Jump to content
Dr. Doom

Death of Debate in post-fiat world is a big impact?

Recommended Posts

So basically you have no argument against the K. Just the outlandish link and impact claims of the aff. in the neg. regardless of what the scenario is.
No, I was suggesting an ironic way aff could attack the whole framework of kritiks without turning off pro-K judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're saying that the dramatically increased number of arguments for which one must be prepared, as well as the arcane and often counter-intuitive manner in which they are argued, makes for "better" debate. It doesn't.

 

first, i am not defending counter-intuitive arguments as being good for debate. second, just because an argument is "arcane" does not make it a bad argument on face, it just means that you don't understand it. and third, yes, more argumentative possibilities are good for debate. allowing debaters to explore different avenues of logic can only be a good thing for their education.

 

It makes for more and more rounds where actual clash is minimal, more and more frustration for beginning debaters (and coaches) as they come to realize the virtually limitless nature of the kind of debating you advocate, more and more kids deciding some other activity is a more productive and rewarding place to invest their extracurricular time...

 

if team A reads an argument that team B doesn't understand, you dont penalize team A for lack of clash, that is ridiculous. further, i don't see how you link limitless debate to kids dropping debate. the teenage complex is feeling like an adult without being one legally. they want freedom and debate can provide a platform for that, if students are allowed to find the arguments that best suits them.

 

I wouldn't be using the word "presumptuous" to describe someone else's position on this issue when your own is based on so little.

 

how about narrow-minded, unenlightened, fascist... are any of these words permitted by the thought police?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
first, i am not defending counter-intuitive arguments as being good for debate. second, just because an argument is "arcane" does not make it a bad argument on face, it just means that you don't understand it. and third, yes, more argumentative possibilities are good for debate. allowing debaters to explore different avenues of logic can only be a good thing for their education.

 

wrong, and dumb.

 

a) arcane arguments are bad - they promote the elitism and hegemons discussed earlier.

 

B) you are getting so far away from the original arg its rediculous... the point is that the learing curve is huge. different avenues of logic are fine, as long as the forum's integrety is preserved. seriously why should a freshman in high school be forced to learn things that are not usually tought until upper level undergrad courses or higher. this leads to the poor clash and education, but i'll get to that later...

 

c) my a and b function as a link... you don't assume the fact that policy debate is a self-sustaining community. that being said, it is important to preserve the integrety set forth by those before us. this is important for 2 reasons. 1) keeps the elders judging. the learning curve arg's apply just as much to them. if we alienate the policy debaters from "back in the day" then the activity has lost the crucial member, the impartial observer that sorts everything out from the desk in the back. 2) doesn't over-intimidate novii. sure debate is inevitbly elitest and isn't for everyone, but that doesnt justify the pressure the learning curves place on them. not only do they have to make the transition from socially active kid to politically aware member of society, they have to learn about events in the target area of the topic in detail that the majority of population ignores... but hey, i've got an idea, lets throw in the last 150 years of philosophical developements on them. each year is a new generation of people that could be in the activity from a month to the rest of their lives. they are crucial to ensure the cyclic nature of debate doesn't collapse

 

 

 

if team A reads an argument that team B doesn't understand, you dont penalize team A for lack of clash, that is ridiculous. further, i don't see how you link limitless debate to kids dropping debate. the teenage complex is feeling like an adult without being one legally. they want freedom and debate can provide a platform for that, if students are allowed to find the arguments that best suits them.

 

you do puish team A if the argument in question is destructive to the activity [enter framework]. your argument only makes sense in a context where ignorance is solely because of apathy. the debate world is not this simple. you ever new novices and ever returning vetrans that are bombarded year after year with a new policy topic. as if that werent enough you throw in all the k hacks and you've got a formidible library unto itself. at that point limits have exploded. without some kind of sensible limit on the learning curve and research burden there is no hope. first, it kills predictability because of the rediculous numbers of aff and neg strats. without predictability there can be no clash, no discussion, and thus no education. second your argument for new avenues uniquely links. it makes the bredth acidic to the activity. you reach a point wher the is so much to be learned it necessitates less depth of pre round edu which kills the in round depth and clash.

 

with no inround education and a out of round education that is all but unmangagable, on top of keeping up with grades in a new environment, the high school freshman is sooooo f*cked. and then the kid quits. i've seen it happen. seriously, the retention rate for highschool and college novii is way below 50%.

 

how about narrow-minded, unenlightened, fascist... are any of these words permitted by the thought police?

 

maybe... but then maybe you should i don't know, put down your post-structuralist bullshit and do some investigation into classic virtues and vices, more specifically humility in self, respect for the sanctity of the activity and ohhhh how about getting off the pretentiousness train.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wrong, and dumb.

 

a) arcane arguments are bad - they promote the elitism and hegemons discussed earlier.

 

according to dictionary.com, arcane means, "known or understood by very few; mysterious; secret; obscure; esoteric: She knew a lot about Sanskrit grammar and other arcane matters."

 

arcane arguments are good - they promote learning new ways to conceive of problems and solutions to them. not all arcane arguments are elitist.

 

B) you are getting so far away from the original arg its rediculous... the point is that the learing curve is huge. different avenues of logic are fine, as long as the forum's integrety is preserved. seriously why should a freshman in high school be forced to learn things that are not usually tought until upper level undergrad courses or higher. this leads to the poor clash and education, but i'll get to that later...

 

i agree that the learning curve is larger, but i do not agree that this is a bad thing. granted, a high school freshman is going to have trouble understanding foucault, but 1) i don't know anyone who starts novice debate with foucault, and 2) a freshman should not be banned from learning foucault if they can understand and apply it. don't hold smart kids back because you think an argument is too hard for them.

 

as far learning upper level undergrad material is concerned, last i checked high school was supposed to prepare you for college, not shield you from it. additionally, policy debate was at that level before kritiks ever came along. the only difference is now debaters learn philosophy in addition to political science, history, economics, and sociology.

 

c) my a and b function as a link... you don't assume the fact that policy debate is a self-sustaining community.

 

yes i do and don't assume you know what i assume. there is some sort of saying about that i believe.

 

that being said, it is important to preserve the integrety set forth by those before us. this is important for 2 reasons. 1) keeps the elders judging. the learning curve arg's apply just as much to them. if we alienate the policy debaters from "back in the day" then the activity has lost the crucial member, the impartial observer that sorts everything out from the desk in the back.

 

1) non-unique - the spread

2) non-unique - debate camps producing more research on the topic than a doctoral thesis

3) non-unique - debate rounds are not in an auditorium full of people anymore

4) debate is a specialized form of communication that few people understand. getting rid of kritiks or other complex arguments is not going to change that.

5) debate is constantly changing. what one generation of debaters and coaches find important, may not be the same as the next. this will necessarily leave some behind.

6) it is insulting to group all "back in the day" debaters as not intelligent enough to understand a complex argument.

 

2) doesn't over-intimidate novii. sure debate is inevitbly elitest and isn't for everyone, but that doesnt justify the pressure the learning curves place on them. not only do they have to make the transition from socially active kid to politically aware member of society, they have to learn about events in the target area of the topic in detail that the majority of population ignores... but hey, i've got an idea, lets throw in the last 150 years of philosophical developements on them. each year is a new generation of people that could be in the activity from a month to the rest of their lives. they are crucial to ensure the cyclic nature of debate doesn't collapse

 

again, it would be irresponsible to throw novices into a full on kritik round the first day of class. however, it is important understand the philosophy relevant to the topic. furthermore, i don't see any l-d ers on here complaining that they had to learn philosophy, this is a purely c-x debate construction based on an elitist conception of the activity.

 

you do puish team A if the argument in question is destructive to the activity [enter framework].

 

wait, you mean i have to learn framework? isn't that philosophy as applied to debate? why should i have to learn that, i'm only a freshman?

 

your argument only makes sense in a context where ignorance is solely because of apathy. the debate world is not this simple. you ever new novices and ever returning vetrans that are bombarded year after year with a new policy topic. as if that werent enough you throw in all the k hacks and you've got a formidible library unto itself. at that point limits have exploded. without some kind of sensible limit on the learning curve and research burden there is no hope.

 

see above, the limits exploded a long time ago. what should the limit to a debate round be? debate draws from the following college subjects in varying degrees: philosophy, political science, economics, sociology, law, history, linguistics, speech, international business, and finance. this is not to mention the combinations therein. where should the limit be? it is ridiculous to think that philosophy by itself tipped the balance of knowledge so far that high school debaters can't handle it. 1) debaters can and are currently able to handle it; 2) don't assume the level of ability or intelligence of a group of people based on their age, that would also be elitist.

 

first, it kills predictability because of the rediculous numbers of aff and neg strats. without predictability there can be no clash, no discussion, and thus no education.

 

predictability does not ensure clash, application does. just because an argument is not predictable does not mean that it does not apply, this is an elitist assumption. furthermore, if i take a class where i already know everything in the class, i.e. it is predictable, then i will not learn anything in that class. on the contrary, if i take a class that i know nothing about, then i will learn a lot. your argument is not based on education, its based on what is easy to teach.

 

second your argument for new avenues uniquely links. it makes the bredth acidic to the activity. you reach a point wher the is so much to be learned it necessitates less depth of pre round edu which kills the in round depth and clash.

 

first, in round depth amounts to 90 minutes, let's remember that.

second, if there are 100 teams in your areas running 100 different arguments, you still have to prepare for 100 arguments regardless whether they are philosophical in nature or not. number of competitors determines depth pre-round, not type of argument.

 

with no inround education and a out of round education that is all but unmangagable, on top of keeping up with grades in a new environment, the high school freshman is sooooo f*cked. and then the kid quits. i've seen it happen. seriously, the retention rate for highschool and college novii is way below 50%.

 

just because an event is too hard for little timmy, doesn't mean we should slow the activity down. this happens way to much in public education as it is. debate allows students to express creativity and logic in a competitive format that is unmatched by any other course offering at the high school level, and i like it that way.

 

if i am not big and fast, but i want to play football, the coach doesn't tell everyone else to slow down so i can play too. no, coach says, "you're cut, go find something else to do."

 

maybe... but then maybe you should i don't know, put down your post-structuralist bullshit and do some investigation into classic virtues and vices, more specifically humility in self, respect for the sanctity of the activity and ohhhh how about getting off the pretentiousness train.

 

my post that you are characterizing here was a response to an ad hominem attack much like this one. as far as humility and pretentiousness, are you the pot or the kettle? additionally, what does "the sanctity of the activity" mean anyway. i love debate, but it is not my church. this sounds like an overly subjective term used to socialize some ideas and suppress others based on the likes and dislikes of an author.

 

i have just as much affinity and respect for debate as anyone else in the community, and i take offense to any inference to the contrary.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how about narrow-minded, unenlightened, fascist... are any of these words permitted by the thought police?

 

Dammit Christian, I just laughed out loud in the middle of my study hall class.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...