[eDebate] a league of our own.....

[debate at ou.edu]

here's my kneejerk perspective: 

1. we'll keep at it but . . . 

---- You have many good teams.  

2. it is both demoralizing to our younger team members to debate non-topical 
"we should critically examine genocide" cases. in general, they hate it; one 
kid quit because of it. our older debaters, in general, also loathe them but 
have figured ways to deal with them. 

----- I don’t recall any affirmative ever saying we should critically examine genocide,?  I also think people get carried away 
with their examples.  Any nontopical aff should have “educational” reasons why they are not topical.  They still have an 
argument.

3. it serves virtually no educational function in my mind. that's probably 
an overstatement but it is pretty close to what I think. 

------ It serves no educational function to learn how to criticize bad forms of education?  To investigate our role in the genocide 
against indigenous peoples here and many corners of the globe?   What is educational to you?  I think the purpose of these 
debates is to investigate the impacts of education.  There was once a routinized form of education  in Germany that was pushed 
upon people for many years.  

4. it increases the research and coaching burden on our program. we want to 
research the policy aspects of the topic. that can and does include kritikal 
aspects of the topic. when we have to go beyond that already nearly 
insurmountable level of research, it becomes even more difficult.

----- We all have to do what it takes to compete.  Are people really that different?  And do you find yourself stopping and 
saying, well no more research this year.  We all work as hard as we have to for competitive reasons.  I was taught by Dr. Bile 
that if the other team speaks for nine minutes, we will have something to say.
 
5. it is irritating to debate teams that refuse to follow the community 
agreed upon topic. that topic is chosen by a process and a vote--you know, 
the ones where not everyone gets their way including me. 


---- It is irritating to hear the same mead and beardon card win debates when they are so falliiable.  Read my previous post 
about how this process is being dominated by one perspective.  Until we get topics that allows the affirmative to truly provide 
‘solutions’ to the problem areas we vote for, people will be non-topical for many legitimate reasons that are impacted via 
education.  Why get stuck defending someone elses bad idea on the aff?  Even if Ryan or Gordon thought this was good aff 
ground, that doesn’t mean that debaters will feel the same when faced with issues relating to the Middle East.  We got the 
most amazing research tech abilities ever, why are we afraid of aff flexibility?  

6. I think the framing of most of the aff cases that are not topical are 
exactly as gregg hartney describes--patently unfair to the negative. the 
equivalent neg positions criticizing various aspects of policy debate but 
not really the aff case are no better. 



---- My team never whines unfair. (or patently unfair)  Ever,  I don’t think when we are negative.  We only had one team that 
actually had definitions this year.  The affirmative still has to make an argument.   As far as criticizing policy debate, it needs 
it.  Where would the criticism come from?  There still has to be a reason your team should lose that is coupled with an 
argument.


7. I would gladly split including defacto (that is, start choosing 
tournaments where more "policy" teams attend). practically, I doubt that 
will happen but just saying . . . . 


---- How would that enhance critical thinking?
This is the problem.  Instead of cooperating and letting debate evolve with the community, the resistance of topic insularity and 
narrowness has only resulted in more people ingoring the topic and having good reasons why.  

I think those tournaments where more “policy” teams attend exist every weekend at most tournaments.  I hear ADA 
tournaments disdain those people who don’t have disads or counterplans.

Peace

massey