[eDebate] Dear Policy Debate R Us...
Mon Apr 13 17:18:56 CDT 2009
I think you're relying too much upon your particular interpretation of what debate is, in trying to defend your idea of fairness. I don't really think anybody was indicting you, I just think you're conflating a bunch of issues. Yes, there are many ways to debate the topic, that include using an expanded notion of professionalism which might included personal narratives or 'rap'. The problem is that I think it seems like you almost believe that you can fiat that by defending your notion of the topic or traditional policy debate that that makes its practice 'more inclusive'. The fact is that most people don't agree with your notion of professionalism, and expecting everyone debate the topic in the way you believe they should CAN and does produce things like structural racism, or structural discrimination against other styles of debate. I had a couple of examples in my last post I don't feel like rehashing. I guess my main point is that 'traditional' as you
describe it, policy debate isn't bad. assuming a majority of the standards that universalize policy debate AS neutral (federal government should be center of discussion, extinction should always outweigh, once again things that I don't assume you believe though you may) will structurally disadvantage K teams WITHOUT the intention of being the Man dominating the K team. that's what structural racism is, versus intentional racism, naturalizing particular values which produce exclusion. I'm also not normatively advocating voting for K teams... I don't know why that would be any better. I believe in pretty much just universal politicization insofar as everything should be debatable IE in the debate round, what the topic itself means, whether the topic is a good center etc., should always be debatable. Why are K's or framework or T etc. any different from other debate arguments? Just like how whether a counterplan is theoretically illegitimate or not can be
won or lost, why shouldn't all of these issues just be debatable?
?I also don't know why you assume that I am "convinced that traditional debate is bad". I go line-by-line (most of the time), I read cards, I do impact calculus, I make link arguments, the alternative has to generate uniqueness (even if in a different framework or sense of the term). I don't have any problem going for a disad and case or a counterplan I just choose not to in most rounds (personal thing if you really want to get into it I could tell you why).
I also don't think any of us are really frustrated that we lost debates. Maybe some debates were frustrating, but at the NDT at least ee lost on a split decision to the copeland and Towson lost on a 3-2 to the returning NDT champs. But you can't tell me you're trying to defend the above posts that sound like butt-hurt whining about alternative debates. There are tons of successful and good K teams. No matter how dominant, 90% of the time, the K teams are stilll in the minority, which seems to indicate that the traditional set of values that a majority of judges have, do not give such an extreme degree of leniency to K teams that we get away with murder. It's not overwhelming, but it does exist, and to say judges should be more strict on K teams, is absurd. obviously if you aren't defending a majority of the things that Devon and I have beef with, IE complaints about judges being lenient on K teams, then I don't know what we're arguing about.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman