[eDebate] answers for jim's 2 questions..
Sat Jun 16 19:09:31 CDT 2007
why is it important to occupy the other side on ce?
My problem with your framing is that CE is a relativly mundane political
goal, giving voice to both sides of the debate loses some of its value
because of the lack of importance of the question...not that the questions
within it are not valuble but its not really in those terms a very important
controversy outside of federal policy making circles, i think this is
largely a result of the tc trying to be democratic and appeal to everybody
while also making a good literature based debate, but i think whats lost in
this is "controversy"....palestinian statehood however is probably a more
relevant controversy even if not a sustainable year long topic for the whole
community...an example of this is the fact that we are debating the middle
east without debating iraq...if we really want to wrap our heads around a
controversy in the area of us policy toward the middle east its an absolute
abomination that we cant topicaly discuss iraq...none of your candidates
could afford to side step that debate in order to offer a three way
security agreemnt with syria and israel...they might claim it as an
advanatage of that plan but if asked about the middle east would likely be
widely chastized for ignoring the main political controversey if they
refused to talk about it...
As for the slavery good bad question...we can all agree that switching sides
on that point is not the greatest or most relevant excercise, but i think
what jackie and i are suggesting is that there are other things that
similarly should not need to be switch sided on for the same reason, if some
things that are bad are off limits then it seems like other things can be
On 6/16/07, helwich at macalester.edu <helwich at macalester.edu> wrote:
> After reviewing Jackie's reply to my previous questions, I have a couple
> of questions and thoughts.
> 1. In my work with non-debater politicians and activists, I am frequently
> told that the biggest "value-added" that my partner (also a former debater)
> and I bring to a project is an ability to accurately articulate and
> vigorously defend the ideas of our opponents. These persons also find it
> immensely valuable to be able to practice defending their left-of-center
> beliefs in simulated debate and discussion settings.
> 2. How does verbalizing an idea change one's beliefs? When I prepare
> candidates for a debate, I often play the role of their opponent (almost
> invariably white/male/conservative). After these sessions, I do not find
> myself more sympathetic to the RNCs platform. No one in the room thinks that
> I have become a born-again neocon.
> Asked another way, what is the difference between analyzing competing
> ideas in your head and out loud? This might be a tricky question for you to
> address, since if language truly structures/constrains thought, how does
> verbalization meaningfully differ from cognition?
> 3. Something Jackie said in his reply to Jim struck me:
> "BUt i know being around my team they also learn how to include ethics
> within their decision making process."
> Are you implying that non-critical teams normally do not consider ethics
> in their own and/or public decision making processes?
> One value I find to switch-side debate around government policy is the
> ability to argue AGAINST the government/system/man half the time. In a world
> where no one is structurally required to ever defend "USFG" or "CE," will we
> ever get to test our arguments about what they are bad?
> PS: I do a mean Pawlenty impersonation.
> PPS: I am not defending "racism good" resolutions. I think Eli did a good
> job of explaining why I needn't do so in a previous post.
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman