[eDebate] quit whining - answer the question!

Josh jbhdb8
Thu Jun 14 10:38:40 CDT 2007


Jack et al,

I have stayed out of this for the most part, since I have said so much on
this subject that it seems pointless to respond to the same old thing part
ten.

However, it is really overbroad to suggest that the aff "has to do something
repugnant" to be topical on most topics.  If you define USFG actor as "Do
something repugnant" that makes things really hard on people trying to
compromise with you.

Absent a stable researchable actor requirement our resolutions become Parli
resolutions.  You can talk about "banking and Paolo" until you are blue in
the face but exposure to wide literatures about public policy is IMPORTANT
to meaningful public policy education.  Forcing an issue in controversy is
important to creating the impetus for students to encounter a new world of
public policy research every year.  I know we disagree about the educational
benefits of debate....But do you really think its bad for students to learn
about China one year, the Supreme Court the next, and then the Middle East?
Is that really something we ought not aspire for our students to encounter?

I do have some empathy for your claim that you feel that the government is a
poor actor with a history of genocidal actions.....But you use governmental
funds every day you work at your institution...Why is it ok to use the
government to allow your team to debate but not to use its name as a
instrument of sparking debate.  I am not trying to be unduly provocative
here...I am authentically confused.  The notion is to try to make the USFG a
better USFG.  Its a more nuanced idea then simply "you = usfg which is
evil."

I am not trying to poo poo your claims.  I realize you feel deeply about
this.  I just wonder why you attach so little value to what many of believe
is of core importance to the value of what we do as coaches.  Even if we
accept the notion that education ought not only be banking education....Does
that entirely discredit banked learning?  One of the biggest failures, in my
mind, of such criticism is applying it absolutely.

I wrote a very deeply felt plea for finding some common threads we can all
agree on....and to work together to make this a less divisive
more meaningful discussion.  I am trying to stay true to that call by asking
everyone questions with a real desire to understand and empathize,

Josh


On 6/14/07, debate at ou.edu <debate at ou.edu> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070614/1b9324eb/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list