want....And in fairness, nobody ever says you
> > > cant debate
> > > whatever you want to....What many people do say, is that if you
> > > choose to
> > > debate "whatever you want to" there might be a penalty because (and
> > > this is
> > > not a FAIRNESS argument) the end result when two teams debate a
> > > question
> > > that nobody prepared to debate is usually a WEAK TEST of its
> > > validity.  In
> > > other words, if a judge had asked me to present my position on
> > > "life in
> > > prison" outside of the context of the "prisoner to get life" my
> > > answer would
> > > probably be persuasive but weak.
> > >
> > > Debate, at its best, is a means of testing ideas.  When both sides
> > > know,
> > > basically, what is coming those ideas can be tested.  Sometimes a
> > > team slips
> > > in a topical but obtuse new affirmative...and often at the worst
> > > possible
> > > time (outrounds at a National tournament usually).  However, when the
> > > affirmative can pop a new case that literally has NO relation to
> > > the topic
> > > presented for debate - the end result is literally ANTI
> > > educational...No
> > > test of the idea of any meaningful stretch is likely.....No
> > > relative truth
> > > is found at the end of the debate.  And the affirmative is
> > > congratulated for
> > > "winning" what exactly?  How did the courage of their convictions
> > > get tested
> > > by the other bright minds that are being confronted.  How did the
> > > affirmative open themselves to the learning model debate offers?
> > >
> > > I also think that fairness issues exist....and that some unfairness
> > > precedes
> > > the question of a topic....But saying "topicality sucks" is like
> > > telling a
> > > basketball referee that fouls screw up the game.  No kidding, really?
> > > Debate at least attempts to make what is and is not a foul subject to
> > > democratic deliberation and allows MASSIVE community input...and
> > > while it
> > > may not be a perfect system it basically works.  Do I like that the
> > > Con Con
> > > CP was almost unbeatable last year?  No....but the year was still
> > > basically
> > > debateable....Did I learn a ton about the legal system and the current
> > > docket....Yes....Were my long held beliefs challenged by the different
> >
> > > affirmatives.....Yes....Did I get to personally discuss those
> > > issues with
> > > experts in the field who deepened my understandings....Yes.
> > >
> > > Maybe, just maybe there is a value (elucidated well by Branson) to
> > > learning
> > > about more than exactly what you want to learn about?  I have
> > > always wanted
> > > to confront new ways of finding evidence (rap, other definitions of
> > > intellectuals, application of topics to other contexts and ways of
> > > knowing,
> > > critical literature, non-nuclear impacts...all totally ok with me)
> > > but have
> > > you considered that there might be a value to debating a topic?
> > >
> > > Josh
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/1/07, Adam Jackson <baltimoredebate at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> This community is comprised of some of the smartest people in the
> > >> United
> > >> States, and most of us think some of the dumbest shit.
> > >>
> > >> Topicality (regardless of what online database it was found in) is
> > >> not a
> > >> mainstream vocabulary term that people who do not participate in
> > >> policy
> > >> debate use...PERIOD.
> > >>
> > >> It's easy to do a Google search and say "IT HAS A DEFINITION!!!".
> > >> In the
> > >> time you wasted posting stuff legitimizing, criticizing or just plain
> >
> > >> lecturing about topicality, you could have found a recipe to make
> > >> pound
> > >> cake, or maybe fix a flat tire (just to pass the time).
> > >>
> > >> The resolution sucks ass, and while I understand that eDebate is
> > >> used as a
> > >> forum to discuss the entire scope of the community, it doesn't
> > >> mean that the
> > >> resolution still doesn't suck. There has to come a point...where
> > >> "straight-ups" and "crazies" come together and agree on what the hell
> >
> > >> reality is.
> > >>
> > >> God the DC annoys me.
> > >>
> > >> I would write more, but I know you're not going to read it...so
> > >> I'll do
> > >> what I do best, in and out of debate rounds...being blunt and direct.
> >
> > >>
> > >> Wake up, and think about what you let educate you before you become a
> > >> total idiot.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Adam J. Jackson
> > >> Towson University Speech and Debate
> > >> Cell:443-824-4273
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> eDebate mailing list
> > >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> > >>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > eDebate mailing list
> > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070601/d9f95de4/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list