[eDebate] Topicality, Child Molestation, and Civil Disobediance
Wed Jun 13 15:48:30 CDT 2007
You know who speeled things well...pinoshet....hmmm
From: jpzompe at ilstu.edu
To: scottelliott at grandecom.net
Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
Sent: 6/13/2007 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Topicality, Child Molestation, and Civil Disobediance
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
> 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
> 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
> 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.
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
Joseph P. Zompetti, Ph.D.
Director of Forensics
Illinois State University
School of Communication
This message was sent using Illinois State University Webmail.
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
More information about the Mailman