[eDebate] Dear Policy Debate R Us...

Massey, Jackie B. debate
Sun Apr 12 21:50:40 CDT 2009

So here are a few answers.

Excuse the types please, you should expect 1 in every 10 words from me.

The subject line was only trying to be funny.  :)

A - Ermo's Plea for more fairness for policy debaters

?My alternative is for judges to think about whether they are imposing
similar link-evidence standards for specific K answers as they are imposing
for K links. Hopefully, even those who disagree with me on grounds of the
'extent of the problem', responsibility (judge/debater/coach), etc. would
agree that would be a constructive step.?  Ermo to Farmer ----

I am not sure we can agree on the problem.  Are you saying ?K? debaters  ( I do not like the false dichotomy I am giving attention to) are getting too much leeway?

How many ?K? teams were in outrounds at the NDT?  Better yet, how many ?K? teams were in Octos  -- 2 of 16?  yeah, we need to weed those other 2 out......

I think the problem is the other way, on how bad permutation arguments like ?perm do the alt? and/or the neat 1ar trick of ?and that justifies perm do the alt? --- but they don?t say ?perm do the alt? but that becomes ?perm do the alt? and the judges say, ?oh you dropped the 1ar, that justifies perm do the alt?

Really, ?K? teams are getting the leeway, and its not fair to policy teams?

B - Wars Down

Really?   (I know I said it again)  Here is the argument that many of you are not getting!
Test ? Is what is happening in Afghanistan considered a war?  or how about Darfur?  Is that war? 
Test ? Is the ongoing genocide against indigenous peoples around the world a war?
Test ? Did you read ?The Gulf War did not happen!?

Check your list, theres only 43!

Even Louie misses the boat. If you have a narrow definition of what constitutes war, IE Only among us GROWN FOLK NATION STATES, then of course you think war is down.  There is a war against 43 nations going on under your feet, literally?..  Yes this is a matter of which historical lens you look through, and from whos standpoint!

BTW ? On your beef with Ward, do you disagree where Churchill said a genocide is occurring or was it that the USFG dumped uranium on Indian land without telling them? Or maybe it?s the part about the literal silence on the left in their desire to have more important things to discuss?
Or you really agree with the committee that said there were no smallpox given to Indians?  Worse case, he published an article in a book under his wife?s name that he wrote?? You got more?

For Keenan.  Look, you say we  (humanity) have benefited over they years. 
I say that my people have not.  We have been at the bootstraps of the many mass murders, killing of innocent women and children and cultural death.  There are many examples of how ?progress? and all those things you say we benefit from have come at the expense of cultures, the environment, animal torture and cruelty, and mass genocides.  I don?t think it was worth it.  I guess we will have to disagree.

"Capitalism and positivism have brought the automobile, antibiotics,
vaccines, modern surgery, the computer, the telephone, air conditioning,
compact disks, cheap clothing and a food system where we have to worry about
getting fat rather than starving. The system is working unbelievably well if
one just gets a little perspective and a little bit of data."
You forgot to add multiple genocides......  I really hope you were kidding... but i dont think you were! 

C - K Alts
I will say that ?alternatives? that do no more than reject the aff, or say no to the affirmative are what I think the most legitimate. I actually believe that the ?all other instances? perm would make sense if someone was trying to fiat a mindset shift  (1990?s ?K? theory).  

A good argument involves a solvency takeout, a case-turn and a disadvantage.  (yes, if you want a false dichotomy.  A good ?K? would do this too)     

Think about where this notion of the alternative came from.  In the late 90?s, early 2000, the policy phenoms started using the term ?perm? to address these arguments that were not process based.  The slow K world got smart, and sat on the perm for the whole 1nr.  Then the policy neocons  (joke, you don?t have to be a necocn to like policy debate I know ? it?s an acquired taste) started saying   ?you got no alternative?, so the slow, but gamey K  (false dichotomy) debaters took advantage of this offer, and started embracing difference, making everyone love each other, and changing everyone?s mind, you know, if everyone thought like this??..
Now we have come to a new theory argument, perm in all other instances, which still only gets you by the link debate if it confuses the neg and they drop it.   Otherwise, if the aff links, then the perm is not net-beneficial, it?s a still a question of is the affirmative advantages, if they access any, better than their links.  But once again, a good argument indicts your ability to access the advantage.  This is where we have debates.  Either the ?k? team can state out where they disagree, and why that is important, and the policy teams refuse to engage in ?why this is important?, than someone is getting outdebated.
The 2nc makes a spot on the flow that say this indicts aff, solvency, 1ar drops, then you were outdebated.  Just like the permutation stuff above, even I have voted for ?that justifies perm do the alt? slimed out in the 1ar and dropped by the 2nr.  I hate it, but that is debate.  

D ? The Authors issue
I think that you should have an argument, and pull from authors who say the things that make your argument good.  Assuming to hinge your whole argument on a particular author would lock you down to their constricted articulations of the world.  And maybe this is where misunderstandings occur.  The Nietzsche Security uses Nietzsche for the value to life debate, but that is also how other authors who write about securitization choose to articulate.  Its kinda crazy, but almost any prominent critical author makes a Nietzsche reference somewhere in their writings.  So its not necessarily ?Nietzsche?, but a securitization argument.  To think that Nietzsche eats babies is an answer misses the many other authors who are talking securitization.  (IE Der Derian)

I am not sure who I am disagreeing with  (apparently Policy Debate R?US), but I understand many people have many perspectives, so I tried to cover a broad swath.



More information about the Mailman mailing list