[eDebate] Agents/K vs. policy discussion

Josh jbhdb8
Sat Apr 11 14:32:28 CDT 2009

I would like to say that this misses Dylan's point, the K authors make
claims that are generally non-falsifiable and that are accepted as evidence
EVEN IF there is no reason other than the cloud of funny smelling smoke to
believe its true.

As Tim deftly observed, that "evidence" is just all corrupted by capitalism


ps. I agree with Jackie B. Massey that many K's are just a different impact
structure and a K of traditional impact analysis.

On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 11:31 AM, J T <jtedebate at yahoo.com> wrote:

>   Are ya'll done debating out wrong forum yet?  I think Massey may be the
> sane one of the bunch---they are all just arguments!...Conditionality,
> Spanos, Heg....I love all forms of debate.
> Policy Hacks:  Pull your heads out of you collective butt and engage K lit
> ("If I only had a brain...")
> In-Love-With-the-K Teams:  Get off your butts and work!:  Just because you
> aren't doing politics updates, etc. does not mean you should just sit back
> with your K (sometimes on both sides of the res)...research hyperspecific
> link arguments, cut ans to their specific ans....I feel like this is Debate
> 101...but the stereotype of "the lazy K debater" is all too often
> true...(not universal by any means).   If you haven't looked for all of
> this, your education claims on framework are just a lie and you do
> yourselves a disservice.
> W. James Taylor ("JT")
> Asst. Debate Coach
> Emporia State University
> ***Nothing in this email should be taken to represent Emporia State Debate
> or Emporia State University. The contents are the sole opinion of the
> author.
> --- On *Sat, 4/11/09, Massey, Jackie B. <debate at ou.edu>* wrote:
> From: Massey, Jackie B. <debate at ou.edu>
> Subject: [eDebate] Agents/States/False Dichotomy - "K" and "policy"
> To: "edebate at ndtceda.com" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
> Date: Saturday, April 11, 2009, 6:58 AM
> The building blocks of ?anti-K? propaganda?.
> Here is Ermo on what he calls the ?K?
> 7. I agree with Ricky that many debaters privilege certain types of
> impacts, but I disagree that the K is an effective solution to these
> problems. Although I think a lot of the K literature is very interesting
> and
> important, in actual K debates judges often encourage clash avoidance (side
> stepping through minimal distinctions), let people wiggle out of impact
> turns, encourage new and hidden alternatives, allow implicit framework
> arguments (like ?rep?s first?) to dramatically refocus the rounds, etc. The
> generalized ambiguity about how K rounds are to be resolved leads to
> considerable inconsistency from round to round. That inconsistency appears
> to favor certain teams over others (which ones? It depends on the point of
> view of the observer), and makes hyper specific strategies against
> particular K?s ineffective, while they should be extremely effective. A
> more
> positive spin on the same phenomenon would be ?when there are no rules, the
> better debater always wins.? (which sounds fine, but it?s nice when the
> weaker debater can sometimes win through hard work and preparation). In
> this
> way, the post structural orientation of some K?s and many K friendly
> critics
> tends to disincentivize K debating. (I would be happy to brainstorm
> friendly
> solutions to this problem with anyone who shares my assessment in broad
> terms).
> I think this where people begin their misunderstanding of debate arguments
> that do not focus on passing a specific policy proposal from a traditional
> view of ?is the plan a good or bad idea??
> This is where young debaters get pointed in the wrong direction in
> understanding the notion of debate ?arguments?.  They are all arguments.
> This ?clash avoidance through minimal? distinction seems pretty popular on
> the ?states counter-plan? or most any other counter-plan strategy.   These
> things that you refer to as ?refocusing rounds? are justified through good
> evidence and historical examples.  What I am saying is these are arguments
> on why you don?t just look at ?does plan solve? to determine if the policy
> is good or bad.  Its really just all impact debate, and then getting a head
> start on why the decision calculus is/has/was failing.  Look where our world
> is at today. This idea of having tunnel vision and assuming that a limited
> decision calculus about ?is the policy a good or bad idea? has failed us.
> Debate is reflexive of the real world.  Realism used to flourish in debate
> until so many became aware of its failure in IR leading to never ending
> wars, an economy that was so fat on invisible dollars that the air was going
> to bleed out at sometime, and we are lucky it has not popped completely.
> This discussion is not irrelevant to current real world situations, but
> rather so relevant in how we need a new framework/lens/ideology/ whatever
> you want to call it, for looking at our policy decisions.  The narrow view
> of ?is the plan a good or bad idea? can only be a focus if you can justify
> why other thing should not be considered.  For many years ethics, values
> etc. were considered to not be important in policy making,  not just in
> debate but in the places where decisions are made for a statists response.
> Its kinda like this, the other things  besides those things that  want to
> determine ?is the plan a good or bad idea?, control uniqueness.  The old
> methods have failed us.  We must not re-arm ourselves in debate or in the
> oval office with those failing ideologies.  Your files have to change.  No
> more reading ?realism good? on a framework debate.  You have lost uniqueness
> on this debate.  The ?realism bad? side controls uniqueness, all those
> things you say are good about ?realism? have proven to fail us in all
> areas.  Environment, economy, poverty, war?. Find one.
> This is debate also.  You cannot continue to at face dismiss arguments that
> say our ?plan focus? is too narrow.  That is what all of these implicit
> framework arguments are, reasons why the traditional narrow framework has
> failed us.
> A>    There is no divide, just arguments.
> B>    The ?K? debaters control uniqueness on solvency and impacts, only a
> risk it can get better, the non-?K? framework has proven to fail us and did
> not cause the good things to occur their evidence wishes for.
> If you made it another type of debate, then there would be a problem of not
> including "policy and government action for change".
> Your right Swampy, debate is not like it used to be.  We have to evolve,
> otherwise we are defending failing ideologies an philosophies.  WAR WAR WAR
> ? that?s our world right now, and that is a result of the many dominant
> debate ideologies that people think we need to strap ourselves down to in
> debate.  Let them disappear with the Core Motive Inherency and Minor
> Repairs.
> So I might agree that the resolution might be a problem, but it is doing
> really well as a stand in statue for the ideologies and values behind
> real-politik that is no longer credible or believable.
> Peace
> Massey
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com <http://mc/compose?to=eDebate at www.ndtceda.com>
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090411/2b1c9431/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list