[eDebate] Dear Policy Debate R Us...

Josh jbhdb8
Mon Apr 13 18:42:34 CDT 2009


Hello RJ,

You say a bunch of things that arent immediately apparant but you seem to
take as "unquestionably true" and ideologically pure...I am not so sure I
agree with most of it...but I will try to remain open to what you are
saying.

You say:

"I think you're relying too much upon your particular interpretation of what
debate is, in trying to defend your idea of fairness."

I say:

No, actaully I said here are a bunch of different things debate can be about
(which I outlined) then said here is how it weighs out for ME.  I then
invited discussion of what other things mattered or why my weighing was or
could be flawed.  Are you sure you read both posts?  Not trying to be rude,
but I went out of my way to open space for all possible interpretations of
what debate is/could be.

You say:

"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'."

I say:

What in the great googly moogly are you talking about - I presented a
detailed version of goals that debate might serve and followed it with a
discussion of potential benefits of traditional debate vs debate that
doesn't focus on a particular topic.  I didnt say me saying it makes it more
inclusive...I said that there are values to debating a topic...and talked
about them.  I really have zero idea what you are talking about (no
offense).

You say:

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 say:

Professionalism? Huh? And if most people don't agree with me why are you
saying debate isn't fair to the K folks and talking about 2 teams in the
octas etc.  If nobody agrees with me why is there structural descrimination
against types of debate.

Ok, last years topic was subsidies....me saying that everyone debating
subsidies - no matter in what way they defend the removal of subsidies (rap,
personal narrative, personal experience, experts of color, interviews with
farmers) -  would make for better debates CAN and DOES produce things like
structural racism how? Is your only link argument that it prevents people of
color from choosing the form of debate that they wish to participate in? All
games have rules that prevent its participants from doing "whatever they
want."  I asked for you to explain why the damage done by this traditional
adherance outweighs particular benefits......I am not sure you have a very
strong link argument here..but assuming you do (and I could be a moron and
just not "get it" here - I am old) not sure you have a competitive impact
argument per se.

Me saying that everyone debating subsidies - no matter in what way they
defend the removal of subsidies (rap, personal narrative, personal
experience, experts of color, interviews with farmers) -  would make for
better debates CAN and DOES produce things like structural discrimination
against other forms of debate how?  Again, is your link argument ONLY that
enforcement of norms of debate prevent alternative norms from developing?  I
guess thats true but that hardly proves you are right or that those are good
new norms.  Enforcing 10 minutes of prep for both teams seems to suffer the
same disadvantages no?

You say:

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 say:

Well we agree about that.  I did make some arguments for why USFG is a good
way to center debate and activism.....so I guess you tagged me on that....I
dont think extinction should always outweigh (depending on how impacts are
debated out).  I believe most of this is all debated out in rounds....Not
sure I am following this part at all...seems like we are totally in
agreement which makes the above confusing to say the least.

You say:

"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 say:

I actually said exactly this in the post you originally answered - debate
should be open to debate about debate...something I voted FOR Towson on
several times.  Again, I have no idea why this is different from what I
said.  I agree. I think my first post (which I suspect you didnt read -
there were two) was an attempt to do exactly what you are saying.  I am
opposed to imposing rules in debate from above...I do make arguments about
what I think makes for "better" debates.

Anyway, I think we mostly agree....hmmmm confusing,

Josh

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 6:18 PM, RJ Giglio <byrdrebel69 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Hello Josh.
>
> 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.
>
> RJ
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090413/3e94e953/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list