[eDebate] answers for dave -- mine anyway

bandana martin drmosbornesq
Thu Jun 14 12:56:57 CDT 2007


HOLLA

On 6/14/07, Joseph Carver <carrolltondebate at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I can understand alot of what Jackie is writing ( and categorically
> disagree with all of it) but I am left with one question: Isn't the
> unwritten and underlying assumption of this most recent post that debaters
> enter into the activity with nothing left to learn about perspectives?
> If the claim is that debaters leave and quit because the activity "forces"
> them to increase control over Indian Country etc in a way that
> offends...isn't changing the nature of the actiivity to accomodate that, an
> acknowledgment that there is NOTHING left to be said for things like
> constructive engagement etc? I know that, to you Jackie, these arguments
> about the value of switch side debate on perspective  building seem
> exaggerated but I remain unconvinced.
>
> You say that your job as a debate coach is to create more effective
> liberal activists? I thought it was to teach argumentation..
>
> Joseph Carver
>
>  On 6/14/07, debate at ou.edu <debate at ou.edu> wrote:
>
> > through stories and experience Dave, thats my best answer
> >
> > like my debaters that quit because they didnt want to increase federal
> > control  over indian country, call african people
> > underdeveloped, or claim US has any moral high ground over china
> >
> > how i see debaters who are extremely radical in thought when they
> > encounter debate change, and how debate allows that
> > radicalness to be compromised in the face of "fitting in"
> >
> > for a while i didnt know how to explain my argument very well until i
> > did  a very thorough reading of the articles related to
> > switchside debate
> >
> > this would be murphy, cripe etc. from the 1950's and 60's.  This was
> > around the time a poll of kansas debate coaches revealed
> > the debate about debate closed
> >
> > then i encountered an article by someone you will grow to know very
> > well, and his co-author who was a mentor of mine in my
> > early debate years   (hicks and green)
> >
> > their discussion about american exceptionalism and normalization of the
> > radical was very interesting to me
> > this coupled with how switch side debate means two different things in
> > NDT debate as compared to say old school "CEDA"
> > debate
> >
> > i think brent is so right when he says debate is evolving and we cant go
> > back, we can only go forward from here
> >
> > does verbalizing things you disagree with change your perspective, and
> > are all of the benefits of this still gained through
> > research without verbalizing
> >
> > if the resolution allowed you to increase assistance to the middle east,
> > there were be enought flex for the affirmative to find
> > their niche and practice the skills of advocacy
> >
> > are we training students to be able to advocate things they beleive in
> > after debate? or things they dont believe in?  in debate, if
> > you are radical in thinking and approach, you dont get this
> > practice.  If your moderate debate is your training ground.  To say
> > we have to be excactly like the USFG in language or solvency choices as
> > we outline them in the resolution leaves a small
> > amount of room for critical creativity.  once again, not against topics,
> > just limits to solutions.
> >
> > lets be honest, our "nation" in our name with our tax money is doing
> > some really shitty things to people around the globe.
> >
> > to say it is just bad people misses the boat on their methods, where
> > they learned, what their school of thought is, how we
> > accept dogma without hopes for change, should we model, or learn how to
> > reshape the model?
> >
> > what if things continue down their present path?  what do we see?  what
> > do i see for my daughter or her children that may
> > come?
> >
> > or the children on the west bank? or in darfur?
> >
> > i think many have the same concerns, my concern is will we have some
> > radical minds step up, be in kerry's spot, and then
> > become a sell out or allow for compromise of their views for some
> > community norms like "congressional norms" etc...
> >
> > my goal as a debate coach is to produce more effective liberal activist
> > that can help steer the beast away from destruction
> >
> > when i teach them in debate, compromising their personal views is not
> > what i feel is a good starting point
> > learning how to defend why they believe their views is better in my mind
> >
> > win or lose
> >
> > peace
> >
> > massey
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Sorry for mischaracterizing your position--dualities are so much
> > > easier on a tired brain.
> > >
> > > A couple of reactions:
> > >
> > > 1) I am not really asking for "scientific" proof--hypothesis testing
> > > is part of many reasoning systems that make nary an appearance in any
> > > "hard science" methods textbook. I am asking how you know what you
> > > claim to know, so that I and others can evaluate those knowledge
> > > claims in an effort to see if they are persuasive. That's all--no
> > > regressions necessary.
> > >
> > > 2) I am troubled by what I see as your stance that it is impossible
> > > and/or undesirable to evaluate the descriptive or normative 'truth' of
> >
> > > your claims about debate pedagogy. "I think," "I feel," and "I
> > > believe" claims are only persuasive to the extent of your
> > > credibility/ethos with your audience--they are not (and should not) be
> >
> > > subject to either validation or contestation because they are 'true'
> > > for you. I do not think that this discussion can produce either some
> > > consensus or 'better' debate pedagogy unless the _hard_ work of
> > > evaluating causal and normative claims is done.
> > >
> > > best,
> > > dch
> > > umn
> > > ----- Original Message -----Fromdebate at ou.eduDateThu, 14 Jun 2007
> > > 11:01:31 -0500Toedebate at ndtceda.comSubject[eDebate] answers for dave
> > > -- mine anyway
> > > The exchange has been somewhat amusing so far, and is far more
> > > interesting that prepping for HS camp.
> > >
> > > I have a couple of questions for the "T Bad" side.
> > >
> > > --- Hi Dave
> > >
> > > 1- It's not a "t bad" argument. I like topics and I ilke resolutions,
> > > and i like an equal starting point for an argument.
> > > Resolutions should serve as a starting point for disagreement.  So my
> > > position is not a blanket "t bad"
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. What are the links between "traditional" debate and the banking
> > > model of education/passive pedagogy? Are those links
> > > intrinsic? How do we determine the existence and strength of those
> > > links?
> > >
> > > ---- It depends on how we define "traditional debate", but I dont
> > > think those links are intrinsic.  i think competition has taken
> > > over topic creation, and we get topics that best fullfill a certain
> > > perspectives competitive goals.  You cant really determine the
> > > existence, you have to make a personal judgment, which is why
> > > stannards accusations are somewhat correct in "no evidence"
> > > but somewhat misleading to assume evidence is needed.  Some things are
> >
> > > larger than mere scientific proof.
> > >
> > >
> > > 2. What are the links between "performative" or "critical" debate and
> > > libratory pedagogy? Are those links intrinsic? How do we
> > > determine the existence and strength of those links?
> > >
> > > -- i can only say that learning to think or engage from a
> > > non-traditional/establishment perspective allows one to see problems
> > > in a more holistic perspective.  Once again, you cant determine the
> > > weakness or strengths of those links scientifically, just like
> > > we cant provide the same proofs for many environmental problems,
> > > racism and other social problems that we know exist.
> > >
> > >
> > > My hypothesis is that these links are relatively weak and
> > > non-intrinsic. This untested supposition is based on my observation of
> > >
> > > both the many traditional debate-types who live/espouse radical
> > > politics and the many non-traditional debate-types who live/
> > > espouse traditional politics.
> > >
> > > --- Then you can only follow your pedagogical beliefs in how you
> > > approach debate.  I wont tell you to leave the activity because
> > > you see differently, only that I disagree.  I think these links are
> > > extremely strong, and will continue to approach debate from
> > > this perspective.
> > >
> > > We could all be wrong.
> > >
> > > Peace
> > >
> > > Massey
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I could be wrong.
> > >
> > > best,
> > > dch
> > > umn
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > eDebate mailing list
> > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070614/8cd6ab8f/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list