[eDebate] Topicality can make people radical too
Fri Jun 15 20:36:41 CDT 2007
While humorous and with some value the straw person snl skit is good for
laughs and not so much for arguments...neither jackie or i or anybody else
is saying topics are bad, we are saying the topic the committiee chooses is
bad, and that good debate can occur on other topics as well.
No one is doubting that some good can come from teams that debate topically,
the questions seem to be a soft one "can other forms of debate exist
alongside Policy Debate" and a harder one, "should anyone be allowed free of
deliberative challenege to ONLY debate the choosen topic even if its a bad
I appreciate the point about trolling, but like so many switch side good
arguments i think it is good in theory but difficult in applicability, it
can help, but how much do you allow when creating a space for that potential
Here is a ? about "switching sides" most of the community agrees that racism
is bad, yet we dont very frequently have racism good or ok debates? Why not?
Does switch side pedagogy dictate that we should? Not to say these debates
dont exist, but more to question where and when switch side pedagogy is
useful, it is often unbounded in the explanationss of its value and we all
know thats not true, so where does it work....and how does that relate to
what you agree or disagree with...
On 6/15/07, Steve Sawyer <sawyers25 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yesterday, Jackie asked: "does verbalizing things you
> disagree with change your perspective." It can, but
> to suggest that reading an aff that you disagree with
> is necessarily like Kunta Kinte calling himself "Toby"
> seems pretty absurd to me. Collegiate debate is a
> relatively free forum. It's totally possible to
> verbalize something while disagreeing with it. See
> the WGLF. It's called trolling, and aside of its
> political implications, it's also a great way to get
> off some steam.
> See the Wiki:
> Some examples, a "not news" site:
> (attention to KrispieKringle there)
> (attention to Skleenar and skookum)
> (advanced exercise - spot the trolls on your own.)
> Trolling solves Jackie's concerns about banking and
> verbalizing because it allows you to test the extremes
> of ideas that you find repugnant. If your concern is
> that switch-side debate forces people to the center,
> trolling totally obliterates any hope of finding
> common ground. The entire purpose is to force the
> debate to the extreme, and it works.
> Of course there are some negatives to trolling. For
> the political activist, it could backfire and cause
> people to question your actual motives. For the
> debate community in general, it can be patently
> uncivil and irritating. Yet, it is a valid option for
> those who disagree with any given topic.
> Lastly, for those who think that "topicality still
> sucks" may want to consider what happens to political
> activists who decide to totally avoid the topic:
> Troll away,
> Formerly Catholic Debate
> Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman