[eDebate] the status quo = anarchy (reply josh)
Fri Jun 22 17:10:08 CDT 2007
dic?ta?to?ri?al (dkt-t?r-l, -tr-), adj. 1. Tending to dictate; domineering.
the framers dictate the topic, that's all. i admit i let my hair down in
subject-titles and i was trying to counter this notion of 'topic anarchy',
but nothing in my post "invoked the language of oppression, fascism, and
totalitariansim". i am not calling you immoral, and i'm sorry if that's what
it seems like.
"I have asked you pointedly to defend the quality of this alternate system
beyond the statement that 'there is always ground'."
we need to separate two strands here: first, my alternative is (a) T as
Ethics Challenge, and (b) Creative Commons; second, there are reasons i
don't find standard topicality violations particularly persausive arguments.
the second strand does NOT form an 'alternate system', so don't lump me in
with anarchists, and please try to defend your system on its own terms
without weighing it against utter chaos, since (in this second strand) i'm
simply giving reasons that topicality isn't all you crack up over it being.
if you want to compare the status quo to something compare it to a system of
online disclosure... and sure, send me your response to andy -- i missed it.
"Most people who argue for a judge to vote negative on T are asking for the
judge to determine the round on T."
but they'll often keep numerous other balls in the air to see which ones the
other team drops, i.e. it's not round-determinative in the exclusive sense i
mean it. obviously, it's an independent voter.
"If I remember correctly, your innovation was to suggest that the judge
should vote aff if the aff is found T. My answer to this is the same as I
have made to many of these other suggestions - it makes the procedural
handmaiden to education....If you think a case is not-T and it turns out to
be T you shouldnt forgo all other benefits of the discussion simply to deter
people from running T unless they are really sure they will win."
if the affirmative case 'turns out to be topical', then the negative team
has falsely accused the other team of breaking one of the rules you consider
central to the activity, and for that they deserve to lose. of course,
'turns out to be topical' is a funny way to put it, because most times the
negative isn't really accepting the affirmative's answers, but deciding to
pursue more lucrative options on the flow, and they know they can kick
topicality without consequence. so all a judge who adopts this preference is
saying is the negative team has to decide before the round, after the
affirmative case, or after the second affirmative constructive whether the
affirmative case is topical, and if they lose that position, they give up
the round, because they're arguing that the benefits of the discussion
cannot take place as normal, and they've decided to interrupt normal
discussion to prove that. plus, when topicality is taken more seriously, it
does all the things you defend it for doing, only better -- and that'd
eliminate timesuck violations that're such a drain on educational discussion
in the squo.
"And, more important, many times a team is not T and the judge either doesnt
have a rigorous standard for T or decides Not T affs [sic?] are good....Are
you really saying the reverse voter is a good idea in these instances....and
i don't understand what you're saying here. first, i'm not talking about a
reverse voter; i'm saying that topicality is round-determinative, as would
be all procedural abuse arguments. if a judge decides that non-topical
affirmatives are good or that the topicality violation wasn't satisfactorily
proven, then s/he obviously would probably vote affirmative anyway, right?
"Finally, this has never been a discussion about semi-T cases...Its been a
discussion about non-T cases."
i thought you were either topical or you're not?
on (cc), "If the majority of the community agrees this is the way to set
topics...OK with me."
you're a member of the community with an opinion that affects the sentiments
of others -- what do you think?
"Now, my question, again, is for you to prove that the system of doing this
through non-democratic means creates a better world of debate then having to
avail yourself of the democratic process in order to get to this change in
how topics are decided to become the rule."
non-democratic means??? who is for that? since when is winning debates that
persaude more and more teams and squads to put their first constructives and
their files online undemocratic? i thought you just said convincing people
and building consensus is the most democratic way to go?
Need a break? Find your escape route with Live Search Maps.
More information about the Mailman