[eDebate] EXTRA- Chicken or the Egg

[Eli Brennan]

Because my dialogue sucks (just trying to great form with form)... to be
clear:
What if plans MAKE MEANING... and not just SOLVE PROBLEMS?

An aff I wrote (that was never run) last year defended banning Gtmo with
Kafka's Penal Colony... where the action of the plan is a Tragic maneuver...
akin to The Traveller's decision to intervene. (and moraqlly ambiguous in
interesting ways). This is not a "plan to solve nuke war."  It was an
attempt to use a wide range of wisdom to REFLECT on policy.  Under my
interpretation it's legit... how does this show a different way of
planning?  Not everyone would reach for Kafka... but that's what's sweet...
there's lots of wisdom to go around.
best.
eli

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Eli Brennan <elibrennan at gmail.com> wrote:


> Wino: "Is there anything about the topic you believe you are especially

> equipped to talk about?"

> Debater:  No.

> Wino: Then think about it more.

> Debater:  Wait... Yeah... there's a LOT about this BS topic I have to say.

> Wino: Cool... I'll do my best to help you persuasively say what you want

> to PLUS what you learn through the research.

> Debater:  They'll just outweigh it with nuclear war.

> Wino: Outweigh slam poetry with nuclear war?

> Debater: How is slam poetry topical?

> Wino: You tell me.

> Debater: Uhm... it's the means by which i fuck up a status quo policy.

> Wino: Nice... don't forget... tragedy, comedy, RANT, auto-ethnography...

> and a bunch of other perspectives we can look into.

> Debater: Shit.  They would really have to debate us on our own terms?

> Wino: If you win that your approach is better--- and that it shouldn't be

> excluded... I can't see how not... if they try to weigh that BS--- prove it

> doesn't fit your THEME... which is more important.  Then school them on the

> necessity of appropriate theming.

> Debater: But won't they just whine about how I violated "should."

> Wino: Prolly--- but fuck 'em... we'll win that our education is more

> important.  Listen: a lot of people still think of plans as they were used

> in the 80s... but a plan is a marvelous thing... it is a Policy we can use

> for whatever purpose we can think of.  Remember:  rules aren't always

> oppressive... sometimes they inspire the most sublime genious.  Poets choose

> Meter not to dampen their insights- but to Polish them.  Basketball was

> conceived by, for and about whites... but is now dominated by nonwhites.

> Moving the lines around was not the key... they key was availability of

> venues, coaching and resources.  Contraints can be very bad... but sometimes

> they are more than that... it games, comstraints inspire unique ability...

> soccer teached things football cannot precisely because hands are

> disallowed.  Debate groups choose topics as a catalyst for creativity.  Or

> they should.  Even if we go to improv tonight, there will be Topics.  You

> just have to find your voice and use it.  If someone says that their Lexis

> ev trumps, we'll school them on the epistemological question.

> Debater: What do you know?

> Wino: I don't.

>

>

>

>

> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu>

> wrote:

>

> >  Doc:  "Start writing the 1AC, discussing your identity as it relates to

> > the topic."

> > Liz: "But we can't because the standards of evaluation won't evaluate

> > our approach fairly, especially if the negative uses the conventions of the

> > judging philosophy that doesn't include a method for evaluating our

> > position."

> > Doc:  "So what 'cha gonna do in the 1AC?

> > Tonia: "We're going to run that our Exclusion argument comes before the

> > topic."

> > Doc:  "You can't  do that, the judge can't evaluate that."

> > Corey:  "Why not?  Why is this any different than topicality?  Doesn't

> > that decide whether or not the affirmative is legitimate before we ever have

> > a topic debate?"

> > Doc:  "But that's the negative moving the debate away from the topic.

> > The affirmative defines the ground.  You take away the negative's

> > predictable ground."

> > RJ:  "So what?"

> > Doc: "So that's what Eli said."

> > Tonia:  Does that mean the judge is voting for or against the color of

> > the debaters?"

> > Doc:  "Of course not, it means you are voting that their are forms of

> > argument that debaters of different colors want to use, currently not part

> > of the evaluation process created by judges of a different color.  Proof is

> > identified in the judging philosophy."

> > RJ: "Like what?"

> > Doc:  "Like we what to share our different experiences through stories,

> > songs, and examples in addition to more traditional uses of cards.  But the

> > community trains judges to use solely cards.  While they will "let you" use

> > your evidence, there is method of evaluation that keeps the playing field if

> > the opponent chooses not to.  In fact, you are put at a competitive

> > disadvantage if the opponent decides to just read cards, and the judge holds

> > you responsible for answering all the cards."

> > Jennifer: "

> > Liz: How will they evaluate the impacts of racism like dehumanization

> > and poverty and crime against a risk of nuclear war, Doc?

> > Doc:  "Better find a nuclear war from racism I think."

> > Tonia:  "Do we need a plan."

> > Doc: "I went around and around with shannhan about this.  He's adamant

> > that we don't.  I guess I'm more like Plato who said that persuasion wasn't

> > the problem, how it got used was.  Eli's right on here, having a plan isn't

> > the problem, but how it gets used has got to have some ethical standards for

> > engagement."

> > Tiffany:  "Got any idea what those ethical standards are?"

> > Doc:  "Naw, but I got an educational and competitive purpose.  Policy

> > debate should be a competition about a public policy controversy involving

> > advocates who share ideas and perspectives over problems by offering

> > solutions, then engaging other ideas and perspectives towards a goal of

> > finding the best policy."

> > Ebony: "That seems like a good place to start building norms and

> > procedures to operationalize your goal."

> >

> >

> > >>>

> >   *From: * "Eli Brennan" <elibrennan at gmail.com> *To:* <

> > edebate at ndtceda.com> *Date: * 4/10/2008 06:03 PM *Subject: * [eDebate]

> > In Defense of Topicality as Non-White-SupremacistI think there's a limit

> > to a strategy to reform debate through identity politics IF there's no

> > topical content to the political appeal.  There a couple main reasons:

> >

> > 1.  The Reductio: Someone else (sorry dont recall who) noted this

> > central problem--- and I want to expand on it.  We need an answer to the

> > *reductio* that you are voting for or against the blackness of black

> > debaters, or the whiteness of white debaters (not to mention all the

> > "others"- these are the terms of the current debate as far as I can tell- so

> > I'l leave them be).   This is important for many reasons, both conservative

> > and radical.  If people are voting up or down simply on skin color (or the

> > aesthetic codes that often overlap with skin-color-categories), this is not

> > a path to a community we can love.   LET ME BE CRYSTAL CLEAR: *I don't

> > think that's the argument being made.*  The argument I'm hearing is that

> > we shouldn't exclude or devalue various styles of performance becuase to do

> > so creates/maintains a structural racist barrier to fair play.  I am

> > FERVENTLY in favor of judges being open to different kinds of judgment

> > calculus... debated out and warranted within the debates.  The difficulty is

> > that if that's the ONLY reason to vote aff... we're in a shitty strategic

> > position: the aff has defended a style... which is in principle compatible

> > with every negative argument except exclusion [which we don't want to defend

> > for good reasons- losing over and over among them].  SO- if I agree that

> > debate should be open to literary, policy, pop-cultural, religious, and

> > other modes of thought and presentation... TO WHAT USE DO WE PUT THESE

> > PERSPECTIVES?  The answer our community has provided has been "the topic."

> > If the diverse styles we want to encourage in debate are addressed solely on

> > the question of whether they are legitimate--- we have a self-referential

> > debate... one where the FORM *IS* the CONTENT.  This means that the

> > ground for the negative is limitted to debating the legitmacy of our

> > opponents' mode of being.  This, to put it mildly, is uncomfortable for

> > everyone, strategically unfair, and incentivizes the worst kind of personal

> > attacks on both sides.  In that we want a community where everyone is

> > comfortable to do their thing (this IS what we want, right?), having a

> > common topic gives everyone a PLACE (topoi) to do their thing.  The style

> > needs a content OUTSIDE itself.  A debate about racist assumptions in US

> > iran policy from a unique siutuated perspective may be prefereable to a

> > spew-down of cards for very very good reasons.  But this is a comparison of

> > styles ABOUT an issue.

> >

> > 2. Standpoint epistemology: Our diversity of social locations helps us

> > bring more knowledge to the table... the question is where is the Table.  At

> > it's very best, a strategy with no topic, and only competing styles, would

> > not make the most of our community because it denies the ABOUT WHICH that

> > makes peoples' unique experiences valuable.  We are all unique and

> > valuable... but THAT is not much of a topic for debate... We can imagine the

> > native american explaining their experience of oppression "AGAINST" the

> > young black man explaining his, etc.  This is a caricature of identity

> > politics/hierarchy of oppression.  The key to mobilizing our diverse

> > experience is to embody it in contexts.  OF COURSE our experiences give us

> > unique insight to USFG policy... and those insights should not be abandoned

> > to a spew-down of cards. Some of us wanted to oppose the Iraq war... and we

> > did it WITH our perspectives.  The argument that oppressed people need to

> > avoid all consideration of policy strikes me as stunningly short-sighted.

> > Practically speaking, a common topic approaches an ethical ideal for the

> > embodiment of difference in a collective.  Any answer to this is an insult

> > to our creativity... we all bring knowledge, perform it, get push-back, and

> > in ideal cases an intelligent resolution by an expert critic.  I have seen

> > high-schoolers bring their knowledge to African

> >

> > 3.  Opponents of Sharing and Issue of Debate don't have much game:

> > Every argument I've heard against having a topic assumes:

> > a. that we keep the USFG as the agent... this is a practical problem, i

> > realize, but more appropriate to change the rules, ethically, than to punish

> > people who support alternative topics but who also have to submit to the

> > collective judgment of the community.

> > b. that plans are only have one value orientation (pro).  obviously

> > plans of action can also be tragic, comic, artifacts for genealogy and so on

> > and so forth.  [Shakespeare didn't think Hamlet's plan would SOLVE- but he

> > HAD to present it]. If the STYLE is open to debate, then the CONTENT is

> > almost entirely beholden to it.  this would have the benefit of maximal

> > inclusion (as inclusive as minds are original) as well as using artificial

> > constraint to inspire our imagination.  topicality is no more totalitarian

> > than genre.  Actually, if you free up the genre of the discourse, topicality

> > is a very very loose guide- not in principle exclusive of any specific

> > perspective.  BUT, it IS something the neg can argue besides the

> > illegitimacy of their opponents' political being.  Remember, right now it's

> > almost impossible, structurally, to win against anti-debate affs with an

> > alternative political strategy... the PERM is a killer... largely because

> > only Form is being asserted, leaving the Content to be aff perm ground.  So

> > people go for framework... or grab another ideology and compare them- which

> > sidelines race (depending on who wins).  This situation is less than ideal

> > socially and politically.

> > c.  that we need to purge all tradition.  This is just not true if the

> > style of performance is open.  We don't have to purge all of our history...

> > including the policy-making bias of topic selection.  Debate isn't any more

> > racist for having white aesthetics involved than Spike Lee is racist for

> > portraying racist whites in film.  A "plan" could easily be a plot device

> > for a larger argument that has as subtle an ethical position as its

> > author(s).  Hell- our very nouns and verbs are constraining... and the

> > product of a bloody history--- but many, certainly including our Reigning

> > CEDA Champs, can bend and mold into powerful blasts of freedom. [Huge

> > Congrats to all involved by the way- this post isn't really "about" that

> > achievement as much as about the broader discussion].

> >

> > I don't think any of this is controversial... and I know it's not

> > original.  But this debate always seems stale to me largely because these

> > ideas seem easily agreed upon.

> > I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.

> >

> > best.

> > eli brennan

> > minneapolis [35/freezing rain and snow]

> >

> > PS- I know this post may be terrifying to "policy" people... But it's

> > basically the SQ with clearer research burdens.  There's plenty of ground to

> > argue more limiting interpretations than this, or within this, but As

> > Always, these should be negotiated by 4 debaters and 1 or more judges on a

> > case-by-case basis.   The problem for policy teams now is that by trying to

> > defend an ad hoc exclusion, they are having their limits argument impact

> > turned, and need to be able to (coopt the offense) give their diverse array

> > of opponents a safe place to do their thing.  So I think it's best for

> > everyone.  This is ethically and strategically preferable for all.

> >

>

>

>

> --

> Eli Brennan

>

> "So it goes." - Vonnegut





-- 
Eli Brennan

"So it goes." - Vonnegut
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080410/523c4d14/attachment.htm