[eDebate] Some Questions
Wed Aug 6 08:53:03 CDT 2008
First, very insightful. I am liking a lot of what you have to say. I do have
one question. Is it not sufficient reasoning for ft hays to strike someone
if that judge gave them 27s? That team had a decent amount of success last
year. A 27 is pretty bad. Like it or not, points are inflated. If I saw a
judge who had given my kids a 27 on a strike sheet, They would be the first
to go. You do mention this, I just want some clarification on where you
stand. If in the CX one of the fort debaters says. "She gave us 27s" Is that
necessarily proof of some veiled racism?
You get very passionate when you debate. That is great. But, you seem to
understand, or at least acknowledge, that it makes some of your opponents
uncomfortable. After debates, they may feel like you really don't like them.
They may feel like you don't want to talk to them. If one of your opponents
refuses to run anything but Topicality when they debate you, would you still
want to talk to them? If they approach you in the hallway and offer a kind
hello, will you do the same? Can you two be friends? This may seem really
odd, and I am sorry for that. But you make arguments that address the way
that debaters interact with each other outside of the debate round. Some of
your charges are pretty heavy. So the question is. If Topicality is used to
protect the structural norms that exclude you, and one of your opponents
refuses to read anything but topicality, are you willing to put that fact
aside outside of debates so that that debater and you can get along?
To all of you discussing how and under what conditions we should or should
not create different debate leagues,
Do these new debate leagues exclude debaters who want to talk at 100 mph and
read politics disads? Is it ever ok to read a politics disad at 100 mph?
Yes, politics disads are dumb. But, some people have FUN reading them.
Debate can be powerful. Debate can also be FUN. Is there a place for fun in
these new organizations?
Despite all that has happened, is the current NDTCEDA format really that
bad? Towson won Nationals. Then they did pretty well at the NDT. Fullerton
has had a lot of success of the years. So has Louisville. Even if debaters
debate some way during some debates, and another way in other debates, if a
balance can be struck that allows everyone to participate, why do we have to
split up CEDA and NDT. Yes there are problems. Yes there is a place for
arguments like Towson. But debaters will prepare, arguments will evolve,
debates will happen, and debaters will learn something in the process. Do we
really need to separate people based on what kind of arguments they run?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman