Jump to content
bulldog508

A book to read

Recommended Posts

Guest docmartin

Joe-Miller, you are just a fucking asshole, arent't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm curious, shu. is speed the only thing you feel is responsible or is there something inherent to the nature of policy arguments that you feel turns kids off?
Aside from the bizarre delivery style, the other thing that turns off my new students quickly is that when they actually go to tournaments we never discuss the topic they've been researching and writing about. A novice team of mine wrote a Coast Guard case, for instance, but in none of the rounds they debated did they ever get to discuss the actual merits of expanding the Coast Guard. All of the arguments they were expected to be familiar with were things like the Indo-Pak agreement and anarchy...

 

It doesn't take very many losses to teams that ignore everything you say, bring up issues that bear no relation to the topic, and speak at near-incomprehensible rates before newcomers decide to look elsewhere for intellectual stimulation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can see how that could turn kids off. i can also see how that could be highly mitigated if they were told ahead of time that negative teams would be running arguments that at face value seem to bear little relation to the topic (and frankly, if presented in a way that is more empathetic to the negative position most can be made to seem relevant to the topic insofar as they have links). if you introduce the activity as something that encompasses a broad range of discussion of the effects of policy, and specifically mention some of the generic disads as areas that will likely be considered, it should then be something they devote time to researching and perceive as a part of the topic from the get go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you introduce the activity as something that encompasses a broad range of discussion of the effects of policy, and specifically mention some of the generic disads as areas that will likely be considered, it should then be something they devote time to researching and perceive as a part of the topic from the get go.
Wildly unrealistic. It is time-consuming enough for them to work on their Aff and some of the basic Neg positions we want to run. I'm supposed to tell them "Oh, and don't forget to have some answers to every conceivable 'tix DA, and the anarchy CP, and Foucault, and Agamben, and..."? These kids don't want to devote their whole lives to that kind of crap. They want to debate, but not at the cost of being in band, drama, math club, Stuco, etc. Almost all of them have jobs, too. How am I supposed to keep them involved when I tell them that the number and range of positions they must be prepared to discuss AS NOVICES AT THEIR FIRST MEET is basically infinite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's not "wildly unrealistic" unless you wildly misconstrue what's being said. i'm not telling you that novices can or should be prepared for "every concievable" position. your original sentiment is that they would be caught offgaurd by thing like politics, which seem unrealated. if they are told that there are these things called politics disads that function in this way (linking to political consequences of plan) rather than based on the other consequences of plan, they won't be caught offgaurd and will feel more as though this is a part of the topic, a part of the expected research. there's no need to have them be blocked out to every single politics linkand impact scenario, only to be aware of the two or three most popular, and maybe have blocks to those (which they can get help with from coaches and/or varsity). it's only "wildly unrealistic" if you take what i said out of a reasonable context and take it to an unreasonable and unrealistic extreme. as far as your other examples the same model can be applied (that i applied to politics DAs) to CPs and Ks.

 

if you present it pessimistically like "you've gotta be ready to debate any infinte number of arguments" of course they'll be intidmated. if you related it more like "in any academic debate, it's impossible to predict what the opponent will say, only what they are likely to say" that will seem more reasonable and true of any debate style they do. plus, it's more true to the novice circuit. i guess i haven't talked much about popular novices arguments in iowa but over here (even before the rules were set up) we didn't get that much off the wall shit. the reality is that novices limited undertstanding limits the argument choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aside from the bizarre delivery style, the other thing that turns off my new students quickly is that when they actually go to tournaments we never discuss the topic they've been researching and writing about. A novice team of mine wrote a Coast Guard case, for instance, but in none of the rounds they debated did they ever get to discuss the actual merits of expanding the Coast Guard. All of the arguments they were expected to be familiar with were things like the Indo-Pak agreement and anarchy...

 

It doesn't take very many losses to teams that ignore everything you say, bring up issues that bear no relation to the topic, and speak at near-incomprehensible rates before newcomers decide to look elsewhere for intellectual stimulation...

 

So, have your teams been able to experiment outside "traditional" (NDT/NFL policy) formats? Have coaches rebelled to say that debate IS important and what we see is not debate anymore so we will re-create debate as it should be - free from the scourges of speed, off-topic debate and what ever else is bad?

 

Does the Urban Debate League do a better job of "quality" of debate? Are some states/regions better? Did public forum make debate better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wy don't you do well in out of state tournament, john?

 

because our coaches don't take us to any.

 

my attempt was not to burn bridges or insult anyone. i was merely trying to defend our state from what i interpreted him as saying, which apparently isn't right, so sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit tired, so please forgive me for not going line-by-line (Shuman I'll get to you...)

 

Warrants? And the judges at the TOC could be unwittingly brainwashed members of a cult. What's your point?

 

Could you share your 'warrants' for why the TOC/every qual tournament blows?

 

 

 

The data show that the TOC cult gauges results at tournaments dominated by a shrinking subculture of debate.

 

I wouldn't say so. I mean, critical stuff wins, policy stuff wins; and in LD, everything from irony to narratives to standard cases to Ks win rounds. I don't know if LD is a more 'inclusive' forum or what. Maybe LDers are just focused on persuasion.

 

 

 

The TOC has judges who tend to conform to the dubiously-applicable-to-democracy quirks of a shrinking subculture. Your indict of NFl nats is based on one hearsay whine about a loss.

 

Uhh, no, it was a description of another judge on the panel, who has coached two of the top LDers in the nation in the past two years (and guess what, they don't do all the spread-tastic stuff performance teams indict!)

 

Hardly a warrant. My impression of NFL Nats based on actually being there, and interviews with the organization's executive director and board members is that it's judging pool more closely resembles the range of public opinion in the united states, and therefore is a far superior educational forum for training students in the skills of political power.

 

Who says that 'the skills of political power' are subverting an accepted method of debate? I find it quite obvious that the US Congress (and the American public as a whole) would prefer someone who can think about IR policies and domestic policies in addition to racial/gender issues rather than the performance teams that talk only about racial and gender issues (in a method that would probably get you laughed at by the media if you did it in a place other than debate...and don't tell me that Congress is exclusionary because of it).

 

 

I said we're about destroying the hegemon of the cult of the TOC.

 

And this ISN'T a strawperson (gotta be gender neutral, yo, deconstruct them barriers)? It's MUCH easier to argue that you are taking down something as evil as a cult (you know, those organizations that indoctrinate their followers with a religion, then encourage them to commit suicide, release sarin gas on subways, etc.)! Jeez, sorry for comparing you to MLK...I didn't know that comparing a method of debate to an organization involved in malicious activities was legit...

 

BTW, this line

 

To equate me with such a move is to employ the oldest and dirtiest tactic in debate: Construct a Straw Man and then tear it apart, pretending that the straw man is your opponent.

 

would probably be considered a strawperson, seeing as how you paint me as someone who is deliberately and maliciously constructing a strawperson in order to win the argument (when it's simply not the case).

 

Whatever.

 

The thing I was wondering about all day was why couldn't a team read the performance to affirm, and then the neg stands up and reads the same performance (same being identical). Why couldn't the neg be like "ok, no way to weigh two performances that deconstruct [_____] equally well, you presume neg b/c..." I mean, you can't argue that the neg is being disingenuous because they may actually believe it, so what then? Or, why can't the neg say "if you care about your message so much, you shouldn't care about winning the round, just about sending the message, right? If you gave me your Project to run for later rounds (so as to spread the message, of course), and the judge and my team agree that you are ultimately right, there is racism/classism in debate, wouldn't you be achieving 1. getting your message across and 2. getting your message across to an even larger amount of people? Or, do you only care about the win (in which case, you shouldn't win because you are employing race or class as a competitive tactic, further entrenching racism/classism)?"

 

And lastly, why should a team be dropped for something that's not their fault (i.e. they reject racism/classism and their own priviledge in everyday life)? What if the aff reads their Project, and the other team stands up and is like "I am a civil rights activist through my church and other organizations, and have helped the rights of so-and-so, and I have also started a foundation for the oppressed races/classes in society be able to attend debate tournaments and get the necessary resources. What have you actually accomplished by reading the Project?" Wouldn't it then be the performance team's fault for not actually creating real-world change when they claim to be doing so, and so they should be dropped?

 

I'm sure performance teams have answers to those, I'm just wondering what they are (because those responses seem very logical to me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The irony is that my partner's a girl and we have no assistant coaches, and don't travel the national circuit.

 

your not good so hows that ironic and plus you prolly would be better if you had ass. coaches and a male partner

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
u guys r all dumbasses. jus bcause the school is predominantly white and rich doesnt mean all the debaters are white, rich and have billions of assistant coach. Like me, im not white, im not rich, and our school only has one coach...but yes i do hate those rich white boys.

 

way to be the stereotypical angry black man that Wright talked about in Native son

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you haven't caught on, the mere fact that a student goes to a school with as much money as these schools do advantages them light years beyond kids from the Kansas City school district. The problem with your approach to this conversation is that the postmodern fear of simplifying things for arguments' sake (essentializing! silencing! marginalizing!) leads you to rejecting an argument for superficial reasons. What I am about is trying to make the situation a more equal playing field. If I have to explain things in a simplified way to do get people to understand, I'll likely do it. At the end of the day, decreasing the socio-economic component of debate success is a good goal, will you agree with that?

 

i agree that some are dismissing it for trivial reasons and not getting to the real arguement.

 

O yeah and it is one thing to bitch about how the white man's keeping you down but it is a completely different thing to come up with a solution

and, I'm not trying to put myself in your shoes I'm not sure if I even could, but my mom always tells my to focus and be grateful about the things you do have and hard-work and believing in yourself can take you anywhere

 

finally, you guys have good ribs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the first part of your post: No shit, really?

 

Why the hell do you hate rich white boys? Because they are better priveleged than you? Tough shit! Get over it, asshole, and go fucking do something productive instead of bitching about how bad you have it.

 

good job being tactful (kinda agree tho) read my above post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I"m a novice because it's my first year debating but I debate in varsity and champ and have broken twice in champ.

 

this quote seems paradoxical to what you've said and the way you've carried yourself in the above posts and leads me to three clonclusions:

A. you have a hell of a partner that is able to fix what you say

B. competition isn't stiff

or C. you did some judges some favors

 

which one(s) describe you

 

finally sorry for all these back to back posts I tend to respond in splurges every week of so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Same thing. "Destroying the hegemon" sounds better.

 

Joey, may i call you that, i hate to say it (actually i like to say it) but winning against big teams and destroying the hegemon aren't close to the same thing. I feel that by saying rapping a 1ac and putting your twist on debate solves for this, albeit unfortunate situation, you are making a terrible assumption and in doing so being disrespectful to the progress already made.

 

I agree you can debate your own style, although i believe simply voting for a team because they are minorities, or women, or poor, or midgets, or gay, or anything else that doesn't look to the merit of the argumentation and the presentation of that arguementation is reverse discrimination, but if you can win on it more power to ya

 

my last comment in this string of posts (if you split them into short one people will be more willing to read)

 

if it is true that you are less fortunate than me and everyone else and that this has a solution (debate not being one of them) then:

 

IF YOU WANT TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD BRING YOURSELVES UP, DON'T BRING THE REST OF US DOWN

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an odd question. But it makes sense, I suppose, because if my goal is to level the playing field such that the brilliant students from schools like KCC and Fort Osage might advance to the most prestigious outrounds of national-circuit tournaments, which are at present the dominion of the also brilliant kids of GBN, Greenhill, etc. As such, I guess I am interested in seeing those schools lose more often. But the way I would phrase it so that a diverse community of students might have a share in that community's spoils.

 

I should have been more clear, my fault. I see the value/reason iniround that you ought to win over the "wealthier" to level the field. My question was more directed to out-round applicaiton of the argument. It seems that the whole wealthy system needs to lose more as a consequence of this position. Is that a fair reading?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So in other words what you are saying is that you care more about winning debate rounds than increasing minority participation?

 

 

...

 

 

Welcome to the club!

 

That's like saying I care more about breathing than taking in oxygen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joey, may i call you that, i hate to say it (actually i like to say it) but winning against big teams and destroying the hegemon aren't close to the same thing. I feel that by saying rapping a 1ac and putting your twist on debate solves for this, albeit unfortunate situation, you are making a terrible assumption and in doing so being disrespectful to the progress already made.

 

I agree you can debate your own style, although i believe simply voting for a team because they are minorities, or women, or poor, or midgets, or gay, or anything else that doesn't look to the merit of the argumentation and the presentation of that arguementation is reverse discrimination, but if you can win on it more power to ya

 

my last comment in this string of posts (if you split them into short one people will be more willing to read)

 

if it is true that you are less fortunate than me and everyone else and that this has a solution (debate not being one of them) then:

 

IF YOU WANT TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD BRING YOURSELVES UP, DON'T BRING THE REST OF US DOWN

 

Because up is down and down is up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a bit tired, so please forgive me for not going line-by-line (Shuman I'll get to you...)

 

 

 

Could you share your 'warrants' for why the TOC/every qual tournament blows?

 

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't say so. I mean, critical stuff wins, policy stuff wins; and in LD, everything from irony to narratives to standard cases to Ks win rounds. I don't know if LD is a more 'inclusive' forum or what. Maybe LDers are just focused on persuasion.

 

 

 

 

 

Uhh, no, it was a description of another judge on the panel, who has coached two of the top LDers in the nation in the past two years (and guess what, they don't do all the spread-tastic stuff performance teams indict!)

 

 

 

Who says that 'the skills of political power' are subverting an accepted method of debate? I find it quite obvious that the US Congress (and the American public as a whole) would prefer someone who can think about IR policies and domestic policies in addition to racial/gender issues rather than the performance teams that talk only about racial and gender issues (in a method that would probably get you laughed at by the media if you did it in a place other than debate...and don't tell me that Congress is exclusionary because of it).

 

 

 

 

And this ISN'T a strawperson (gotta be gender neutral, yo, deconstruct them barriers)? It's MUCH easier to argue that you are taking down something as evil as a cult (you know, those organizations that indoctrinate their followers with a religion, then encourage them to commit suicide, release sarin gas on subways, etc.)! Jeez, sorry for comparing you to MLK...I didn't know that comparing a method of debate to an organization involved in malicious activities was legit...

 

BTW, this line

 

 

 

would probably be considered a strawperson, seeing as how you paint me as someone who is deliberately and maliciously constructing a strawperson in order to win the argument (when it's simply not the case).

 

Whatever.

 

The thing I was wondering about all day was why couldn't a team read the performance to affirm, and then the neg stands up and reads the same performance (same being identical). Why couldn't the neg be like "ok, no way to weigh two performances that deconstruct [_____] equally well, you presume neg b/c..." I mean, you can't argue that the neg is being disingenuous because they may actually believe it, so what then? Or, why can't the neg say "if you care about your message so much, you shouldn't care about winning the round, just about sending the message, right? If you gave me your Project to run for later rounds (so as to spread the message, of course), and the judge and my team agree that you are ultimately right, there is racism/classism in debate, wouldn't you be achieving 1. getting your message across and 2. getting your message across to an even larger amount of people? Or, do you only care about the win (in which case, you shouldn't win because you are employing race or class as a competitive tactic, further entrenching racism/classism)?"

 

And lastly, why should a team be dropped for something that's not their fault (i.e. they reject racism/classism and their own priviledge in everyday life)? What if the aff reads their Project, and the other team stands up and is like "I am a civil rights activist through my church and other organizations, and have helped the rights of so-and-so, and I have also started a foundation for the oppressed races/classes in society be able to attend debate tournaments and get the necessary resources. What have you actually accomplished by reading the Project?" Wouldn't it then be the performance team's fault for not actually creating real-world change when they claim to be doing so, and so they should be dropped?

 

I'm sure performance teams have answers to those, I'm just wondering what they are (because those responses seem very logical to me).

 

I'm tired too. These are really intelligent points. I don't exactly agree, nor exactly disagree with any of them, but I like the way you're thinking.

 

In case you haven't noticed, I've been purposely provocative in this thread. My motivation is to challenge conventional wisdom.

 

I could stand behind everything I've said. And lately I tend to lean in the direction I've indicated here. But there are counter agruments to all the ones I've laid out. Of course, there are lots of merits to the so-called traditional debate of the Tournament of Champions. But I think the notion that it's the pinacle of debate excellence in the US ought to be strenuously questioned, considering the grossly skewed demographics of its most exhaulted levels (octo bid tourneys, the TOC itself).

 

It's fun to be strident in an online forum, to say things I know will rankle. But I'm aware, too, that there are a lot of really thoughtful and compassionate people who coach in the so-called traditional style, who see their work asa tremendous benefit to society. I'm not discounting that. I agree, really.

 

It's not that the coaches at Woodward and Greenhill and such aren't nice, or that their kids aren't either. I've talked to all the coaches. They're swell folks.

 

But at some point you have to step back and assess the community you're a steward of.

 

When I look at the outround pairings at the really big tournaments -- and I'm not talking Caucus or KCKCC, I mean MBA and the Glenbrooks -- I feel quite a bit of despair. It looks an awful lot like a country club to me.

 

Which would be fine if they were playing polo or something equaly vain. But they're playing a game that is essential to our free society. And I refuse to concede that their rarified air is the purest. To my nose, it stinks of exclusion.

 

That, in my mind, that's the stench of inferiority.

 

Is the KCC project the answer? I doubt it.

 

But at least we're trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe-Miller, you are just a fucking asshole, arent't you?

 

No. I'm a child of Christ. And I love you with all of my heart.

 

:love:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. I'm a child of Christ. And I love you with all of my heart.

 

:love:

 

thats what we need in this world

and the good thing about love is that it is like jello...there's always room for more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. I'm a child of Christ. And I love you with all of my heart.

 

:love:

 

 

 

I haven't had a chance to read the book yet but is the project working?

 

 

When you level the playing field is it still possible for others to win?

 

 

Would it be unfair to vote a team down because they aren't very good at making an argument aganist the project if you vote a team up beacuse they're better at a differant style of debate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...