[eDebate] quit whining - answer the question!
debate at ou.edu
Thu Jun 14 10:52:40 CDT 2007
I thought your were sick, since it has taken so long for you to respond.
Look we do this every year about the same time.
Isnt it fun?
others should probably hit delete at this point......
> Jack et al,
> I have stayed out of this for the most part, since I have said so much
> this subject that it seems pointless to respond to the same old thing
> 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
> something repugnant" that makes things really hard on people trying to
> compromise with you.
I am not saying USFG as actor is repugnant, nowhere have I said this in recent memory.
> Absent a stable researchable actor requirement our resolutions become
> 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
> about China one year,
No its bad to teach students the way to deal with china in foreign policy is by being "mean" to china or an ass to china.
the Supreme Court the next, and then the Middle
obviously not my argments -- i kinda liked the supreme court area, not so jived about the topics chosen to debate
> Is that really something we ought not aspire for our students to encounter?
yeah thats my argument -- thinking about others things bad
> 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
> 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
> 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.
Obviously not my argument, you should spend time doing something else maybe.
> I wrote a very deeply felt plea for finding some common threads we can
> 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
> everyone questions with a real desire to understand and empathize,
Your are such a negotiating freedom fighter Josh. Thanks for the help, but i never said we dont need USFG as an actor. In
previous years i have questioned the need for this actor, but i wasnt even one of the people wanting china to be the actor last
And your question was?
> 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,
> > 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
> > what many members of the community would feel creates
> > good debate.
> > So please, be deeper. We understand you will vote on T, and people
> > 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
More information about the Mailman