[eDebate] seeing the forrest

New Strega donnieoutofhiselement
Fri Apr 24 13:36:50 CDT 2009

Alright dumbass lets think about this:

"for instance incoming
freshman, people without programs, ex-pats in the 'real' world? what
is a registration code? Do i need to pay ceda dues to add to the topic
discussion? I just think the point would be to have a forum that
serves a purpose of open access."

Incoming freshmen are coming into a team that pays dues and should probably
talk to the people(like their new coach) that are helping to make this
decision. People without programs are like people without citizenship trying
to vote in a presidential election. YES if you don't pay dues then you don't
get a vote--- this isn't your stupid hippy  camp in the woods where we all
sit around and sing Kumbaya(there is another post about this ready if you
would like to "bite") this is a game whose PARTICIPANTS determine the rules,
the methods, and the TOPIC. If you aren't a participant or affiliate then
you don't get a vote. Why don't you take some of that 6 grand you will  net
from running your stupid camp and pay the dues(they are not that expensive)
then you can stop whining and join the grownup's conversation.

"Serves the purpose of open access" WTF does that mean?  The purpose is not
open access the purpose is closed access,  this is not an open, inclusive
community, the definition of community is the opposite of that. The Jewish
community is closed to non-Jews, the Gay community somewhat closed to
non-Gays, the Black community is closed to non-Blacks, the debate community
is closed to non-debaters. When are you stupid hippies gonna figure out that
this is what is GOOD about communities---they have limits, and borders, and
customs all their own that foster strength and belonging. Melting pot style
everyone is an american style  inclusion destroys difference;  it seeks to
hold hands and be friends with anyone everyone and anyone that wants
something of their OWN is evil--- that's a dangerous logic that will
definately turn all of your shit if you have the courage to engage this

"Well, that we will obsess about grammar,
definitional terms, and policy-esque style 'neg ground'. . . instead
of choosing a topic that fits the
you just dont get it---

a. If the topic wasn't "fascist" or "USFG centric" that would lead to less
success by the teams who have made their money critiquing it.  What would
teams whose debate career do if they all of the sudden had no reason to
critique the res? For example-- say the topic was "white supremacy is bad
and we should  make a plan to stop it" do you really think that would lead
to a world where Towson won all of their debates? Plan focused debaters are
gonna be better at running plans than teams who don't run them. The question
you are trying to raise is about the value of plan focused debate not about
if the resolution having us do something "ethical" is a good idea.  All that
a touchy feely happy little topic does is usurp the teams that would
ordinarily criticize it, and make it easy as fuck to perm.  K debaters have
built their empire of nonsense on the ability to K the topic, taking away
that ability means that there is no such thing as K debate(or K affs
anyway). An empirical example of this is the negative government action of
this year, this was most  likely an attempt to accomidate people who think
the K is good but actually ended up  usurping  the K by making it so the aff
doesn't have to compete with any K--this is probably why Heidigger's
problem/solution/managerialism  links were so popular because the topic
didn't necessitate taking a positive(USFG endorsing) action. This was
actually good for debate cuz the generic "you use to the state" links were
obviated as terrible and K teams were challenged to get specific links to
plan or the aff instead of relying on them doing the thing that the res
would have them do.

b. I can only assume that you aren't paying attention--- "changes in our
community practices and evolution in argument and theory." are non-unique to
your plan and inevitable in the status quo.  We could get into a little
history lesson here but debate evolves really really fast and will keep
evolving regardless of what the topic is,  new theory is happening all the
time: the counter perm, the aff that link turns every conceivable K,  even
the perm becoming irrelevant in K debates are all theoretical evolutions
that are taking place in the squo--- these things grow out of discord,
antagonism, and disagreement that your call for a bullshit topic would
absolutely destroy--- let me spell it out for you---this is a solvency  turn
to you advocacy.

c."isnt everything debatable" Yes it is... what are you complaining about?
A more"traditional" topic is best for everyone. It allows K teams to have
something to whine about and traditional teams something to play with. The
more the "big evil topic committee" structures the topic around what they
and 70% of the teams would like.   The  more ground the K teams have. It is
easier to say the USFG is evil and we shouldnt have to defend it when the
res has them doing something abhorent then when the res has ir doing
something that is kinda good. If your argument is that we shouldnt have the
USFG in the topic please go back and re-read Kuswa getting crushed in this
debate less than a month ago, ande that still links to all the usurping the
K arguments i make above.

d. You are doing the very thing that you would Krtiq--- if the
traditional/critical divide is a false one(which you and your ilk seem to
want to say that it is) then by constantly positioning yourselves outside of
what fits the definition of "traditional" is you are re-creating the
binaries that you critique. Evidence you say? sure. You are running a
pothead camp oops i mean debate camp at your families property this summer
for "alternative" debate pedagogy- if you argue that "debate is debate is
debate" then what is the camp and alternative to? alternative to legitimate
camps that wont hire you because you aren't smart enough or are too stoned
out of your mind to be useful to students or the community at large?
alternative to the big evil debate institution? alternative to something
that you say has dichotomized itself unjustly against the K? That is
BULLSHIT!!!!! Critical literature and thought  is creeping its way into
virtually every aspect of the game, this proves that its not something
wholly different from the common debate practice and its only you people who
don't have to balls to say "i want to change the world" that need to place
yourselves outside in order to have anything to talk about. and i really
cant understand why you all, and others want to bitch and moan about the
topic when its clear that you don't really care what it is---this is
evidenced by the fact that 2 "alternative" debate camps are running this
summer before the resolution even comes out. This seems like proof that for
some people the topic matters and some people are gonna say the same thing
no matter what the topic is and a reason that if ones debate pedagogy is not
topic centric(which, is cool dont get me wrong) they should leave the
crafting of the topic to those who will use it. And by "use it" i mean those
who will instrumentally affirm it. Non-instrumental affirmations or
metaphorical ones or non-parametricized whole res style affirmations can and
will happen no matter what the topic is so it is obviously less important to
the teams whose practice is built around those things. It has become clear
that there is no way to get everyone to engage the topic the same way and
that is ultimately a good thing. Leave it alone and let the people for whom
the topic is paramount decide what they want it to be and let the people for
whom it matters less(cuz other things like race, class, gender, the question
of being)  go read some books or whatever you people do in the off
season(smoke reefer and play in the woods apparently).

e. SAFE place for everyone? What isn't safe about saying that the USFG
should change its Nuclear weapons policy or constructively engage Russia?
Seriously, explain this to me? If you think that the sentence that some
teams choose to talk about somehow makes the community at large unsafe for
people who do not fit the mean identitarian or pedagogical mold then you are
giving the resolution more power than any "policy" debater ever has. I
mean,  i knew K people were sensitive but really? The res does violence to
you? Even if you win that FW  does some type of epistemically violent  thing
the onus of responsibility for that rests on the shoulders of the people
running it not on the topic committee for trying to make a resolution that
adequately divides ground or obsesses over grammar in the service of that
goal. If you are serious about this, about this community being a safe place
and arent just mad cuz your crappy teams lose to "you're cheating" then you
should be posting about why people shouldn't run framework and not about why
the topic should be crafted in such a way that makes everyone feel safe.
Hows this " the USFG(or alternative agent--this house or  whatever) should
provide funding and enforcement for the care bear and care cousin collective
to bake cakes filled with smiles and rainbows and give them  to all the
children of the world" there will that make you happy---?

f. Really really think about your inevitable reply to this post (you might
want to put the pipe down) i know I'm mean or whatever--- feel free to call
me an asshole--- i care not--- but really think if the way you position
yourself  in relation to the topic or or "traditional" debate is one that
supports your goals or if you are just the same old problem is a slightly
different package.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090424/1c5175f0/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list