[eDebate] answers for dave -- mine anyway

[bandana martin]

HOLLA

On 6/14/07, Joseph Carver <carrolltondebate at gmail.com> wrote:

>

> I can understand alot of what Jackie is writing ( and categorically

> disagree with all of it) but I am left with one question: Isn't the

> unwritten and underlying assumption of this most recent post that debaters

> enter into the activity with nothing left to learn about perspectives?

> If the claim is that debaters leave and quit because the activity "forces"

> them to increase control over Indian Country etc in a way that

> offends...isn't changing the nature of the actiivity to accomodate that, an

> acknowledgment that there is NOTHING left to be said for things like

> constructive engagement etc? I know that, to you Jackie, these arguments

> about the value of switch side debate on perspective  building seem

> exaggerated but I remain unconvinced.

>

> You say that your job as a debate coach is to create more effective

> liberal activists? I thought it was to teach argumentation..

>

> Joseph Carver

>

>  On 6/14/07, debate at ou.edu <debate at ou.edu> wrote:

>

> > through stories and experience Dave, thats my best answer

> >

> > like my debaters that quit because they didnt want to increase federal

> > control  over indian country, call african people

> > underdeveloped, or claim US has any moral high ground over china

> >

> > how i see debaters who are extremely radical in thought when they

> > encounter debate change, and how debate allows that

> > radicalness to be compromised in the face of "fitting in"

> >

> > for a while i didnt know how to explain my argument very well until i

> > did  a very thorough reading of the articles related to

> > switchside debate

> >

> > this would be murphy, cripe etc. from the 1950's and 60's.  This was

> > around the time a poll of kansas debate coaches revealed

> > the debate about debate closed

> >

> > then i encountered an article by someone you will grow to know very

> > well, and his co-author who was a mentor of mine in my

> > early debate years   (hicks and green)

> >

> > their discussion about american exceptionalism and normalization of the

> > radical was very interesting to me

> > this coupled with how switch side debate means two different things in

> > NDT debate as compared to say old school "CEDA"

> > debate

> >

> > i think brent is so right when he says debate is evolving and we cant go

> > back, we can only go forward from here

> >

> > does verbalizing things you disagree with change your perspective, and

> > are all of the benefits of this still gained through

> > research without verbalizing

> >

> > if the resolution allowed you to increase assistance to the middle east,

> > there were be enought flex for the affirmative to find

> > their niche and practice the skills of advocacy

> >

> > are we training students to be able to advocate things they beleive in

> > after debate? or things they dont believe in?  in debate, if

> > you are radical in thinking and approach, you dont get this

> > practice.  If your moderate debate is your training ground.  To say

> > we have to be excactly like the USFG in language or solvency choices as

> > we outline them in the resolution leaves a small

> > amount of room for critical creativity.  once again, not against topics,

> > just limits to solutions.

> >

> > lets be honest, our "nation" in our name with our tax money is doing

> > some really shitty things to people around the globe.

> >

> > to say it is just bad people misses the boat on their methods, where

> > they learned, what their school of thought is, how we

> > accept dogma without hopes for change, should we model, or learn how to

> > reshape the model?

> >

> > what if things continue down their present path?  what do we see?  what

> > do i see for my daughter or her children that may

> > come?

> >

> > or the children on the west bank? or in darfur?

> >

> > i think many have the same concerns, my concern is will we have some

> > radical minds step up, be in kerry's spot, and then

> > become a sell out or allow for compromise of their views for some

> > community norms like "congressional norms" etc...

> >

> > my goal as a debate coach is to produce more effective liberal activist

> > that can help steer the beast away from destruction

> >

> > when i teach them in debate, compromising their personal views is not

> > what i feel is a good starting point

> > learning how to defend why they believe their views is better in my mind

> >

> > win or lose

> >

> > peace

> >

> > massey

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Sorry for mischaracterizing your position--dualities are so much

> > > easier on a tired brain.

> > >

> > > A couple of reactions:

> > >

> > > 1) I am not really asking for "scientific" proof--hypothesis testing

> > > is part of many reasoning systems that make nary an appearance in any

> > > "hard science" methods textbook. I am asking how you know what you

> > > claim to know, so that I and others can evaluate those knowledge

> > > claims in an effort to see if they are persuasive. That's all--no

> > > regressions necessary.

> > >

> > > 2) I am troubled by what I see as your stance that it is impossible

> > > and/or undesirable to evaluate the descriptive or normative 'truth' of

> >

> > > your claims about debate pedagogy. "I think," "I feel," and "I

> > > believe" claims are only persuasive to the extent of your

> > > credibility/ethos with your audience--they are not (and should not) be

> >

> > > subject to either validation or contestation because they are 'true'

> > > for you. I do not think that this discussion can produce either some

> > > consensus or 'better' debate pedagogy unless the _hard_ work of

> > > evaluating causal and normative claims is done.

> > >

> > > best,

> > > dch

> > > umn

> > > ----- Original Message -----Fromdebate at ou.eduDateThu, 14 Jun 2007

> > > 11:01:31 -0500Toedebate at ndtceda.comSubject[eDebate] answers for dave

> > > -- mine anyway

> > > The exchange has been somewhat amusing so far, and is far more

> > > interesting that prepping for HS camp.

> > >

> > > I have a couple of questions for the "T Bad" side.

> > >

> > > --- Hi Dave

> > >

> > > 1- It's not a "t bad" argument. I like topics and I ilke resolutions,

> > > and i like an equal starting point for an argument.

> > > Resolutions should serve as a starting point for disagreement.  So my

> > > position is not a blanket "t bad"

> > >

> > >

> > > 1. What are the links between "traditional" debate and the banking

> > > model of education/passive pedagogy? Are those links

> > > intrinsic? How do we determine the existence and strength of those

> > > links?

> > >

> > > ---- It depends on how we define "traditional debate", but I dont

> > > think those links are intrinsic.  i think competition has taken

> > > over topic creation, and we get topics that best fullfill a certain

> > > perspectives competitive goals.  You cant really determine the

> > > existence, you have to make a personal judgment, which is why

> > > stannards accusations are somewhat correct in "no evidence"

> > > but somewhat misleading to assume evidence is needed.  Some things are

> >

> > > larger than mere scientific proof.

> > >

> > >

> > > 2. What are the links between "performative" or "critical" debate and

> > > libratory pedagogy? Are those links intrinsic? How do we

> > > determine the existence and strength of those links?

> > >

> > > -- i can only say that learning to think or engage from a

> > > non-traditional/establishment perspective allows one to see problems

> > > in a more holistic perspective.  Once again, you cant determine the

> > > weakness or strengths of those links scientifically, just like

> > > we cant provide the same proofs for many environmental problems,

> > > racism and other social problems that we know exist.

> > >

> > >

> > > My hypothesis is that these links are relatively weak and

> > > non-intrinsic. This untested supposition is based on my observation of

> > >

> > > both the many traditional debate-types who live/espouse radical

> > > politics and the many non-traditional debate-types who live/

> > > espouse traditional politics.

> > >

> > > --- Then you can only follow your pedagogical beliefs in how you

> > > approach debate.  I wont tell you to leave the activity because

> > > you see differently, only that I disagree.  I think these links are

> > > extremely strong, and will continue to approach debate from

> > > this perspective.

> > >

> > > We could all be wrong.

> > >

> > > Peace

> > >

> > > Massey

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I could be wrong.

> > >

> > > best,

> > > dch

> > > umn

> > > _______________________________________________

> > > eDebate mailing list

> > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

> > >

> > _______________________________________________

> > 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/20070614/8cd6ab8f/attachment.htm