[eDebate] I Vdare the Community to truly stand up
Sat Aug 2 08:46:28 CDT 2008
its all arguments outweighing other arguments. there are biased judges on both sides, but at the end of the day there is a core of judges always willing to decide what one team said had a bigger impact than what the other team said- "racism has a bigger impact than teams not defending the topic" is almost always the decision calclulus, and by and large when a team properly defends the educational benefits of forcing a defense of the topic (and especially impacts them not just INTERNALLY within the terms of debate, but also EXTERNALLY in a way that accesses the radical teams impact).
Debaters take for granted that debate itself is good, without A) outlining why that is and B) generating a link to the critical practices of project teams (ie if debate is about that then it neutralizes the ability to switch sides).
Less tautology is good. Debate is not just good for its own sake. Debaters should explain to judges why debate is good and why the other team is advancing a model of debate that either would end debate as such, or evacuate it of its critical pedagogical potential. This would by and large eviscerate so called "project teams".
But people will read the same old framework blocks, impacting everything in fairness and education, doing little to explain what exactly those words mean.
What Towson or Louisville does isn't really all that radical. Its to win a link to a racism DA, and then winning that the racism DA outweighs everything else. Does everyone understand how absolutely un-radical the idea that the scourge of racism is more important than making sure you know what plans someone can write? This is literally what happens in a ton of these debates. "You are complicit with racism". "Yes but, if we're concerned about that, we won't talk about the topic". I'm willing to bet on a lot of judges continuing to vote on that noise, because well, its just not that crazy. Its not that these teams are necessarily RIGHT, but debaters allow the debate to be about that. Links, people. A debate coach of some repute often said "Its ALL. ABOUT. THE LINK."
Whispers in hallways. Silent cheers. Shaudenfruede. As Mark Jackson would say "You're better than that, debate community. You're better than that."
--- On Fri, 8/1/08, M G <malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com> wrote:
> From: M G <malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [eDebate] I Vdare the Community to truly stand up
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Date: Friday, August 1, 2008, 1:00 PM
> "(b) the judges who voted for Towson cheated, and (c)
> Towson's title is
> a sign of the white guilt and intellectual decline of the
> system. Those three arguments are the core of his
> I have heard these arguments made numerous times by people
> in the community. Just because it happens through back
> channel, or snickering in the hallways, or rooting for a
> team to lose because they run an argument that is
> non-traditional and flies in the face of policy debate,
> doesn't mean it's not happening.
> I get shit all the time for voting for Towson all 3 times I
> judged them. It's funny too because I vote against K
> teams way more often than I vote for them (Garrett Abelkop
> wins on framework in front of me like it's his
> job....well i guess it is his job)
> Keep in mind:
> Judge preferencing is a way to express these sentiments-I
> guarantee you that many judges in this community are labeled
> "repeat offenders" when they vote for K or,
> especially, for non traditional teams. Preference and good
> judge have become equivalents-at least in name-we think the
> best judges are the ones who are most preferred. Indeed
> oftentimes this is true. But striking a judge or moving
> them down because they vote for some crazy leftist argument
> is in the eyes of many another way of saying that judge is
> wrong, or a bad judge, because they don't cast aside an
> argument on face.
> In this sense, openness of judging (and by openness I mean
> the willingness of a judge to evaluate any argument) can
> sometimes cause them to be viewed as poor-quality judges,
> because they don't have an ideological straight jacket
> (Hester has often refered to this as argument-generative
> versus argument-restrictive judging).
> Also don't forget that large parts of this community DO
> think that non-traditional affirmatives are cheating, their
> rationale being that debate has a constrained, objective way
> it should be evaluated and deviations should be excluded.
> So, in the eyes of lots of debaters, the judges who voted
> for Towson were cheating, because they were voting for
> We should question a point when large and influential
> segments of our activity devalue open-mindedness and
> acceptance of argument, and prefer to place bias in the back
> of the room. It's quite stupid since their original
> complaint is that teams that run 'project' or
> non-traditional affirmatives are too biased toward their
> In keeping with that thought though, this is not just a
> problem the 'right' has toward the 'left.'
> Leftist teams are just as bad in many regards-a judge that
> votes against them in favor of an argument like framework or
> leftist Ks bad is disregarded as too policy friendly.
> Sometimes in debate radical leftism is proven a better
> option, sometimes it's proven to be detrimental to the
> activity. Too many people just swarm to one side or the
> other. My favorite teams were always those that could roll
> anyway they chose.
> Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows
> Live Messenger.
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
More information about the Mailman