[eDebate] APORIAS... AND WHY NO ONE SHOULD STRIKE ME AT RICHMOND. Re: Is there no break to the cycle? was my Richmond updated judge philosophy

Asha Cherian asha.cherian
Fri Oct 12 10:48:56 CDT 2007


Martin,

I appreciate your post.

I think it's important that we not justify away a lack of inclusivity,
in debate or otherwise.  My conscious choice to be what you call
'unjust' is a performance.  And a temporary one.  You'd be hard
pressed to make the claim that a limited exercise is less ethical
than an exclusionary ideology.

I started with this approach because within it there's space for (1)
coaches and debaters to begin critiquing, as you do, logical extremes,
to which judges who can only hear traditional-only rounds belong as
much as any other -only, all of whom hurt this activity's educational
merits and (2) debaters (with me in the back of the room) to begin
loosening the divide between policy and performance; to decenter these
questions; to question and challenge what makes a CP, for example, a
nonperformative, non-kritikal position outside of our traditionally
rigid conceptions of K/ CP, etc.  Aside from the fact that I'm
elaborating at length on what it it takes to win in front of me this
weekend, NO ONE SHOULD STRIKE ME AT RICHMOND because (a) I never said
only performance-proper impacts are defensible (just that Ks/
performance had to be in the round & gone for -- but what makes
something a K or performance?  this ought to be debated out in the
round.)  and (b) I never said the most K/ performance -friendly team
in the room wins.  The extreme scenario I refer to in my philosophy
(the teams who are given a coin flip decision & 25s all around) only
refers to those who don't ask these questions in the round to
challenge the construct of stable boundaries between these positions.
Instead of drawing bright line distinctions on what constitutes a
policy argument & what constitutes a nonpolicy argument, widening the
gap between the two poles, for one weekend let's think intelligently
about the points of intersection between the worlds of policy and
nonpolicy.  Any team who is willing to articulate why they're
kritikal/ a performance early on and then again in the 2NR/ 2AR can
win in front of me this weekend.  Save your strikes for the vague
philosophy/ no philosophy members of the pool.





Asha

On 10/12/07, Martin Harris <mharris02 at drury.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************************
>
>
>
> To be fair, I was actually trying to be 'offensive,' not 'defensive.'
> Perhaps I should have explicitly stated my belief that I thought you are
> committing theft and do not deserve to be compensated if you are universally
> struck.
>
>  Asha makes some good points though -- when dealing with a hostile audience,
> it is a rhetorically defensible strategy to simply choose to be a hostile
> audience back, rather than trying to communicate your ideas in a way that
> might be persuasive to them. That is obviously the way good dialog works. In
> real life, if someone doesn't like the way you are stating your point of
> view, under no circumstances should true students of human communication try
> to state their point of view in a different way; it is clearly better to
> simply refuse to listen to them back, to teach them the error of their ways.
>
>
>  >Before I try to defend why this binary is bad, in my rounds at Richmond
> I'm going to role-play why this binary is good.
>
>
>
>  Seriously, a little less self-righteousness please.
>
>  Everyone should keep in mind that although this is a game, we should at
> least pretend that there is some connection to teaching young adults the
> strategies for thinking through life decisions and persuasively conveying
> the reasons behind those decisions to others, whether they are predisposed
> to agree or not.
>
>
>
> L. Paul Strait
>
>
>
>
>
> ************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>     I am confused. So the better strategy is to sarcastically and
> offensively mock someone's frustrations? I am not saying I agree with Asha,
> but I can partially understand where they are coming from. I think you can
> as well since you do seem to draw some conclusions that seem to be on point.
> What I am confused by is why many in the community think it is necessary to
> both identify the cycle of rhetorical violence that we fall into often, and
> then also engage in it. While it is distinctly possible that Asha will get
> the point, and may even out of sense of fairness and justice agree and
> reform, is there not a better way to make our points then being so
> reactionary ourselves? Why is it that NDT/CEDA policy debaters and judges
> frequently have to take argument to a whole other level? Presume
> righteousness in position and then demean and attack the opposition? Where
> is dialogue possible in our discussions, and can't we find ways to disagree
> without hyperbolizing to the nth extremes? Does debate make our
> communicative styles so dysfunctional that we can't ourselves engage in
> anything other than one-up one-down communication?
>
>
>
>    I will concede this may very well be the pot calling the kettle black. I
> realize that I have frequently engaged in the same tactics, but I am trying
> to disengage. It is one of the primary reasons I decided to stop "doing"
> "policy" debate. Is the international debate community doomed to falling
> into these traps and spiralling towards "offensive" communication to make
> our points? Can we not see the ways this communicative style insulates us
> from society, and causes people to want to disengage from the community?
> Both as competitors and as social relationships? Am I the only person that
> has been told "oh, don't argue with him, you can't win, he is a debater?" Am
> I wrong in thinking that part of that reaction from non-debaters stems from
> a retarded ability to engage in "civil" discourse? Where have all the Carrie
> Crenshaws gone?
>
>
>
> Signed,
>
> Sad and dismayed in Springfield.
>
>
>
> To Asha:
>
>
>
>    I understand your frustration, I do. I think some judges try real hard to
> be "fair," but it is hard for them when things lie outside of their
> latitudes of acceptance and fall into their latitudes of rejection area. I
> think you will find some peoples' objections to your philosophy to be this
> doesn't seem to be the case for you. It isn't that you don't understand, and
> can't be MORE open minded, but you have executed free will in choosing to
> shut down in reaction to other's inability to be more engaging. That
> conscious choice seems to be a slightly different reaction then some of the
> pool that might be at the Richmond tournament you are criticizing. I don't
> think a healthy community can be built from reactionary polarization even if
> you can force gaps of difference to narrow.
>
>
>
>    Even if I am wrong about that, it also seems to be a conscious choice on
> your part of injustice as a response to injustice. You are allowing others
> "ethical" (is that too strong a characterization) lapses to justify yours,
> and that is problematic. You even come close to acknowledging so in your
> philosophy when you say please don't take this out against the coalition
> teams, it is my choice, but that is you will be doing to the teams that are
> judged by you. You are holding debaters you adjudicate responsible for the
> "sins" of the other judges in the pool. It isn't the debaters fault that
> judges are intolerant, and breeding more intolerance not only doesn't seem
> to be able to fix the problems, but takes it out on the "innocents", the
> debaters. I do hope this is just a rhetorical exercise. A theoretical
> judging philosophy to provide a stasis point for dialog and not an actual
> practice that you will engage in at Richmond, but that is up to you to
> determine. I wish you luck in your project goals even if I disagree with the
> means you have chosen to achieve them.
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

On 10/12/07, Martin Harris <mharris02 at drury.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************************
>
>
>
> To be fair, I was actually trying to be 'offensive,' not 'defensive.'
> Perhaps I should have explicitly stated my belief that I thought you are
> committing theft and do not deserve to be compensated if you are universally
> struck.
>
>  Asha makes some good points though -- when dealing with a hostile audience,
> it is a rhetorically defensible strategy to simply choose to be a hostile
> audience back, rather than trying to communicate your ideas in a way that
> might be persuasive to them. That is obviously the way good dialog works. In
> real life, if someone doesn't like the way you are stating your point of
> view, under no circumstances should true students of human communication try
> to state their point of view in a different way; it is clearly better to
> simply refuse to listen to them back, to teach them the error of their ways.
>
>
>  >Before I try to defend why this binary is bad, in my rounds at Richmond
> I'm going to role-play why this binary is good.
>
>
>
>  Seriously, a little less self-righteousness please.
>
>  Everyone should keep in mind that although this is a game, we should at
> least pretend that there is some connection to teaching young adults the
> strategies for thinking through life decisions and persuasively conveying
> the reasons behind those decisions to others, whether they are predisposed
> to agree or not.
>
>
>
> L. Paul Strait
>
>
>
>
>
> ************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>     I am confused. So the better strategy is to sarcastically and
> offensively mock someone's frustrations? I am not saying I agree with Asha,
> but I can partially understand where they are coming from. I think you can
> as well since you do seem to draw some conclusions that seem to be on point.
> What I am confused by is why many in the community think it is necessary to
> both identify the cycle of rhetorical violence that we fall into often, and
> then also engage in it. While it is distinctly possible that Asha will get
> the point, and may even out of sense of fairness and justice agree and
> reform, is there not a better way to make our points then being so
> reactionary ourselves? Why is it that NDT/CEDA policy debaters and judges
> frequently have to take argument to a whole other level? Presume
> righteousness in position and then demean and attack the opposition? Where
> is dialogue possible in our discussions, and can't we find ways to disagree
> without hyperbolizing to the nth extremes? Does debate make our
> communicative styles so dysfunctional that we can't ourselves engage in
> anything other than one-up one-down communication?
>
>
>
>    I will concede this may very well be the pot calling the kettle black. I
> realize that I have frequently engaged in the same tactics, but I am trying
> to disengage. It is one of the primary reasons I decided to stop "doing"
> "policy" debate. Is the international debate community doomed to falling
> into these traps and spiralling towards "offensive" communication to make
> our points? Can we not see the ways this communicative style insulates us
> from society, and causes people to want to disengage from the community?
> Both as competitors and as social relationships? Am I the only person that
> has been told "oh, don't argue with him, you can't win, he is a debater?" Am
> I wrong in thinking that part of that reaction from non-debaters stems from
> a retarded ability to engage in "civil" discourse? Where have all the Carrie
> Crenshaws gone?
>
>
>
> Signed,
>
> Sad and dismayed in Springfield.
>
>
>
> To Asha:
>
>
>
>    I understand your frustration, I do. I think some judges try real hard to
> be "fair," but it is hard for them when things lie outside of their
> latitudes of acceptance and fall into their latitudes of rejection area. I
> think you will find some peoples' objections to your philosophy to be this
> doesn't seem to be the case for you. It isn't that you don't understand, and
> can't be MORE open minded, but you have executed free will in choosing to
> shut down in reaction to other's inability to be more engaging. That
> conscious choice seems to be a slightly different reaction then some of the
> pool that might be at the Richmond tournament you are criticizing. I don't
> think a healthy community can be built from reactionary polarization even if
> you can force gaps of difference to narrow.
>
>
>
>    Even if I am wrong about that, it also seems to be a conscious choice on
> your part of injustice as a response to injustice. You are allowing others
> "ethical" (is that too strong a characterization) lapses to justify yours,
> and that is problematic. You even come close to acknowledging so in your
> philosophy when you say please don't take this out against the coalition
> teams, it is my choice, but that is you will be doing to the teams that are
> judged by you. You are holding debaters you adjudicate responsible for the
> "sins" of the other judges in the pool. It isn't the debaters fault that
> judges are intolerant, and breeding more intolerance not only doesn't seem
> to be able to fix the problems, but takes it out on the "innocents", the
> debaters. I do hope this is just a rhetorical exercise. A theoretical
> judging philosophy to provide a stasis point for dialog and not an actual
> practice that you will engage in at Richmond, but that is up to you to
> determine. I wish you luck in your project goals even if I disagree with the
> means you have chosen to achieve them.
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>


-- 
Asha



More information about the Mailman mailing list