[eDebate] Context and Appropriateness
Fri Mar 21 18:35:48 CDT 2008
Bored during prep time, so I thought Id drop my two cents on Ede's post:
read this carefully. The pie has nothing to do with policy vs. K, or narrow
vs. broad conceptions of debate. This argument, Im certain, was not T: You
dont have a pie on your face. I've refused this temptation by my
"policy-oriented" friends, and I refuse it when my buddies on the
left-leaning end of debate suggest it also: there is no upcoming
re-splitting of debate. That's silly scare-mongering. You could have said
the same thing about CEDA teams that started reading plans vs. those that
didnt, NDT teams that were running CPs vs. old school hypo-testings, or any
other major shift in the orientation of debate. Plenty of people still dont
run K's and win, plenty of people do and win, and there's some people who do
neither and win also. We do have a big tent. This suggestion that either we
do things my way, solve x, y, z problems, or debate will murder itself is
intellectual hostage-holding. Resist it. It's false.
I don't think pie throwing is smart. I think it's dumb. Im sorry it's
insensitive. I'd probably be willing to vote on "this is insensitive; that's
bad" if coupled with some warranted arg about why it's dumb, but Im with
Malgor that legislating debate arguments is bad. This is the authorization
for the split youre afraid of. It's exactly what youre opposed to. And
that's mostly what Malgor was saying. And, I think what Skip was saying is
also really important: kids need to learn how to beat these "arguments" (in
the loosest sense) with their words, not with legislation. It shouldn't be
hard; throwing pies is a facilely stupid tactic of resistance. No evidence
ought to be required.
Pies arent funny. They're dumb. Therefore easy to beat. Kids thinking good.
And, most importantly, debate is not dying.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman