[eDebate] quit whining - answer the question!
Thu Jun 14 10:38:09 CDT 2007
I won't defend or speak for Swampy. I hardly ever agree with him, and I doubt I'd want him judging our debaters regardless of their ideological predispositions.
But you call him out for assuming (and not proving) the existence of "personal communication ethics," so I think it's important to highlight the fact that your own assertions--that inevitably, topical affs will have to be repugnant or stupid--are essentially unproven in this conversation. Can you throw me a bone and offer some proof?
You have political reasons for believing this about topical affs. I share a lot of those political beliefs, but I think I would have the burden to prove them categorically true before calling other people out for ignoring or failing to answer arguments that stem from those assumptions. Is the request to provide data for your claims a part of the vast conspiracy against you? Is the desire for you to offer proof for your assertions further evidence that we don't care about novices or love GW Bush?
You insult the topic committee, but I have talked to many other people who attended the topic meetings (who weren't members of the committee) and they have accounts that are dramatically different than yours. Who should I believe? Can you give me some reason why I should trust your account rather than other people I also know and respect?
I realize you'll be dismissive to my questions; you'll somehow rhetorically construct me as not radical enough to see your wise vision. But if there's a shred of humility left in you, perhaps deep down you'll recognize that what you're really doing in these conversations is asserting a bunch of stuff you're unwilling to prove, and then insulting people who call you out to provide warrants for your arguments.
It's embarassing, really. A lot of what you say has merit, and normally I'd be more comfortable in the flex camp than the rigidity camp. But you are just stinking it up too much, and I need some fresh air.
> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:12:08 -0500> From: debate at ou.edu> To: edebate at ndtceda.com> Subject: [eDebate] quit whining - answer the question!> > > Swampy,> > You seem to have the topicality is good down. Now refer to my argument that there is an impact to being topical, and include > the reality that resolutions are framed to beneift one stlye/perspective of "policy debate" and the narrowing of aff flexibility > requires some resistance in the community. These outweigh your "personal" communication ethics that you think exists.> > Why do we make the aff do something shallow and sometimes repugnant if the are topical? "So the negative can have > arguments" is the statement in the topic committee. We are producing some real bright potatos if we make the aff be dumb/> limited so the negative can have some arguments. How about the affirmative not say something repulsive, then the negative > make some arguments. Or is that too complicated and too much to ask?> > It is more than just about topicality being good in a perfect world, it's not a perfect world. The resolutions are tainted with > competitive and philosophical slants in framing that require refutation. (this is my pedagogical stance anyway)> > I tried the topic committee meeting, and they have their job/philosophical slant locked down. Even if you show up and > disagree, you only get lip service, and nothing on the ballot close to what many members of the community would feel creates > good debate.> > So please, be deeper. We understand you will vote on T, and people who are borderline should strike you. But please, deal > with the issue of flawed topic in your analysis of being topical. Then discuss and defend "banking education" as good and also > deal with verbalizing things you disgree with and how that effects radical politics.> > Peace,> > Jackie> > > _______________________________________________> eDebate mailing list> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
Make every IM count. Download Windows Live Messenger and join the i?m Initiative now. It?s free.??
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman