[eDebate] Hardy

Scott Phillips scottyp431
Thu Oct 4 11:16:42 CDT 2007


A few brief points, I can't believe I'm even responding to this. My only
defense is that it is better than underlining Orientalism answers.

1. "Punishing" a team you think runs a dumb argument is pretty dumb. Obvi.
argument preference is subjective. To clarify: I went for ASPEC and consult
all the time, i knew then as i know now these arguments are dumb. Dumb dumb
dumb dumb dumb. However, when a dumb argument is used to bludgeon someone
into submission, it is the person getting beaten and not the user of the
flawed argument who is really dumb. The better policy would be to
excessively reward affirmatives who give good speeches containing well
thought out and explained explanations of why the other teams argument is
dumb. If the neg reads ASPEC and kills someon on it, the team that got
killed on it should be docked points, not the team that won. That this has
to be explained is mind boggling.

2. Debaters determine argument quality not vice versa. Yes consult japan can
be generic and stupid. So can counterplans that do 30 combined actions
including unevidenced actions that specifically fiat out of the literature
based affirmative responses to said CP. Consultation can also be tight-
debating kansas BJ at KY on  sunday they read a Koizumi DA to consult Japan
that was like 2 weeks old, and specific to his domestic agenda. Awesome.
Cyrus had updates on said DA from saturday, more awesome. That some people
chose to use consult as a crutch is no more an indictment of consult than it
is an indict of a fork were i to stab you with it. The reason consult is so
recycle friendly is that aff answers don't change from year to year, so the
same neg blocks can be read from year to year. If the aff had a topic
specific response, like oh, i dont know, a DA that said if we gave Egypt a
veto over our ME policy that Israel might have something to say about it,
the neg would be toast if all they had was old blocks.

3. Any CP that includes the whole plan is obvi. cheating.  Teams should go
for theory. That it is "scary" is a reason the Aff should grow a spine, not
that the neg should be docked. Obviously ASPEC is an attempt to remove
considerations other than tech skills (intelligence, evidence
cutting/quality) from the debate equation. That just means the aff should
make an arguemnt why that is bad.

4. "1 piece of paper". This is nonsense. It is a CP with a net benefit, i
guess they are usually flowed on 1 piece of paper, why this matters is
beyond me. A case specific PIC and DA could also be flowed on 1 piece of
paper. No one is fast enough (and when people where judges hated it) to go
for 2 DA's a CP and lots of case arguments. I can't even type any more about
this because it is too mind bogglingly stupid.

5. Sometimes consult in fact does make sense. Like take the China topic. Is
it beyond concievabillity that before we do a 180 on the whole contain vs
engage thing that we would seek input from the security alliance we created
to deal with China? Is it really that absurd to think the US would talk over
with Israel before we decided to engage Iran? If your answers was "yes it
is", then you are insane.

6. "Experiments". Not to pick on Hardy, but this is like the 10th time I've
heard of a judge talking about some kind of experiment with their judge
philosophy. Here is an experiment for you: why don't you try being as
rational and open minded as you can, experiment with trying to limit your
intervention into debates so they can be decided by the debaters, and
experiment with not trying to push your dispositions on others. Everytime I
hear someone go on a rant like this I think of the first time I coached at
NFL nationals and a judge told my team (who was neg) "I dont like Kritks,
cant stand counterplans, think disads are exagerrated garbage,and don't vote
on T".That is the path you are walking down.  Maybe when you debated you
liked judges with rigid ideological beliefs that would protect you from all
the scary consulting boogeymen, I guess its a free country. Or at least it
is until you consult hating commies takeover.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071004/0f4bf0be/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list