[eDebate] an actual contribution to the t debates....
Tue Jun 12 15:14:13 CDT 2007
I agree with most of what you say here and i think we are on largely the
same page in many parts of our thinking about this...One thing ill
address...I'm selling out my friends without their consent...it defintely
does sound like this doesn't it...i dont think it is though...people as you
say will make their own choices, and i really dont have the ability to
either promise the consent of the outliers to be topical, or to make a
community wide dictate about a "third way"topicality approach....this may be
a turn and a solveny argument against my alt...fair enough...more i point
out the compromise, negotioan rhetoric in order to illustrate that this
"alt" i am offering is not a head long plunge into some brave new world
where people suddenly<gasp> ignore the topic....instead we have already
plunged there...if i where successful in uniting the masses and the our way
or the highway crowd...i dont think it would be an absolute sell out to my
friends either...you know as well as anybody that for teams that open the
door on a broader set of debate opportunities affs will flip it on them and
say things like "we think torture is unappealing" as their plan, and of
course there are things to argue against this, but in the squo those of us
who don't encourage t debates are often without a good protective mechanism
in these places, and having some tools to evaluate what is and is not a good
departure from the topic might be helpful....but i also dont have to be in
lockstep with my friends, i can think that there is a better way to do what
they are doing, debate about it, and not enforce it...finally perhaps we
could send tim mahoney and the sneetches to do the constructive
engagement...sorta a good cop bad cop thing
On 6/12/07, Brent Saindon <basaindon at yahoo.com> wrote:
> "i will be happy to keep coaching how i coach and you can just as likely
> see sneetches as a topical plan."
> Andy, your reductio ad absurdum is a little behind the times. The Dr.
> Seuss can of worms is already several years old.
> BTW, the star-bellied sneetches (sp? -- it's been a long time) can do a
> lot of cool stuff and would make a wonderful (and in my opinion, MORE
> realistic) counterplan mechanism for the topic. They may also be capable of
> constructive engagement...
> Andy, it sounds like you are trying to bargain against your friends
> without their consent. The line has become "if I can get what I want, I will
> join you all against all this other debate experimentation that I don't much
> care for". In my opinion, there is no need to cut deals amongst this group.
> Experimentation and "explosion" (I thought many of you have an explosion
> fetish anyway?) will occur so long as debaters find it to be edifying and it
> has some degree of competitive success. The bottom line always comes back to
> persuasion. When people can no longer be convinced IN debates to vote in a
> particular direction, debaters will make different choices. Another bottom
> line: other experiments will take place, with our without the consent of the
> people on this list. Andy, you can't cut the deal to keep the sneeches out
> of debate; all you can do is just sell your vote on the issue.
> Just as in politics: when "family values" no longer acts as a suasory
> appeal for large segments of the population, we will see a different
> political appeal. For a long time, the left lamented that this term was
> "irrational", a meaningless term, or a distraction from real problems.
> Finally, they seemed to have learned that last few years that jobs and
> health care might also be considered "family values". Now the debate happens
> on different terms (but for how long -- I suspect we will see even more
> linguistic experiments with this term in the next 2 years).
> You can keep ahead of the curve, defend your place, or hide your head, but
> you can't cut the deal to make it all go away. CEDA tried it, so did the
> ADA, but changes will happen, and perhaps debate will outgrow people, leave
> them behind, or bitter. From anecdotal reports in LD and Parli, they can't
> get rid of our influence either. Jim Hanson can call for separate
> tournaments, but someone is going to show up and rain on his parade. Why
> lament or deal in this forum; it will be of little use in the competitive
> context. The topic committee has tried to reign people in through
> democratizing the topic process, but it does little good to limit people in
> As a fitting homage to the recently deceased Richard Rorty, I would like
> to end with a suggestion that he may have made. My undergraduate adviser
> took a class from him at the University of Virginia, and he relayed to a
> group of students that Richard Rorty once characterized truth as "whatever
> your colleagues will let you get away with." When the debaters I interact
> with ask me about my opinion of the topic, its meaning, and T debates, I try
> to give the same type of reply. Sometimes, you don't have to do a lot of
> convincing (because you prey on their predispositions and prejudices). Other
> times, you have to put up a good front to convince them that the question of
> definition is not worth their time, or is a losing battle with the judge.
> But when it comes right down to it, "the topic is whatever your opponents
> and judges will let you get way with." It's true of "policy" debates as much
> as any other kind. The judge and the other team let you get away with
> resuming the literal stability of the words. If the last 150 years + of
> communication research has taught us anything, words and phrases are
> anything but purely literal or stable. But again, as long as you can get
> away with it...
> Brent Saindon
> *Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com >* wrote:
> 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
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
> with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman