[eDebate] Um...Topicality still sucks

Beth Skinner beth.skinner
Sat Jun 2 09:37:55 CDT 2007


Last night I was at a wedding rehearsal dinner where I got to argue very
similar issues with a 5 year old and a 7 year old but without the
clusterfuckery of argumentation intellectualism.  We were trying to decide
whether we should launch a pirate raid on the bride and groom's table and
steal the cake.  One of them said we shouldn't because it wasn't what you
were supposed to do at a formal grown up party (it went the bounds of
proscribed manners/topicality/rules) and that we'd get in trouble with the
grown ups (penalty).  The other one said 'nah, we should do it because it
would be fun and because we're pirates'.  The cake was especially delicious
because it was stolen.  I guess when you're dealing with grown ups you just
have to decide which side you're gonna come down on.



On 6/1/07, Morris, Eric R <EricMorris at missouristate.edu> wrote:
>
>  Andy: Yeah perhaps travis will now go on to explain to you in dumber but
> proliferating terms(travis neal for topic cmmtte!!!) what you where implying
> without really offering an answer to your argument .
>
> Ermo: You clearly expected that he would read between the lines to
> interpret your non-sentence, so I think it's fair game for him to offer his
> interpretation. Now that you have offered a counter-interpretation, how do
> we choose between them? I think your answer is some sort of author intent,
> and you are using the supremacy of your interpretation to argue his claims
> aren't relevant to your resolution. You are very sneaky.
>  Andy: this is truth. i did assume travis's wikipedia style descrition of
> t as a disad theory. Then deployed it, I cant always assume and predict what
> everybody says, im no mapes, but it doesnt take a psychic to assume travis's
> arguments...at least usualy.
>
> Ermo: One good strategy to enhance the credibility of punishment/exclusion
> bad arguments is to pair them with an ad-hom toward psychics.
>
> Andy: I didnt make a penalties are bad argument i asked a question which
> travis didint have an answer to you and then you pilled nonsense on top of
> non sense and now we have the making of what some might call a clusterfuck
> of non argumentation.
>
> Ermo: I will leave it to disinterested (or quietly interested) parties to
> methodically unpack my comments regarding your posts to decide if I they
> were fair, entertaining, largely ignored by your response, etc.
>
> Andy: And come on really the duh penalty was a per formative contradiction
> to exopse the problems of penalty...come on now ermo i was just about to
> lobby hard for you to be on adams strike sheet.
>
> Ermo: You won't have to lobby too hard - the tournament will put me on the
> strike sheet regardless. It's up to you what you want to do about it.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> > From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com
> > [mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of andy ellis
> > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 4:36 PM
> > To: Travis Neal; Edebate
> > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Um...Topicality still sucks
> >
> > 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/20070602/04362b9e/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list