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

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Tue Jun 12 11:13:54 CDT 2007

On 6/12/07, Pacedebate at aol.com <Pacedebate at aol.com> wrote:
>  In a message dated 6/11/2007 4:52:16 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> andy.edebate at gmail.com writes:
> Ok so you are currently wasting a bunch of resources..how does your stance
> in this discussion do anything to change that..
> well my hope was that you would see the error of your ways and stop being
> the cause of the wasted resources for those in situations similar to mine.
> ok, that's not true. Although, there is a miniscule hope that you would
> see the light I'm pragmatic enough to realize you probably won't change your
> behavior.

I have seen some light, i think topics are a good way to organize debate, i
dont necessarily think anarchy is the best solution for education, i also
dont think the offical  topic can or will demand alliegence from the current
set of outliers....im hoping that the community wil change some behaviors
and accept that new fronts of argumentation have been opened up and they
wont go away, and either we can keep fighting the same old battles or we can
devise a new set of standards that account for the reality of the status quo
and are not simply what i or you wish despite their lack of pragmatism,
given current community climate.

.im at least offering an alt to the squo...
> it's not a very good one.

Oh yeah whats specifically wrong with it? In the squo anybody who wants to
can be non topical and there is no means to check them, because the offesne
generated from breaking the rules outweighs in a lot of cases the
disad...this is because its set up as an all or nothing thing right now
where if you dislike  the curreent topic becomes conflated with dislike of
all topics....My alt provides a set of standards with which to evaluate the
debater choosen topic, in the scenario i provided i sketched out some of
these standards, predictabiliy, debateability, germaneness, number of teams
running it, supporting material for the topic, im sure people can come up
with a bunch more, but the point is that im not just suggesting people talk
about whatever they want, resolved jennings is a jayhawk, is a bad res, for
a variety of reasons, resolved prisons should be abolished is bad for a
different set of reasons, but also has benefits, my method is an attempt to
allow for a reasonable difference between non topical approaches to be
debated out.

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.
> which means you aren't really proposing an alternative other than "i plan
> to let my debaters talk about whatever they want"

Thats the squo, in all reality my alt is a compromise, one that asks the T
lovers to loosen a little bit and one that asks the T haters to have some
structure and discipline in their politics...Its probably actually net
disadvantageous to the competitive siuccess of those who win by not being
topical right now because it says if you are not going to debate the topic
at least debate a topic, then subject that topic to community scrutiny and
discussion , thats better than the squo...though if no one compromises or
says anything other than screw you this IS how the game is played, i will be
happy to keep coaching how i coach and you can just as likely see sneetches
as a topical plan.

> that seems like such a waste of resources both for your program and those
> who show up at tournaments hoping to debate the topic.

I see an educational benefit to debating teams that want to debate the
topic, i think its very useful for my debaters to test their advocacies
against everybody, you seem to think its worthless to debate anybody who
isnt like you...regardless we will continue to make the decisons about what
is good for our program and you cant make us go away, you can wish and plead
and tell us we dont belong, but its good for us and we will keep at it. You
can either figure out how to deal with the changing nature of the community
or you can leave...i dont want you to leave, but if its not good for you its
not good for you.

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
>  by voting on T and giving your debaters 20 speaker points each? I'm
> willing to do what it takes. Do you have a suggestion for me?

Yeah, pref sheets mean we would never ever have to see you....so therin lies
the problem, the more you say your piece the less likely you are to be able
to deliver the punishment...

Based on some of the back channel's I'm getting I suspect the formation of
> another college debate organization may be in the works. Previously, I
> thought that was kind of lame but if I were a college coach and I felt like
> too many coaches were starting to approach debate like you are then I'd
> probably want something new also.

To all those trying this....have fun, but in the world of non fantasy we
need to work together to make the community the most educational we can, i'm
making an effort to articulate a theory that accounts for the reality of the
squo and you and others are trying the same thing over and over and over
again....in the LAT article brenda says "they treat us like terrorists" and
so it is...this T tactic you are employing right now, does very little to
stop terrorists but does make it easier to recruit them....

> ------------------------------
> See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503>.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070612/e144a5e3/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list