[eDebate] dictatorial pedagogy = anarchy (reply josh and jeffrey)

Josh jbhdb8
Fri Jun 22 08:57:40 CDT 2007


Hello,

KS: democracy implies respect for individual rights; in fact, the most
democratic moments in the history of a given group are often those moments
when a minority demands certain powers that a majority was, up to that
point, unwilling to grant them (in this instance, the right to speak about
what they consider important in a formal round-setting). democracy further
implies that every participant has a vote... and this is facially not the
case in academic debate. we might accept necessary curtailments on
individual rights/direct representation in a country with 300 million
screaming drunks; in a forum with many millions less drunks, being less
prone to anarchy, this becomes a less tenable restriction.

JBH: I already aknowledged the minority rights and tyrranny of the majority
arguments.

Your - one person one vote - argument is actually closer in debate than the
nation is (electoral college).  For instance, everyone on my team gets a
vote on how we use our vote etc.  A person who wants their own topic is NOT
a minority fighting for their rights per se.  Poor analogy at best.

You must not go to many tournaments these days (screaming drunks analogy).

I will still hazard that any person in the community, yes - even you, has
more direct options to input into the actual topic MORE than in any other
democratic process I have ever seen before.


KS: as for fairness, the (implied) predictability sub-standard is met
directly; you assume that 'the topic' is a finite number of cases, but the
team in question subtracts a specific (topical) affirmative case you'd
otherwise have to research and merely replaces it with another (non-topical
one)...meaning there's no net gain in your research burden, and no 'unfair
work' as you're defining it.

JBH: Nice try buddy.....Not true...Bad Math....Bad Juju...Wrongo....

Team X could still run ANY case on the actual topic and Team Y could still
run ANY case on the actual topic and any ALTERNATIVE topic.  Your argument
assumes every team only has one affirmative option and also that every team
has one case in perpetuity.  This is clearly not true in theory or in
practice.

KS: you'd need to show that there is some reason debaters
shouldn't have to research cases that're not topical regardless of whether
they'd have to do more or less research; you've yet to provide a good
rationale (although some of the backchannels i've recieved would certainly
help you out).

JBH: This is my rigorous test set of arguments.  I know there are way too
many emails in this chain...But I have done this already.

Josh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070622/5dd20ac4/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list