[eDebate] TOPIC ANARCHY....

Josh jbhdb8
Thu Jun 21 21:24:24 CDT 2007


I am going to do my best to maintain a collegial attitude here, I have been
trying to keep things very pleasant and in NO way want to get into one of
the old flame-fests.

AE: 1) I believe the democratic order is unjust not non existent

JBH:  The reason this is starting to annoy me is that I explicitly asked you
to make an argument or arguments demonstrating this and also made specific
arguments for why the process was Democratic and most important existed in a
manner superior to most governmental forms of Democracy.  You simply
repeated your argument again.

AE: 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

JBH: What I said, in the simplist form was: There are a ton of arguments
that have been made (which I listed) which are barriers to you winning that
your alternative resolution is BETTER for debate or for education.  You do
answer those below...so you seemed to "get it"

AE:  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...

JBH: You are talking about educational oranges to disprove oranges.  I think
you either are answering a different argument OR are trying to subvert my
original arguments by restating them differently.  My argument was about
TESTING your ADVOCACY in a world where every team can run a seperate
resolution and justify it.  Cant have good education of ANY variety when
there is no means of adequately testing the arguments you make because you
will just change the topic whenever it suits you.

I did actually answer the "there can be good arguments on any subject"
argument explicitly in my answers to Jackie's post making the exact same
argument....I spent a fairly large time talking about preperation being a
pre-requisite to good debates and that you can "win" against those teams but
its usually a terrible test and certainly lacking any meaninful academic

AE: 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....

JBH: First, your uniqueness argument seems non-sensical to me...We are
talking about OUGHT not IS...This is an academic discussion about how debate
would best be designed.  You dont go up to Kantians and say "but most people
are Utilitarians."  Plus, have you heard of linearity?  This isnt a Nuclear
War DA its a theory discussion.  You keep answering emails ad infinitim with
"do you understand the concept of uniqueness?"  Really?  In addition, I
answered your "people are already doing it" uniqueness argument in detail in
a previous email last week.

Second, you did not "no link" my argument...You said "no link."  Those are
entirely different things. As I understand it, your argument is if we can
defend that our alternative resolution is good....that makes it good....How
in the world does this NO LINK any of my arguments.....Seriously, my
argument is that a world in which everyone did that would make for terrible
debates, where there is no meaningful pre-preperation, and which replaces
democracy with selfish self- gratification (subverts democracy).  So far,
you have made no arguments for why your alternate system
(self-determination) would create a superior system for debate as a whole
COMPARED to TOPIC DEMOCRACY.  I get that you think if democracy is unfair
you should fight the power...Got that....Now, next step...You have to prove
that your fight is a JUST fight creating a BETTER DEBATE WORLD....Otherwise
your fight just creates more injustice.

Third, Trond et al...I am not, in any way, saying Topic Anarchy and Anarchy
(proper noun) are the same...Its an analogy...they are SIMILAR not the
SAME. If you did not immediately understand what I was saying by using that
term I apologize...Of the available terms it seemed the most alike (you know
simile etc).

AE: 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...

JBH: Why should every other debater in the United States have to agree to
debate your Prison resolution? What if most think its souless? First, Who
made you arbiter of what is a soulless or what is a soul-ful
resolution...Did you consult with James Brown before he died (RIP GFOS)?
Second, given that you are deciding for yourself what are good and bad
resolutions - every other team in the USA can do likewise...and now every
team will have to prep for every alt resolution and the original
resolution.  This means the tests of all these things will be WORSE not
BETTER which is my turn.  Third, see you have to prove your non-Democracy is
superior to Democracy above.

Next you say "I think its insulting to the people who did good work on the
neg that say there is no effective test to the advocacy."  Effective
misstatement of my argument.  I will try again, my argument is - The work
that they will do will be WORSE because they have to do MORE total work then
they would if everyone just debated the original resolution.  In addition,
while your team agrees to stick to the same affirmative MOST dont.  And if
every team decided to stick with an aff - that would still require LESS
total work on every aff because its all T affs and all non T affs.  Simple
math (which is good since I am terrible at math).

I am skipping the Fairness DA because I have been re-hashing that discussion
with like 20 different people for the last 6 years on edebate.  Just go to
the archives....You think fair I think unfair.  Shocker.

AE: You finally say "Its not like I havent answered these DAs".....well, I
am not sure I have a good answer to why your self-determination is better
than Democracy.  I KNOW you have never explained your "democracy bad"
argument you have just restated it to me and Matt.

Anyway, we disagree....

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070621/7a79b504/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list