[eDebate] Um...Topicality still sucks

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Fri Jun 1 17:53:16 CDT 2007


YES YES YES, you are saying the same thing i am , you are saying clearly
that there is a penalty for not being topical. I am saying that the language
of penalty is the exclusive nature of t you discuss. Speaking of things from
2003...I i will make a competive argument. Judges should decide if the link
and the impact to being not topical makes the argument the aff makes net
bad. This doesnt work within your model, because once you cross the
demarcated line and it is placed within the critics purview, then the aff
shouldnt get the ballot, my model allows more flexibility than that...you
know the model you so eloquently schooled me on a bit ago.

On 6/1/07, Travis Neal <travisneal at mac.com> wrote:
>
> No, no, no.  People feel excluded by T because it is exclusive.  The whole
> purpose is to demarcate a line where some arguments are not eligible for an
> affirmative ballot regardless of how they resonate as true.  Of course, it
> is entirely optional if the argument is even made and placed within the
> critic's purview.
> What I have never heard a compelling defense of is why someone has a right
> to have their names written as winners.  The ballot need not be interpreted
> as a judgement of worth or value of the debate participants, especially when
> it is decided on the grounds of topicality.
>
> On Jun 1, 2007, at 6:32 PM, Andy Ellis wrote:
>
> 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
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070601/9437efa5/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list