[eDebate] Topicality, Child Molestation, and Civil Disobediance
scottelliott at grandecom.net
Wed Jun 13 22:57:59 CDT 2007
What is wrong with starting a new organization to meet the needs of others. I
give you exhibits 1 and 2: CEDA circa 1978 and NPDA.
I haven't had any teams lose, so that is not my frustration. In fact, I am not
frustrated at all. All I am doing is giving, whether you like them or not,
alternative rationales for justifiying topicality as a voting issue.
Look, you are communicating with a coach that had his teams run lift sanctions
on Cuba on the "Substantially change foreign policy with MEXICO" topic. I know
how to run an untopical case. And, I also know the most difficult teams to beat
on the topicality debates are the teams that are the MOST non-topical. Quite
ironic, but true. We literally ran space colonization of a criminal punishment
topic. We always wanted people to engage in the topicality debates because we
were blocked out on the division of ground, fairness, and education RFD's. And,
it appears that those that choose to simply avoid the topic are more than ready
to argue why topicality should not be a voting issue for the reasons of ground,
fairness and education.
As I said at the beginning, education is a bad standard to vote against an
affirmative on topicality and I do not find it persuasive. So, X team runs,
Poetry good on the Mid-East Topic. Negative proves they are not topical and
then says it is a voter for education. It is highly unlikely that I will vote
I am not saying that teams should have to go elswhere. All I am saying is that
if they are on the affirmative and do not affirm the CEDA resolution, they
should lose the debate round. The rationales that you and Jackie are giving for
why teams should be allowed to avoid the resolution do not make sense.
The resolutions does not bar you or anybody from researching important topics on
one's own volition. There is no lose of education at all.
I believe people should enage each other in debate. However, if I come to a
tournament expecting to debate U.S. policy toward Iran, and that was what the
tournamnet invitation and the CEDA santioning said I was going to be debating;
and the affirmative stands up and starts talking about homelessness in America,
I will feel cheated. Sure, I can engage them in the discussion, but they are
engaging in a form of unethical behavior. We came to the tournament with an
expectation of the the topic of discussion, and they decided to change the
topic without our consultation, agreement, or consent. We are caught off gaurd
and will probably lose on the substative level of the debate. The only recourse
is a sanction--a loss.
All I am doing is giving people new reasons to "debate it out" in a round that
comes down to whether topicality is a voting issue. That certainly provides
some level of education.
The alternatives I suggest is not to "run people out of the activity." Rather,
the alternatives demonstrate that there is a real aspect of voluntariness to
engaging in an academic debate. To me it is the same as people choosing to come
together to play a baseball game. Imagine advertising a NCAA regional baseball
tournamnet. Teams and coaches train and spend resources preparing for the
baseball tournament. Then the University of Oklahoma, or Towson shows up to the
regional baseball tournament with their football gear, throws a pass for a
touchdown and tackles the pitcher. I doubt anybody would say they should win
the regional baseball tournament. I guarantee you the NCAA, and the umpires,
would not condone it.
In the same way, if you show up to a CEDA/NDT tournament to debate the CEDA/NDT
sanctioned resolution, and choose to debate last years resolution, or whatever
Rap CD is best this week, the judges, the organization, and the other
participants should express disapproval. The LEAST restrictive form of sanction
would be to award a loss.
Quoting jpzompe at ilstu.edu:
> You're calling MY post not insightful???
> Look, I fundamentally agree with you about the problems of these
> kritikal teams,
> 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
> 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.
> 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
> >> Is that why Massey's emails are riddled with virtually unreadable,
> >> misspelled
> >> words?
> >> Just a thought...
> >> zomp
> >> Quoting scottelliott at grandecom.net:
> >> > Klemz does not like the analogy to child molesters. ok, how abot
> >> > 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
> >> > 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
> >> 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
> >> > 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,
> >> > "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
> >> > 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
> >> www.isuforensics.com
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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