[eDebate] answers for dave -- mine anyway

debate at ou.edu debate
Thu Jun 14 12:30:46 CDT 2007


Hey Joe

maybe your know my job/goals better than I?  teaching argument is a part of the process

i never said they had nothing to learn about perspective?  i even mentioned this is all acquired through research.

the fine hair that you still didnt address is verablizing things you disagree with

i never said there is nothing to learn from constructive engagement, but you never said that verabally advocating this would be 
much better than advocating something they believe would better solve the problem identified by the resolution than the limiter 
of constructive engagement

why should a group of people confronted with a topic area provide such limiters?  as of now the recent trend is dogma, which is 
actually what we are arguing about in these posts

i think i put some grey into your questions?

peace

jackie








> 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
> > 
> >



More information about the Mailman mailing list