[eDebate] TOPIC ANARCHY....

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Thu Jun 21 16:36:40 CDT 2007

1) I believe the democratic order is unjust not non existent
2) I am saying that if the aff can prove their alternative RESOLUTION better
they should get to win. I dont really understand any thing else you wrote in
that part, but i will try to address the disads briefly

a)"Quality Debate DA"-quality is a subjective term, jackie has written ad
nauseum about what you consider quality to be a BAD part of American
Exceptionalism, i think i made an argument a long time ago that you didnt
answer which suggested that there can be quality debate on a variety of
subjects, for example if jackie and i decided that a good alt res was R:
Schools should be desegregated and provided sufficent forewarning and
sufficeint back up material for why this was a good res in a publicly
accessible way there would be less of a quality debate da than if rd 5 at NU
after a long night of thinking we sprung it. Neil's suggestion that if
debaters dont make realistic assesments of the decrease in quality and
simply say any departure automaticcaly triggers the quality debate da makes
a lot of sense. If you lack the ability to make distinctions between quality
departures based on a variety of differences then you are not a very high
quality debater...

b)"Democracy v Anarchy DA" -Uh i think i no linked your anarchy argument,
and you yourself explained the tyranny of the majority argument as a
possible stance i was taking....and i think i have also made non unique
arguments about Anarchy...it already exists for a variety of reasosns...and
i think i have also advocated a stance that says that when democracy fails
to provide then self determination is necessary... im honestly not ssure how
i havent answered in some way some of these....

c) Doesnt = Effective test of your advocacy turn to your student Advocacy
Good Advantage....yes effective test of advocacy, the team we had that
advocated prpison abolition last year posted and agreed to stick to an arg
on edebate...throughout the season people tested their advocacy, through a
varieity of good arguments....if the community  would choose to pick
reasonably non souless resolutions like the prison res our team worked on or
like the schools should be desegregated res i propose  then the test would
be better, but i think its insulting to the people who did good work on the
neg to say that there is no effective test to the advocacy...

d) fairness da--uh there are varrying degrees of distinction i am making,
the prisons res for example is skewed toward the neg and there is a
reasonable tradeoff between the predicatability of the balanced community
choosen res and the unpredicatble but neg skewed prisons res....plus a res
on which you get to test the topicality of the plan is an increase in
fairness over the status quo where affs that dont affirm or agree to work
within any bounds on occasion, in my alt, affs propose a res and have to
provide a topical plan, if you for example think that the debate community
restructuring its practice to debate prisons does not lead to abolition then
run t againt them on their res....this is a net increase in fairness over
the squo for many folks...

Its not like i have been totally silent on these qustions, you may not agree
with me but its kinda not realistic to say that in the month long span of
this conversation i have not made arguments about these and other disads...

On 6/21/07, Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> Josh
> 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
> > one....
> >
> > On 6/21/07, matt stannard <stannardmatt at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >>>
> > > The topic does not go away because towson oklahoma or any other school
> > says
> > > it should, it still serves as the starting point. CEDA does not
> > suggest the
> > > role that topic should play in the round just that going in it should
> > be the
> > > shared assumption,
> > > >>>
> > >
> > > What does this mean, exactly?
> > >
> > > mjs
> > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Live Earth is coming.  Learn more about the hottest summer event -
> > only on
> > > MSN.
> > > http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthwlm
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070621/05e431da/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list