[eDebate] an actual contribution to the t debates....
Mon Jun 11 16:51:42 CDT 2007
Ok so you are currently wasting a bunch of resources..how does your stance in this discussion do anything to change that...im at least offering an alt to the squo...and we will host public debates on darfur twice this summer, but if my debaters want to talk about that when they go to tournaments i will encourage and support them. And nothing anybody say in this discussion will change that...so again te question becomes if you think its bad the drift away from the topic...how do you propose stopping it
From: Pacedebate at aol.com
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Sent: 6/11/2007 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] an actual contribution to the t debates....
In a message dated 6/9/2007 7:23:56 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
andy.edebate at gmail.com writes:
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.
I disagree with this.
There is not inherently a benefit to an exchange of ideas and it certainly
isn't net advantageous given other alternatives.
To be honest, when we spend thousands of dollars to attend a tournament to
get somewhere between six and twelve debates and one of our debates when we are
supposed to be negative is against a team that chooses not to affirm the
topic then basically it's a waste of at least 1/12th of the resources expended.
The primary values of policy debate as I teach it are research, critical
thinking, and in depth public policy analysis. Andy's alternatives don't fully
solve these advantages. Which brings us to his analogy....
>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,
Why is attending a tournament that explicity lists a topic the best forum
for what you/your teams want to debate about?
It seems to me people that want to debate about genocide in darfur would be
much better off to host their own tournament and/or host public debates on
For my teams it's an exceptionally good forum for the things I'm trying to
teach IF all the teams show up plan to debate the same topic. It's a
substantially diminished forum when a bunch of teams show up who don't plan to debate
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
More information about the Mailman