[eDebate] Dear Policy Debate R Us...
Mon Apr 13 16:42:53 CDT 2009
This year there were only 2 K teams in the octas of the NDT.....I think I
made a larger point that the trend has been larger not smaller inclusion of
alternative perspectives over the last decade. Any one year is probably a
bit dangerous as its not a very good sample size and there are stronger and
weaker years for different styles and years...Also, I am pretty sure K teams
were down as a whole this year in numbers.
1) Your presupposition that there can just be a 'neutral' literature base
that we can all agree upon is wrong. Not everybody agrees on what the topic
is even after the wording has been decided which means framework and
fairness just becomes a preservation of the status quo in a lot of ways.
I think this vastly oversimplifies both posts with regards to literature on
a topic....I think if you re-read both of my posts you will see that my
claim about what "topic literature" represents is MUCH larger than you are
giving me credit for. Even if you are right, I reposted the long "purposes
of debate" post to explain my disadvantages to the "no consensus means no
2) The fact that there were only 2 K teams in the octas of the NDT just
makes the argument that 'judges are way too lenient on K debaters' really
lame. Nobody thinks that when teams like us or Towson lose that it "was a
conspiracy or that all judges voted against you to protect the SQ". It's
that the standards that are deemed neutral END UP PRESERVING THE STATUS QUO.
No, there is a huge difference between structural racism and traditional
debate practice. The alternative to this is just always vote for the K team
so you dont preserve the debate sq. Fairness means trying to take the
arguments you made, the arguments they made, and compare them as fairly as
you can. If you vote for the traditional team it does not mean you agree
that debate is perfect or should not be changed...it means both teams were
given a chance to win an argument and one team lost. The mere fact that you
have a sypathetic forum to argue your claims make it much different than say
a person of color arguing to remove Jim Crow laws or to prove
The real problem here is that you are convinced traditional debate is bad
for many reasons....many of us agree with some of the criticisms and
disagree with others...If you havent convinced me that a practice is bad -
it doesnt mean I am wrong and that I am helping the Man dominate the K
team. Tradition is not always bad......some traditions are bad.
The larger point of my post was to try to make sure that people who had
successful years didnt consider that/those years a failure because they lost
some debates. What teams like you and Towson accomplished this year was
impressive and incredible....My larger point is that you should see it
as successful so you can celebrate your hard work and great debating.
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 5:13 PM, RJ Giglio <byrdrebel69 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I kinda think Josh is missing a couple of Devon's points...
> 1) Your presupposition that there can just be a 'neutral' literature base
> that we can all agree upon is wrong. Not everybody agrees on what the topic
> is even after the wording has been decided which means framework and
> fairness just becomes a preservation of the status quo in a lot of ways.
> It's not about your particular beliefs.
> 2) The fact that there were only 2 K teams in the octas of the NDT just
> makes the argument that 'judges are way too lenient on K debaters' really
> lame. Nobody thinks that when teams like us or Towson lose that it "was a
> conspiracy or that all judges voted against you to protect the SQ". It's
> that the standards that are deemed neutral END UP PRESERVING THE STATUS QUO.
> It's the whole reason why the concept of structural racism was introduced -
> because intentional racism, policy ideologues who refuse to vote for the K,
> are few and far between. I think your jump to say that Devon assumes there's
> a conspiracy kinda proves his point - that we believe if we don't act
> intentionally to exclude particular styles of debate or ideologies that we
> aren't doing so - but the fact is things like assuming extinction comes
> first, assuming debate should be exclusively about the plan, the idea that
> one particular interpretation of or relationship to the topic IS the
> objective one, (and I'm not saying YOU do these things Josh) end up
> structurally disadvantaging K debaters even when they don't have the
> intention of doing so.
> I also think he's clearly talking more about the people above who really
> sound as if they are whining in some ways about the way judges might have
> come down on issues such as specific author indicts versus generic links,
> yet make reference to these straw person decisions that nobody can
> specifically recollect, yet "happen all the time", when at the same time
> there are only 2 K teams in the octas of the NDT
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman