[eDebate] Top 10 Reasons Topicality SUCKS

LACC Forensics forensics
Fri Jun 1 21:48:18 CDT 2007

I?ve been reading the thread and didn?t see anything that made the timing of
my response irrelevant and for someone who has such an objection to drawing
lines and setting standards for the activity, you certainly do have an
interesting need to preserve certain standards of argument (in this case the
timing of my responses). But to answer your question, I think this talk
about who should or should not be in debate is borne out of a frustration
with people who have a tendency to make wild assertions about debate
practice without providing any support whatsoever. Anyone who does actually
answer arguments as you claim to, does belong in debate. So, please don?t
mis-characterize my comments as a desire to exclude any particular group
from the activity. My comment would be no different than saying people who
don?t want to learn how to play soccer shouldn?t play soccer. All I am
saying is, if you don?t actually want to engage in reasoned argument, you
don?t belong in debate (an activity that should focus on the practice of
reasoned argument). If you want to take the position that debate should not
require people to engage in reasoned argument, please say so and I will
dutifully ignore everything you have to say because that would establish
that we have entirely different perspectives on the activity.

As to why I should get to decide what Adam or anyone has to say: I?ll try to
give you credit for engaging in another fallacy to respond to an actual
argument. All you are doing here is begging the question instead of
answering it. Adam can certainly decide what is important to him because he
is a person who lives his life ? that was not my point and your attempt to
misdirect the issue really seems like an intentional effort to avoid the
issue. My point was that Adam doesn?t get to decide what?s most important
for the rest of us which is exactly what he is doing when he says that
debating genocide is more important than debating topicality. Try as you
might, you didn?t turn this argument.

On 6/1/07 4:16 PM, "Andy Ellis" <andy.edebate at gmail.com> wrote:

> What is all this doesnt belong in debate talk, ken said it at some point, tim
> said it earlier, why is it that if you feel that you have draw these lines
> about who should and should not be in debate. For example i could say ken has
> the turnaround time on these messages of (insert famous first round debater
> here, who may or may not have frequently dropped a lot of things i the 2ac but
> gave great 2ar's). If you cant realize that the conversation has moved like
> two or three days and like twenty posts past what you are responding too, you
> arent quick enough to be in debate...but no...instead im engaging and
> answering arguments,though i didnt believe what adam said, i did laugh, i know
> thats not a major penalty and probably not grounds for ejection but do i have
> to sit in the penalty box for just a bit because i thought it funny....
> I think adam gets to decide what is important because he is a person who lives
> his life ...why do you get to decide what he or anyone else gets to say?
> On 6/1/07, LACC Forensics <forensics at lacitycollege.edu> wrote:
>> Adam writes:
>> 10. The word "topicality" does not exist in any English dictionary, and if
>> it does it's only applies to debates, not real world vocabulary.
>> 9 - 2. Fuck the Topic
>> 1. See number 3
>> This really is so pathetic it's almost not worth answering, but just because
>> I started this...
>> There are words that exist/are only used in many specific fields of
>> communication, business, etc.. This is not a reason to reject topicality and
>> anyone who read this and agreed doesn't belong in debate. Secondly, this
>> statement doesn't even remotely answer my question or respond to my arguments
>> in favor of debating topicality. Whether the word exists outside of debate is
>> completely irrelevant. If you are incapable of articulating a well-reasoned
>> response to the question, why respond at all?
>> As far as your other response (fuck the topic), 1 ? see above, 2 ? I'll
>> respond here to your other post where you argue that debating topicality
>> prevents us from debating important things like genocide. Why do YOU get to
>> decide what's important? This is infinitely regressive. If you refuse to
>> debate the chosen topic because YOU don't think it's as important as the
>> issue you do want to debate, you open the door to an endless debate about
>> what issues are more/most important. And this leads to the same problem you
>> complain about ? you choosing the topic prevents others from debating what
>> they might want to ? like Topicality.
>> If you're going to take the time to weigh-in, write something that actually
>> adds to the discussion.
>> Ken 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20070601/88008cbe/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list