[eDebate] ethical rules of engagement and the K
Thu Apr 17 21:22:18 CDT 2008
Given that my last apology was to bill "buckner" shannahan, if I killed the K he might take my job and make me move to Alaska (I think Louisville is too cold). Now from our talks, he wants theory to be preserved. I guess my proposal begs the question, "what about theory does he want to preserve?"
I believe my proposal transforms the K but doesn't devastate it any more than it devastates other more generic policy arguments. My proposal perserves examples; analogies in particular and that should preserve the k.
The heart beat of the K in my proposal is the preservation/reconsideration of argument forms. The reason for saying "non germane" traditional evidence quotations is to leave examples, analogies, stories, metaphors. The k teams lose only the generic evidence, which for me was the least important part of a good k team. The k was about taking the "theory" and applying it to the praxis. Be the k or the performance. K teams would have two primary options:
1) instead of reading a generic Spanos foreign policy article; go find the Latin America specific evidence which keeps the debate topic centered and hence, more educational; or
2) Go without any evidence and debate your example or your analogy. Without reading Spanos debate how Vietnam is similar to the growing crisis in _____________. Losing the crutch of generic evidence means you have to internalize the argument and execute debating it in another argument form.
So, personally I see no way the K or performance loses out in our compromise. The policy folks have to let go of the crutch of generics which serve to divert the topic discussion by making arguments internals instead of terminal impacts or generic agent solvency arguments instead of debating the topic solvency specifically. Gone will be k debates where cards with big words are tossed around with literally seconds of topic discussion to make the link.
The possibilities are endless: Ft. Hays defending their performance of tying indigenous Americas to the Latin American topic against Wake, who has cut Latin American specific k answers. Persuasion and who better executes their "form" of evidence move to the form without the topic being relegated to the back. Just thoughts...
A final thought on germaneness: While I'd be a proponent of tournament invites and perhaps even the organizations writing in "germaneness" in the by-laws or constitutions, it would be interesting to see how folks choose to define it. For me, I want evidence that is in the context of the topic. If we are debating Russia, I want evidence about Russia, terminal impacts about Russia, disadvantages with terminal impacts about Russia, and counterplans with net benefits about Russia. I want k evidence about Russia, and I want performances that are not tangently connected to Russia, but I want a personal experience that can be debating to directly clash with my understanding of the aff about Russia. You can talk about the Black perspective on the negative, but only with evidence of the Black perspective on Russia, or using it as an analogy or example to compare it to Russia.
More thoughts...enjoying the backchannel dialogue.
Have a great evening,
From: "Brent Culpepper" <brentonculpepper at gmail.com>
To:"Ede Warner" <e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu>
Date: 4/17/2008 05:03 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] ethical rules of engagement - Clash
This would devastate K ground.........
I actually think this is an interesting idea. However, it makes the beginning of the year tough. Few teams have the ability to debate each affirmative on its merits at the beginning of the year. The topic resolution would have to be very narrow which seems a little antithetical to a lot of peoples desires of late.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:
We at Da Ville have spent a lot of time talking about ethical rules of engagement. So far, the conversations have been limited to "our" argument, strategies, and positions, but the topic discussion got me thinking. I know foreign policy topics have traditionally been more popular in CEDA/NDT and that got me thinking about 1) why; and 2) why do I personally dislike debating them. Some of my hesitancy is that we too often use foreign policy as a code for "links to generics": that is true whether for advantages; c/p's; disad's' k's; or even performances. I think this is substantially more true of domestic topics as well: reflecting back on my hatred for the Agent cp/Politics world of the late 90's.
It seems What would happen to the game if judges began to add to their philosophies, "I'm willing to discount any traditional quotation style piece of evidence read in a debate that is not explicitly germane to the topic"?
I'm thinking about the impact on...
1) topic construction; (more focus on having balanced core aff/neg ground)
2) topic interest (people would lose interest in picking topics for links to generics)
3) research choices (more case work)
4) fiat (makes my small brain hurt)
5) theory (less need for traditional conceptions of offensive; defense could once again win championships...lol)
It would have a goal of gutting generic argumentation (I know that the question is, would it?). Style may too be affected, although not necessarily. I was thinking if people were forced to rely on other forms of argument: examples; analogies to demonstrate relationships as opposed to "internal link evidence" how that might help to refocus debates more towards the topic selected, instead of giving so many outs away from it. Just spending a couple of minutes thinking about the standard big school/small school arguments and whether they would be applicable in this instance made my brain hurt even more...Just thinking out loud...Thoughts?
Have a great day,
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman