[eDebate] rulebreaking doesn't win a lot of debates and there will be no mass exodus
Tue Jun 19 17:47:36 CDT 2007
I dont really disagree with any thing stannard says in this post, though i
think he is perhaps being slightly more elitist than i am comfortable with
in his assesment of how many of these deabtes occur, but the point is well
I dont think there is any chance of schism and my most recent conversation
with hanson, should in fairness be appreciated in the context of a
backchannel that inadvertantly became public. I think that in that context i
approached that conversation slightly differently than i would have had i
thought it public....
Finally i do echo the cry "down with hansen" mmm bop was hands down the
worst good song ever, even worse than that hey baybay song i hear all the
time these days, but jim hanson, even though i disagree with him sometimes
is someone im excited to know is in my community...
On 6/19/07, matt stannard <stannardmatt at hotmail.com> wrote:
> At this point the threat of a schism is laughable. "Schism" implies, in
> context if not in literal definition, a large-scale split. We're talking
> about maybe three or four schools leaving and forming their own debate
> league with open resolutions -- a move which would be disasterous for their
> travel budgets. The reason that more schools do not wilfilly embrace
> self-consciously nontopical affs now is that there are usually only one or
> two teams every year, out of like 200, who win a significant number of
> debates with those affs. The rest of the teams that do it are poor
> imitators of "rebel" teams they idolize. And usually their politics are
> completely absurd, confrontational towards the wrong targets (eg "Ross Smith
> is the MAN!!!" and "Down with Hansen" kind of stupidity) and they can't
> answer arguments or explain their research. Once they learn to do those
> things, they realize the opportunity cost to debating the topic isn't as
> ideologically or competitively taxing as they thought.
> There ain't no movement here, folks. There are a few posts on edebate.
> Moreover, I haven't seen a resolution yet that didn't allow teams to take
> a critical approach to their affs if they wanted to. Sure, they might have
> to shift their brand of criticism to accomodate the literature, and may even
> have to run arguments they don't personally or unqualifiedly endorse. I
> really like hearing critical affs, creative approaches to answering various
> brands of procedural and substantive debate, etc. I don't see anything
> wrong with that. But if the bottom line is "I should get to run whatever
> the fxxx I want," here's my sober assessment of that cry: No you shouldn't.
> I don't care about your myopia. Go cry to your mama. Better yet, prove
> that you are capable of REAL creativity: the kind that comes from stretching
> boundaries instead of running away from them. And prove that you are
> capable of genuine political engagement: the kind that comes from working
> within democratic parameters.
> But back to my original point: In the status quo, maybe one or two teams
> every year can win with genuine, unadalterated rulebreaking, and it's just
> not going to get any larger than that. And I can live with that, and I
> really don't care if that's not good enough for either side in this
> increasingly ridiculous discussion.
> Make every IM count. Download Windows Live Messenger and join the i'm
> Initiative now. It's free. Make it count!<http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGWL_June07>
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman