[eDebate] an actual contribution to the t debates....

andy ellis andy.edebate
Sat Jun 9 19:23:18 CDT 2007


1. Thats not feasible, nor beneficial to the activity or the shared exchane of ideas...insulating both sides of the divide from one another weakens the argumentative gene pool.

2.the black panthers argued against the US nationalism by arguing that black people had built america and shouldnt leave the work they had done to the imperialist because in a ghandian move of revoutionary suicide (not the good kind) it sells out a long term worth of work for a immediate gratification, that isnt really that nice anyway...im neither the black panthers or ghandi, however the framing is helpful...the people who are here have helped build the comunity and it resource and should not have to abandon them...its our field just as much as its yours...

3)my alt res suggestion is functionally this without the community breaking disads...

-----Original Message-----
From: "Jim Hanson" <hansonjb at whitman.edu>
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Sent: 6/9/2007 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] an actual contribution to the t debates....


honestly not trying to start a fight but if there is a group of people that want to debate the topic and there is a group of people that don't want to debate the topic, why are they debating each other?

why not have an "oppressed people" resolution (using andy's words) debate league/organization and then towson, louisville, fullerton, etc. can actually debate what y'all want to debate? and the teams that want to debate the topic can debate it.

jim :)
hansonjb at whitman.edu

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Andy Ellis 
To: edebate at ndtceda.com 
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 4:47 PM
Subject: [eDebate] an actual contribution to the t debates....


Ok, 

1) Sports analogies only work because the non topical people dont know jack about sports....

otherwise they fall down beyond anything that says lowest common denominator agreement fosters competition.

There is not really an equivilant penalty in sports to the absolute nature of the T penalty, in most other sports the penalty operates in the disadvantage model where the team committing it is punished but not prevented from winning because they committed the penalty incurring violation. 

Now yes there are forefits for players actions or fans actions but these things are a) far less frequent and b) usualy far more dangerous than the t penalty.

Furthermore for most players the penalties are part of the strategic nature of the game, hack a shaq? patently against the rules, and as long as you dont break the rule enough times it becomes part of the game. Any number of illegal blocks in football? totally against the rules, but part of strategy. Hell even a hand-ball in soccer(isnt that the usual analogy) wont usually get you kicked out of thegame the first time it happens and even if it is a red card it is still not a forefit, its the dismissal of one player. 

Now of course if you showed up at a baseball game with a lacrosse stick you wouldnt get to swing at a fastball(well as long as you refused to put the lacrosse stick down), but really is that the extent of the applicability of the analogy?If so it seems like a lot of other things are equally true, if you showed up at a pork bbq with a pine cone would you get to eat pork? If you went to a concrete factory to buy some peas what would they do? if you got in a cab and said i didnt get my fortune cookie would the cabbie give you one? If i order cole slaw and you give me a hi liter should i shop at your business in the future? If sports are so applicable as a model for analogies why exactly is it that we dont use their penalty mechanisms...competition mechanisms..etc ...i think i know the answer to this thats not the point, the point is put the sports analogies to rest they are not a good model for t...or at least not absolutist t....maybe for t as a weigh able disad they are good.... 

Yes yes i know but what is happening is syou are showing up to play baseball and some teams are coming with a lacrosse stick and they do get to play...look i think the answer to this argument lies in what the most simple agreement we can come to about what we are doing at debate tournamets is, i dont think the lacrosse teams think that you get to use the baseball field only for baseball, and that in the same forum multiple sports can go on in the same setting, inevitably the schools baseball field because it is the best forum for playing sports is goig to be a contested space, the baseball players will argue its a baseball field, and the lacross players will argue its a field, and they came there because its a place to play games, the baseball team may say that the pristine nature of the field as it is needed for baseball is destroyed when the lacrosse players come on to it and the lacrosse players may say it doesnt belong to you, it belongs to all of us...we can solve this in this community with less brawls and less pta involvement than baseball or lacrosse players, but we have to understnd that no not everybody agrees its a baseball field and, we all come to debate, different people have different ideas of what that means, but with a very few exceptions everybody comes to have a debate against another schools team with a judge...thats whats agreed upon...the invite says this is the res this is true, just like the baseball field is called the michael k davis baseball field...no 


2)K's of t need Alt's

without a good alt most "framework" debates unnecessarily conflate the current topic with topics as a general concept. I can agree that a topic to debate is a good thing, even if i dont think that topic should have to be "the" official topic. But in the current theoretical thinking about T, attacks on the officical topic are left defending a standard that either ignores or abandons T without the possibility of an alt. This bushian logic of you are either with us or with them is not just responsible for producing t debates that are more militant and dogmattic than they need to be but also an arcane approach to evaluating and comparing arguments where the internal logic of the t debate is using an old skoll stock issues paradigm while the rest of the debate is using a alternative comparison or net benefoiits or some other comparitive model that allows each side to suggest and defend alternatives to the squo...im not just making this arg cause t is a stock issue...but because the internal logic of the t debate is not an attempt to compare options thus like being neg on a stock issues paradigm its the aff or the squo....or in the case of T the offical res or no res...what then needs to happen is to bring debates about what frames a good debate into more modern theories of alternatives and competions and competiting worlds.



3)Oh my god that's a the worst idea you have ever had andy, now you are legitmating departures from the resolution and EVERYBODY AT CEDA WILL HAVE THEIR OWN RES
DUDE NO.



Not exactly
here is a scenario



there is a ceda res
some people like it but there is a solid block of people who don't,
they write a paper in support of the second place resolution, set up a
blog and provide supporting theoretical and research material which
supports why it is a competitive option with the current resolution.
Jackie massey doesnt like either and writes his own, in his
justification he doesnt write as much but makes that a benefit of his
res, many disagree but he attracts a strong following to a decent res.

Going into the start of the season both of these have some work and
credibility behind them but also have some built in disads.Topic
loosening, predictability, research agenda, etc...but they also have
some work put into why they are good, lot of content for a good
debate.

Fullerton louisville and towson form a peoples resolution that debate
should be about the liberation of the oppressed. It comes out in
february, there is some work for this but not a lot of dissenting
content but it has support from vast swaths of forme udl students.It
has some preparability disads built in due to its late arrival, and
some applicability problems because its myopic, but it has other
benefits.

Debater b, with out any preperation or any work says that debate
should be about yellow banannas in rd 5 at binghamton. Pretty steep
aff burden on this on, its not a good question for debate, its not
predictable, its not fun...and if they cant generate as much offense
from breaking the rules then there is less chance post my alt that
they would do it then now.

Debates would then be in part not about wheter we should have a topic
but about if this topic is bad what would be good, then competeing
visions can be evaluated....





4) This is the start of an idea, not the end 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate



More information about the Mailman mailing list