[eDebate] Um...Topicality still sucks

[Andy Ellis]

you wonder why people feel excluded by the discourse of t ...i say because
you put it into a catagory of penalty and seperate from other
arguments...its like affirmative action for topicality...

On 6/1/07, Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> wrote:

>

> My argument was not a fairness argument....and when a judge votes against

> an affirmative because they are "not topical" they do so because the team

> arguing they should be topical argued for it better than those arguing

> against it....Which is why debate is better than the simple sports analogy

> (you get to say T sucks).

>

> As for if its a penalty or a da....my point was only that the judge (who

> votes on T) evaluates it as a penalty or DA.

>

> Josh

>

>

> On 6/1/07, andy ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com> wrote:

> >

> > 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

> >

> > _______________________________________________

> > 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/20070601/d9f95de4/attachment.htm