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

Josh jbhdb8
Fri Jun 22 17:30:14 CDT 2007


Hello,

Your confusions seem a bit self created.

If you are saying, you are making an argument for an alternative topic
process and are planning to take it to the people.  Go for it, more power to
you.

You were originally appearing to say that you didnt believe in
democracy...And you really did seem to explicitly argue in several places
that we should err on the side of those growing and teeming masses yearning
to breathe non-T.  If you are now committed to getting out the vote, good
for you.  We may not agree, but I enthusiastically believe in the process
and in the fallibility of my own beliefs.

KS: 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.

JBH: The post before clearly did.  No biggie, doesnt matter wasnt attempting
to mislabel you...honest disagreement.

KS: "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.

JBH: I wasnt comparing it to chaos...I realized you had alternatives and
answered them specifically.  I will have to admit I have no idea what you
mean here.

KS: 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.

JBH: I sent it to you and to the list again an hour or so again.

KS: "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.

JBH: I think you confuse two things...1) They test the aff on multiple
levels..one of them being Topicality...Proving you are topical doesnt make
your case a good idea BUT proving your case is not-topical proves that the
negative shouldnt be prepared to debate it.  These are different things.  2)
Even in the case where the T is JIVE T...That just means its easier to
answer/discard and move on.  The impact isnt to the affirmative, its a prior
question (can a good debate exist with this affirmative).

KS: 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.

JBH: If the team chooses to literally be Non-T - anarchists - I think that
is an argument for why the debate cannot be a good debate or a fair debate
for the negative.  Dont put impact words in my mouth.  In addition, the rest
of your argument is literally the RVI argument. I really dont need to get
into a long debate over whether T should or should not be an RVI.


KS: 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.

JBH: Dont know if you missed bad high school debate 101...But that is the
RVI arg too :).  I am teasing (in case you think I am trying to be openly
insulting).

KS:  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?

JBH: No, because being T doesnt prove the case is a good idea.

KS: "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?

JBH: Nope there are different interpretations of what the words in the topic
mean...and then there is debating an entirely different topic or case with
no meaningful relationship to the topic at all.  Either way, you can
certainly distinguish between these.

KS: you're a member of the community with an opinion that affects the
sentiments of others -- what do you think?

JBH: Not so hot on your compromise for the reasons already articulated
(Ellis email, this email, last email).  But fully realize I could be wrong
and that you should avail yourself of the democratic process.

KS: 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?

JBH: Agreed, glad to hear you are down with that.....Seemed like you were
saying more than that.  I agree, go for it!

Josh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070622/8a45a0dd/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list