[eDebate] TOPIC ANARCHY....
Thu Jun 21 15:04:28 CDT 2007
Seems like two statements here from Andy:
AE 1) It means there is a distinction between believing a democractic order
is NOT JUST and believing it DOES NOT EXIST.
In earlier emails, I have assumed that your argument was that the Democracy
was not just (tyrranny of the majority). If your argument is that there is
NO Democracy in fact you will have to do a bunch more work explaining and
warranting why that is so. You, as a coach, get a vote - can attend the
topic committee meetings, can help elect the student representative to the
topic committee, and make arguments literally ALL YEAR long on edebate or
the CEDA topic blog in favor of any topic you want. Our topic Democracy is
MUCH more representative and allows for much more personal participation and
each programs vote counts much much more than in most Democratic
systems. You might not like the outcomes (tyrranny of democracy) but you
will have to do some work convincing me that no Democracy exists.
AE 2) It means if you say T Constructive Engagement, a team offering an
alternative doesnt reasonably get to say that's not in the Resolution. They
have to explain why that shouldnt be applied or followed, and probably, the
team has to prove why their alternative Resolution is superior to the
Democratically chosen one.
A) If you are saying that teams should always get to provide an alternative
PLAN to one suggested by the Democratically chosen resolution...And that
they should be able to argue that inclusion of the alternative PLAN is
superior to the Democratically chosen resolution and win debates on that
comparison....If that is what you are saying,
I dont understand why this isnt the exact thing Jim and me and several other
people have criticized ad infinitum. I specifically have begged you to
explain how it is better - I have asked explicitly to address the "Quality
Debate DA" the "Democracy v Anarchy DA" the "Doesnt = Effective test of your
advocacy turn to your student Advocacy Good Advantage" and last but not
least the "Fairness DA." Yes, if a judge thinks you have won all those
arguments - your team would probably win in a debate. This is, however, an
open forum discussion about theory....In other words, shouldnt you be trying
to argue that your ALT is better than my T plan?
B) If you are saying something else....Very possible...I dont really get it.
On 6/21/07, Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com> wrote:
> it means in theory there is a distinction between believing a
> democratic order is not just and believing it does not exist in
> practice it means if you say t constructive engagement ateam offering
> an alt doesnt reasonably get to say thats not in the res they have to
> explain why that shouldnt be appied or followed and probably the team
> has to prove why their alt res is superior to the democraticl choosen
> On 6/21/07, matt stannard <stannardmatt at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > The topic does not go away because towson oklahoma or any other school
> > it should, it still serves as the starting point. CEDA does not suggest
> > role that topic should play in the round just that going in it should be
> > shared assumption,
> > >>>
> > What does this mean, exactly?
> > mjs
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Live Earth is coming. Learn more about the hottest summer event - only
> > MSN.
> > http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthwlm
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman