[eDebate] Topicality, Child Molestation, and Civil Disobediance

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Thu Jun 14 08:33:38 CDT 2007


One of your reasons is a law is a law is a law break one and you open the
door to all of them
the other seems to be the tournament invite says a topic therefore if you
are not running that topic you are a komodo dragon in a hula hoop....Im
sorry but neither of these contribute at all to what is going on in rounds,
if this was middle school and students hadn't been hashing the nuance of
those issues out for years and needed a course in minimally applicable
metaphors then you sir would be in a league of your own in producing them,
as it is though you are really not advancing the discussion....now granted
jackie, me, adam , jim, matt, none of us are really advancing the
particular discussion, as it seems to be our summer pasttime to attempt to
karl rove the community we want as opposed to discussing the community we
have...but really scott unless you have a time machine or a lowering the
threshold of good argument machine im not worried about having to think
about how our teams would answer these elliot cards...being non t is like
molesting children and when you get caught and have to go to court but
instead of going to court and pleading guilty and accepting the brand of sex
offender you challenge the judge to a game of parchessi, but when you play
parchessi you try to build a mouse trap, but you dont give the mouse cheese
to make the trap fall you give him a football.

Reasonable people who dont agree with me on the direction these things
should take understand the difference between murder and t, they also
understand the distinction between bringing a polo pony to a bridge
tournament and debating in a debate round about wheter an argument is
legitimate....you matt tim jim me and jackie perhaps fall in to a special
catagory...

On 6/14/07, scottelliott at grandecom.net <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hey Joe. If both teams want to debate hoola hoops instead of Iran. I will
> be the
> first judge to sit on the panel. Not a problem at all! In fact, most
> people who
> have had me as a judge know that I am the most likely person to accept
> such a
> switch or to vote for something that I personally do not like. On the
> Title VII
> topic, I picked up a team running a Kommodo Dragons discrimination case
> because
> the negative ran the wrong T violation. LOL
>
> That is not the issue. The issue is when one team tries to impose a new
> resolution for debate on the negative without the negative's consent and
> after
> the negative was led to believe that she was going to be debating another
> resolution. These are invitational tournamnets and the invite creates a
> reasonable expectation via the CEDA resolution as to the topic of debate.
>
> Neither one of us could fit into a hoola hoop. Which is why we better
> stick to
> pie eating.
>
> Believe me, my teams will be making these arguments and will have the
> cards to
> back them up. Obviously, I do not think it should be "rule," but I have
> provided two additonal rationales that teams can use to win the topicality
> should be a voting issue.
>
> Scott
>
> Quoting jpzompe at ilstu.edu:
>
> > Scott --
> >
> > I agree with you.  If you show up to a pie-eating contest, you should
> have a
> > pie-eating contest, not a hoola-hoop contest.  And, obviously, you and I
> both
> > would stand a much better chance at winning the former, rather than the
> > latter.
> >
> > However, if the other team wants to throw down with their hoola-hoops,
> I'm
> > not
> > going to stomp off and pout and whine and say you should start your own
> > thing.
> >
> > We should be teaching our students how to make the arguments we're
> making on
> > this listserv - not say that there is a magic bullet that means one team
> > automatically loses.
> >
> > You cite CEDA and NPDA to support your "alt league" position.
> >
> > 1.  CEDA - they came back.
> >
> > 2.  NPDA - they don't like pie or hoola-hoops.
> >
> > Again, I don't like the non-topical kritikal affs either.  On the Middle
> East
> > topic, I'd prefer to hear a straight-up, policy-oriented aff rather than
> a
> > poetry/swing dance Aff.  But it's up to the debaters to hash that out -
> > not us.
> >
> > Back to cutting Africa cards (which I wish was our topic....)
> >
> > zomp
> >
> >
> >
> > Quoting scottelliott at grandecom.net:
> >
> > > 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
> > > negative.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Scott
> > >
> > > 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
> > >> 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.
> > >>
> > >> zomp
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 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,
> > >> >> misspelled
> > >> >> words?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Just a thought...
> > >> >>
> > >> >> zomp
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 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
> > >> >> 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
> > >> 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
> > www.isuforensics.com
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > This message was sent using Illinois State University Webmail.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070614/bb8778bd/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list