[eDebate] Topicality, Child Molestation, and Civil Disobediance
jpzompe at ilstu.edu
Wed Jun 13 17:39:05 CDT 2007
You're calling MY post not insightful???
Look, I fundamentally agree with you about the problems of these
but telling them to go play elsewhere creates more division, not less. This
community needs more programs, not less.
Besides, teams bucking the trends of community "norms" is inevitable.
To be quite honest, I thought the most "insightful" thing you've had to say is
that you should coach your teams to stand up, throw things, yank CDs out of
laptops, etc., during the opponents' 1AC.
After all, this is debate. Whether we like what others say and do or not, is
irrelevant. Our students should be able to engage them.
I think what frustrates us the most is that our students keep losing. And it
frustrates our students, too. But ultimately (and here's the real EDUCATION
arg), what are we teaching are kids by making arguments about Massey et al. to
go play elsewhere? To run from a fight? To give up on something? To
ex-communicate or exile those with differences? I don't know about you, but
that's not what I want my students to learn. Instead, our students should
learn how to debate these things out. Sometimes they'll win, sometimes they
won't. But in the end, the process of winning and losing to these
"non-topical" monstrosities will be more educational than your attempts at
purifying the gene pool of debate.
Quoting scottelliott at grandecom.net:
> Inkredible and insightful comment Zomp. Really advances the
> discussion. If this
> was a pub, I'd run it by my editor.
> Quoting jpzompe at ilstu.edu:
>> 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,
>> 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
>> > As for contridictions--I think you are wrong. There is no contridiction,
>> > competing perspectives. From the perspective of a person who is the member
>> > 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
>> > ceases to function as desired. For those who are trying to change the
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> > 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.
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