[eDebate] the status quo = anarchy (reply josh)

Kevin Sanchez let_the_american_empire_burn
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 
if so...WHY?"

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?

so confused.

Need a break? Find your escape route with Live Search Maps. 

More information about the Mailman mailing list