[eDebate] keenan, "k" and "policy," final comments

Eric Morris ermocito
Sun Apr 12 17:53:28 CDT 2009


I find Matt's reply fully satisfying. There's no mechanism to "control" the
way judges decide. MPJ might impact it, but probably marginally if that.

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. One might easily take this step and
decide that the negative still won because they did better link defense than
the affirmative did. Fine, no problem. It's really the "minimum standards"
imposed on evidence where judge defaults risk overwhelming the quality of
debating.

Ermo

p.s. And also a good discussion. A 3rd round of thanks to Farmer for
reading, thinking, and responding. I think most edebate discussions were
like this one.

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 4:57 PM, matthew farmer <matthewfarm at gmail.com>wrote:

> good discussion, i think. i am not unsympathetic to the complaints about
> alternatives. What can be done? Well, it's clear that most alt authors are
> a) not advocating a simple rejection, b) even if they are, the solvency
> claims that they make are typically not very compelling, and c) that it is
> unclear what a simple rejection would constitute. The point I'm getting to
> is that aff's can make inroads that they are frequently not. What would a
> rejection of X entail? What if that was done on a broader scale (out of
> round, by the gov, by a movement, by an individual)? What might be the
> consequence of the gov rejecting cap? Disintegration of the stock market, a
> trade war, a refusal to trade, socialism? What about a movement? A WTO
> protest, creation of communes? Who does the alt? The judge? Why? Because it
> is ethical? If that's the answer, and it's not a contingent solvency claim
> proper, then it seems that even util good might be an answer? 'Reject the
> aff' is a command (presumably implying the judge do the rejection) without
> an agent of action. But whose to say the aff can't ask the question, 'what
> if this was done by people that ACTUALLY have their hands on the levers of
> power?' If it's true that the alt would be bad for 'real world' decision
> makers, then why shouldn't it be bad for the judge? Why is it ethical for
> the judge to reject the aff, but not say a congresswoman? My point is that
> good cross-x + good link args = offense or at least more and better aff
> answers. Protests/micropolitics bad, rejection = no movements (need to
> communicate, not reject each other), ind ethics are depoliticized (distance
> from state/power bad)... Might an aff be able to do some serious damage to a
> 'reject the aff' alt by arguing a) no slovo - that their author doesn't say
> reject, or provides no vision for what that would entail politically, b) a
> theory arg dealing with the lack of agent, and  c) diasds to the alt (it is
> unethical politically). There may or may not be (what I suggested that did
> not exist earlier) an enigmantic disjunction between the adjudication of k
> alts and policy responses. However, l think Josh implied this, there's not a
> lot that can be done about this. The goal of my posts here is to encourage
> debaters and coaches to up their game when answering these args and refrain
> from displacing responsibility (I'm not saying that Ermo is doing so, he's
> clearly put a lot of thought and effort into this issue, but many have)
> until they've really flushed out their options for dealing with these args.
> Like most with most good debates, the answer is a little of column a and a
> little of colum b. Judges as well as coaches and debaters have some work to
> do. I'll be sure to take some time to think about how I adjudicate these
> clashe debates a little more before next season (although, they're pretty
> much all I think about because they're pretty much all I judge :)
>
> I'm out-
> -Farmer
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090412/c3bfd07a/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list