[eDebate] Topicality, Child Molestation, and Civil Disobediance

jpzompe at ilstu.edu jpzompe
Wed Jun 13 15:42:24 CDT 2007

Speaking of "norms good, judge," why don't you try to spell words correctly?

Is that why Massey's emails are riddled with virtually unreadable, misspelled

Just a thought...


Quoting scottelliott at grandecom.net:

> Klemz does not like the analogy to child molesters. ok, how abot muderers,
> rapists or people that embezzle money or commit fraud. THe analogy is 
> still the
> same, communities establish rules of conduct. When people break those 
> rules of
> conduct, they are sanctioned.
> THere are norms in debate. Example, if a debater halled off and 
> knocked the hell
> out of a debater in the round, he would lose the round. There is no "rule"
> saying violence is not condoned, but there is a norm of acceptable behavior.
> As for contridictions--I think you are wrong. There is no contridiction, only
> competing perspectives. From the perspective of a person who is the member of
> the CEDA community, at a CEDA sanctioned tournament, the topic and being
> topical is a norm that has been established. A team violating this 
> norm should
> be sanctioned. Allowing violations creates conditions in which the community
> ceases to function as desired. For those who are trying to change the system,
> i.e. those who choose to ignore the topic, they should be willing to 
> accept the
> sanction from the community.
> How is this a contricdiction? Gandi, Gandhee, Ganje, however, you 
> want to spell
> it. The point is that those engage in activism and choosing to ignore a
> resoltuion that was chosen by the community should be willing to accept the
> minimal sanction of a loss in exchange for the right to air their grievences
> for nine minutes without interruption. As a a judge I have to sit there and
> listen to you for nine minutes rant about genocide in Tibet. I paid 
> my dues by
> listening to you. Now you pay your dues by taking the loss and moving 
> on to the
> next round. Same thing with the negative. They sat there silently and 
> you read
> Hindu poetry and talked about Neitzche for  nine minutes. They tolerated your
> crap, now you can take your loss and move on down the road.
> Certainly, You, Andy and any others who choose to ignore the 
> resolution would be
> upset and be ready to get into a fight if my negative team stood up in the
> middle of your team's 1AC poetry reading and started yelling at you, or
> throwing things at you, or ripping the CD out of the player.
> Why? because you and your respective teams have a certain set of 
> communication
> expectations--norms. Namely, that the 1AC gets to talk without interruption.
> And, if my team violeted that norm, all hell would break loose. We would
> probably get into a fight or thrown out of the tournament. Minimally, the
> "offending" team would lose the round and get zero speaks.
> To me, choosing not to affirm the resolution violated a community 
> norm. Perhaps
> not as bad as assault or child molesting, but a violation of a norm 
> nontheless.
> As such, members of the community should sanction non-topical teams by giving
> them losses.
> No contridictions. Just two different groups of people. A judge in 
> the back of a
> room can vote negative on topicality to uphold community norms and to 
> preserve
> the Rule of Law, even if they agree with the Affirmative that genocide in
> Darfur has not been discussed adequetely and that the Affirmative has a right
> to talk about it.
> Scott
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

Joseph P. Zompetti, Ph.D.
Director of Forensics
Illinois State University
School of Communication

This message was sent using Illinois State University Webmail.

More information about the Mailman mailing list