[eDebate] Um...Topicality still sucks

[andy ellis]

Wow thanks for t theroy from 2003....duh travis duh i think my ? Assumed all of your answers...you havent justified why the language of penalty is justifed in this instnce an not the instance in which an aff makes a politicaly bad argument( a typical disad) as opposed to one which is bad for fainess  

-----Original Message-----
From: "Travis Neal" <travisneal at mac.com>
To: "Edebate" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Sent: 6/1/2007 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Um...Topicality still sucks

Your question only makes sense if you assume that there is no  
slippage between penalty and disad.

The topicality argument is a disad, it is merely evaluated  
differently than what is traditionally called a disad.

When voting negative on T the judge is saying that there is a  
disadvantage to allowing the 1AC to fulfill the resolution.  That is  
why T arguments have violations (read: link), interpretations (read:  
uniqueness) and voting arguments (read: impacts).


On Jun 1, 2007, at 5:02 PM, andy ellis wrote:


> Why a penalty and not a disad to not being topical

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: "Josh" <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>

> To: "Adam Jackson" <baltimoredebate at gmail.com>

> Cc: edebate at www.ndtceda.com

> Sent: 6/1/2007 4:14 PM

> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Um...Topicality still sucks

>

> Hello,

>

> When I was in high school, some parents got me and my debate  

> partner to do

> research to try to help them (and lawyers) with an appeal for their  

> son who

> had a life sentence.  After doing extensive research into the case

> (including multiple personal interviews) I became convinced that  

> the person

> I was working to help was guilty.  Personally, I am very liberal  

> and tend

> toward immediately believing that most people are railroaded by the  

> justice

> system.

>

> Whatever your views of justice....Researching the question made me go

> against my personal beliefs and biases and made me reevaluate my

> predilections.  In this way, being forced to confront not just a  

> generally

> held belief but both sides of a specific example really tested my own

> advocacy on a particular issue.

>

> A topic, much in the same way, forces both sides to investigate a  

> position

> and test each other as to the relative truth/truths that position

> represents.  It is all well and good to be for saying and doing  

> whatever you

> want whenever you want....And in fairness, nobody ever says you  

> cant debate

> whatever you want to....What many people do say, is that if you  

> choose to

> debate "whatever you want to" there might be a penalty because (and  

> this is

> not a FAIRNESS argument) the end result when two teams debate a  

> question

> that nobody prepared to debate is usually a WEAK TEST of its  

> validity.  In

> other words, if a judge had asked me to present my position on  

> "life in

> prison" outside of the context of the "prisoner to get life" my  

> answer would

> probably be persuasive but weak.

>

> Debate, at its best, is a means of testing ideas.  When both sides  

> know,

> basically, what is coming those ideas can be tested.  Sometimes a  

> team slips

> in a topical but obtuse new affirmative...and often at the worst  

> possible

> time (outrounds at a National tournament usually).  However, when the

> affirmative can pop a new case that literally has NO relation to  

> the topic

> presented for debate - the end result is literally ANTI  

> educational...No

> test of the idea of any meaningful stretch is likely.....No  

> relative truth

> is found at the end of the debate.  And the affirmative is  

> congratulated for

> "winning" what exactly?  How did the courage of their convictions  

> get tested

> by the other bright minds that are being confronted.  How did the

> affirmative open themselves to the learning model debate offers?

>

> I also think that fairness issues exist....and that some unfairness  

> precedes

> the question of a topic....But saying "topicality sucks" is like  

> telling a

> basketball referee that fouls screw up the game.  No kidding, really?

> Debate at least attempts to make what is and is not a foul subject to

> democratic deliberation and allows MASSIVE community input...and  

> while it

> may not be a perfect system it basically works.  Do I like that the  

> Con Con

> CP was almost unbeatable last year?  No....but the year was still  

> basically

> debateable....Did I learn a ton about the legal system and the current

> docket....Yes....Were my long held beliefs challenged by the different

> affirmatives.....Yes....Did I get to personally discuss those  

> issues with

> experts in the field who deepened my understandings....Yes.

>

> Maybe, just maybe there is a value (elucidated well by Branson) to  

> learning

> about more than exactly what you want to learn about?  I have  

> always wanted

> to confront new ways of finding evidence (rap, other definitions of

> intellectuals, application of topics to other contexts and ways of  

> knowing,

> critical literature, non-nuclear impacts...all totally ok with me)  

> but have

> you considered that there might be a value to debating a topic?

>

> Josh

>

>

> On 6/1/07, Adam Jackson <baltimoredebate at gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>> This community is comprised of some of the smartest people in the  

>> United

>> States, and most of us think some of the dumbest shit.

>>

>> Topicality (regardless of what online database it was found in) is  

>> not a

>> mainstream vocabulary term that people who do not participate in  

>> policy

>> debate use...PERIOD.

>>

>> It's easy to do a Google search and say "IT HAS A DEFINITION!!!".  

>> In the

>> time you wasted posting stuff legitimizing, criticizing or just plain

>> lecturing about topicality, you could have found a recipe to make  

>> pound

>> cake, or maybe fix a flat tire (just to pass the time).

>>

>> The resolution sucks ass, and while I understand that eDebate is  

>> used as a

>> forum to discuss the entire scope of the community, it doesn't  

>> mean that the

>> resolution still doesn't suck. There has to come a point...where

>> "straight-ups" and "crazies" come together and agree on what the hell

>> reality is.

>>

>> God the DC annoys me.

>>

>> I would write more, but I know you're not going to read it...so  

>> I'll do

>> what I do best, in and out of debate rounds...being blunt and direct.

>>

>> Wake up, and think about what you let educate you before you become a

>> total idiot.

>>

>> --

>> Adam J. Jackson

>> Towson University Speech and Debate

>> Cell:443-824-4273

>> _______________________________________________

>> eDebate mailing list

>> 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

_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate