[eDebate] dictatorial pedagogy = anarchy (reply josh)

Jim Hanson hansonjb
Fri Jun 22 12:17:54 CDT 2007

how democratic is it for the negative to be dictatorially forced into 
responding to the affirmative case? the affirmative becomes the new king 
through the coercive and distorted requirement of refutation.

korcok's plan-plan is quite compelling to me in such instances. let everyone 
speak their mind!

and while we're at that--I don't see why the 2ac and 2nc should feel 
confined to what their partner or opponent said. screw that totalitarian 
control over their voices. speak your mind! don't let your partner dictate 
your discourse.

and stop the western hyper emphasis on consistency and debate fascism of no 
new args in rebuttals--1nr, 1ar, 2nr, and 2ar get to say what they 
want--even if in their earlier speech they said something different.

long live free speech and productive discussion.

jim :)
hansonjb at whitman.edu

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Sanchez" <let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com>
To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] dictatorial pedagogy = anarchy (reply josh)

-- josh -- http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2007-June/071393.html :
"Your - one person one vote - argument is actually closer in debate than the
nation is (electoral college)."

i'm not of the opinion that americans live in a democracy, but at least we
agree the democratic bar should be higher for collective whose needs are
mostly administrative (e.g. you're not having to jail anybody, or wage war
against invading hordes).

"For instance, everyone on my team gets a vote on how we use our vote etc."

that's nice of you, but it is still the benevolence of a potentially
dictatorial pedagogue; if a king asks all his subjects how they'd vote on
some policy before enacting it, he remains a king, because he's under no
political obligation to follow the majority's wishes.

"A person who wants their own topic is NOT a minority fighting for their
rights per se."

true, but we're not just arguing about whether the debate community adopts a
specific resolution as opposed to another one: when do participants ever get
to vote on the process by which topics are decided? not only when are they
given a choice between a topic and no topic at all (guess, i'll let others
exhaust themselves on that tired refrain), but more importantly as i see it,
when are they able to decide the legitimacy of other means of meeting their
responsibilities (such as fully disclosing your case to all potential
opponents)?... because that's the minority i find myself in. it's not
anarchy -- it's the search for more workable alternatives.

"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."

even if concede this, it's non-responsive to the above argument, as any
influence an individual has is effectively mediated through either a preset
list of options (when they decide the resolution) or the predetermined
outlook of a/the framer(s) (when they write topic papers or sit on the
to be quite concrete, take scott's sarcastic comment
(http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2007-June/071391.html) :

"I love the examples given: Resolved: Genocide in __________ should be
stopped. Great grounds for a debate. That makes for great debates."

the subtextual logic here is: it's never good for the debate community to
agree to discuss on-going genocides. i'd imagine that most everyone on the
topic committee would probably agree with that, since they see their role as
fairly divying up possible ground between affirmative and negative sides.
yet the end result is that debaters are going to largely ignore profound
contemporary events that real policymakers have to confront, not to mention
that the debate community cedes its potential role in contributing to the
national dialogue and raising awareness about timely, urgent problems.

(in the post-script i included a brief argument for why 'ground' is a poor
way to look at argument, but i consider the above paragraph more important
and didn't want to dilute it.)

as for fairness... "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."

yes, but for this example we're assuming it is -- team Y is committing to
run this case and this case only for the entire year and is surrendering
their option on all cases included in the actual topic. the whole point of
the question is, is there a reason intrinsic to topicality that a judge
should vote on it? -- and the disclosive letter effectively brackets
non-starters like 'they get all the resolution plus their case', since all
they're getting is their case... and of course, if they violated the terms
of their quite public letter, you'd have a much better theory abuse argument
to run against them than topicality.

p.s. "'ground' ... relies on not questioning the assumption that every
problem in the literature is itself an isolatible (and
should-be-predictable) point of view, that every line of thinking is
actually a static position. think about how dumb the idea of a 'fair
division of ground' really is - how does one weigh an 'arg' in advance? do
you get 50 arguments and i get 50 arguments too? does it not matter if yours
are more persausive? but how can you even qualify/quantify that without
separating out every argument from every other and stopping it from moving?
that's like taking a photograph and mistaking it for reality. and what it
really does is what deleuze refers to as reducing 'the unequal into the
divisible' (p225), *dividing* ground. the unequal nature of real arguemnts
may be unfair, but it's always already that anyway, despite what the t-hacks
say, and the presumption of fair division itself is unfair because it's
false; even if it worked (which it doesn't), it only makes everyone equal,
and cancels creative differences." :

Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the i'm Initiative now.
It's free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_June07

eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

More information about the Mailman mailing list