Jump to content
crburk

CEDA Nationals 2008

Recommended Posts

I think that it's easier to win CEDA Nationals with that type of argument than the NDT because CEDA is more focused towards inclusive argumentation, and the NDT still tends to mire itself in a policy focus. That said - they did one heck of a job, and put together a run when they needed to! And, there's no saying that they can't do the same this weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in case people are interested in the kind of stuff towson runs. They're other team ran this last year which similar to what they ran this year. (Towson JM)

http://towsonjm.wikispaces.com/CEDA+2007

I watched the speech and the CX on the wiki, and hope that kind of rhetoric does not characterize college debate's speech about women.

 

I've got no problem with unconventional argument styles or hyperbole. I do wonder, however, why this team chose to use the opening they did. How does it relate to their critique of debate, and why is that mode of expressing their point necessary?

 

Am I misunderstanding the argument being made? I realize the team in the video is not the team that won CEDA this year and am in no way attributing the speech being made to those debaters. (Am I correct in assuming that the CEDA nats winners do not use that rhetoric in their argument?) I would just like to know why the argument was made the way it was.

 

Congrats to Towson on their big win(s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Am I misunderstanding the argument being made? I realize the team in the video is not the team that won CEDA this year and am in no way attributing the speech being made to those debaters. (Am I correct in assuming that the CEDA nats winners do not use that rhetoric in their argument?) I would just like to know why the argument was made the way it was.

 

 

I think it was answering 1ac case business

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the argument in the wiki was not the argument they made at CEDA. The argument that they made at CEDA was that the institutions that create policies aswell as the the institutions that create policy makers are based in the white aesthetic which essentially is a white supremacy oriented way of western based societies to create policy. They say that this upholds a racist view of the world and justifies US-European Imperialistic domination. The alternative is a black aesthetic which is somthing that i dont know too much about because they didnt really explain it that well in the round i watched. I hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did forget to mention however, they had 3 white judges in a couple of the rounds. This poses a problem for a couple of reasons. 1) They say that the ballot is Key to their alt solving

2) if the judges are white then it seems ironic to lay solving for racism in the hands of the "white" judges.

 

I think that this means that the alt, in this forum or round anyway, upholds the same type of white supremacy they try to stop. IE, you alt doesnt do anything unless the "superior white people" sign off on it. The idea that minorities have to get the "white mans" help only re-establishes the idea that minorities are inferior to white people.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it was answering 1ac case business

I figured that much, but why was it considered an appropriate and/or strategic answer? How does sexism mesh with their anti-racism message? Is it hyperbole or intended literally?

 

I'm glad the team that won CEDA didn't say that. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
congrats to the whitman squad!

 

Agreed. Great work Sam and Luke.

*tear* You've come a long way Mr. Allen...a *tear* long way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm amazed a team won CEDA after not breaking in any invitationals...

 

It's an incredible accomplishment that has to be unprecedented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I figured that much, but why was it considered an appropriate and/or strategic answer? How does sexism mesh with their anti-racism message? Is it hyperbole or intended literally?

 

 

i believe the case dealt with abortions, probably with some type of feminist advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Protecting the status quo hardly counts as loving this activity.

 

What?

 

Edit: I watched the Ft. Hays v. Towson round. I thought the only good speech was the 1NR. I actually thought the round was pretty bad overall. Then again, any round that results in 'ol Willy S. mooning the crowd is worth watching! I also thought Ft. Hays decidedly won that debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

keep in mind, one of towson's arguments in the FHSU round was that they struck an african american judge, and therefore were racist. whether or not fort hays won or lost that round, i find arguments like this deplorable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why? Toni and Mike had pretty good RFDs which were very much clear towson wins. Want to justify this some?

 

Coalitional politics is a better agent for change than adversarial politics. Even if "imploding the debate-space" is momentary, it is radical at its core.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keep in mind, one of towson's arguments in the FHSU round was that they struck an african american judge, and therefore were racist. whether or not fort hays won or lost that round, i find arguments like this deplorable.

 

How would Towson know what judges Ft Hays struck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This does not resolve the link question in regards to exclusion, that functions as both a link turn and a take out to the Forts method of accessing towsons argument. This also does not answer any of towsons reasons why the fort is not them, ie there link stories. I think you have the burden to articulate why they are wrong, considering the judgeing disagrees, something so simplistic as "I think fort hays had a better argument" would suggest you voted as of the end of the 1nc.

 

a) I think their "exclusion" link argument wasn't particularly good. Considering her relationship with Towson, I don't think it was out of line to exclude Ft Hays. It would have been smarter for them to cede some of their speech time to her to include her perspective in a more meaningful way. Either way, I was pretty much willing to to assign 100% risk of "no-link" to the "you excluded a unique perspective" argument.

 

B) I think Ft. Hays had their own "experiences" which are counter-hegemonic. As Devin (I think) said, it wasn't a game of "oppression olympics" so I'm not in the business of saying who's story is more valuable.

 

c) I am also neither Hester nor Toni. I also don't agree with the way those two evaluate debate rounds. I find it exceptionally ironic that someone who is defending towson would argue that I should be persuaded by the "judging."

 

In the end, I thought the risk of Ft. Hays' impact outweighed the benefits to the aff. I thought the risk of the link turn, if any, would be solved by their alternative. In a funny way, I don't think the aff "proved" how they would "solve."

 

Incidentally, android sperm kinda grosses me out - there's no way I would have voted for Ft. Hays after the 1NC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Scu was implying that unless you're cheerleading for ethnic minorities and encouraging alternative styles of debating, then you care more about yourself than what happens to the long-term growth of the debate community.

 

Since that's obviously not the case, I'll clarify. I'm one of those people that believe that debate is in some trouble at both the HS and college level as far as participation in concerned (both in raw numbers but also in the number of schools). When people say that Towson hates debate, or that they run "debate bad" I think that's just a flat out dumb mischaracterization of what they do. They obviously argue that they think debate is great, and that more people should join. That there are some issues that are problematic with people joining the activity, and that should be fought against. That's hardly debate bad.

Furthermore, simply in terms of raw numbers, the Baltimore UDL is a wildly successful organization. I mean, it totally blew my head away when Andy told me about participation levels. Towson is also a very successful college program into spreading debate throughout Baltimore colleges and helping large numbers of people compete successfully across divisions (including novice, JV, and Open). You might want to question their tactics, beliefs, or whatever. But I'm not sure how you can question their love of this activity.

 

And I for one am both impressed and excited by their victory this weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I'm not sure how you can question their love of this activity.

 

I think this is a confusion of terms. They love Debate, they love argument they love the activity of competing through discussion. They dislike debate...it's couched within the white aesthetic. They are a criticism of debate, not Debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fort, as per Bill's explaination, struck the judge in question because in a previous round this person gave FHSU 27's and Towson 30's and it was subsequently a loss for fort hays. it was a strategic decision. The same way Phil Samuels, despite being a participating black member of the debate community, would probably not be high on Towson's pref. sheet for obvious reasons. Either way, this type of argumentation brings into the debate unverifiable aspects (pref sheets, debate team ethics, etc) that also justify claims of exclusion where there actually were none.

 

I tend to believe this is not the best way of rallying support for a cause. They cannibalize any allies of theirs because of oppositional rhetoric. They also claimed that winning CEDA would be the culmination of their efforts. We'll see if their story changes at the NDT. I also think they should probably disclose their pref. sheets if they are going to make them arguments in the debate.

 

All of this may seem negative, on face, but its really not. Everything i've said here are more suggestions to them rather than bad-mouthing. I think its wonderful that they did so well. winning is winning and at the end of the day, they won because more people thought they were better debaters. i just question the method in which they did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that a lot of this discussion is predicated off of the rounds being posted online so that everyone can see how the rounds ACTUALLY played out.

 

I filmed every Towson CL out-round and RFD, but what's problematic is getting releases from squad members (i.e Kansas, Fort Hayes, etc) and judges. And (legally) I don't think we can post them without their consent.

 

If there are legal implications, I want to make sure that that's all taken care of first and foremost.

 

Any ideas on how we can have this taken care of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any ideas on how we can have this taken care of?

 

I believe there aren't any, as long as you were in public and they saw the camera and didn't object.

 

You should just email all involved just to shore things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that a lot of this discussion is predicated off of the rounds being posted online so that everyone can see how the rounds ACTUALLY played out.

 

I filmed every Towson CL out-round and RFD, but what's problematic is getting releases from squad members (i.e Kansas, Fort Hayes, etc) and judges. And (legally) I don't think we can post them without their consent.

 

If there are legal implications, I want to make sure that that's all taken care of first and foremost.

 

Any ideas on how we can have this taken care of?

 

Eric Morris from Missouri State regularly puts up debate videos he's taped on youtube under ermocito (http://youtube.com/user/ermocito). You can send him an email to ask what his procedure is in regards to legal implications.

 

I don't think it should be a problem though. I am really interested in seeing these outrounds as well, since I didn't have the time to go to Ceda Nats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that a lot of this discussion is predicated off of the rounds being posted online so that everyone can see how the rounds ACTUALLY played out.

 

I filmed every Towson CL out-round and RFD, but what's problematic is getting releases from squad members (i.e Kansas, Fort Hayes, etc) and judges. And (legally) I don't think we can post them without their consent.

 

If there are legal implications, I want to make sure that that's all taken care of first and foremost.

 

Any ideas on how we can have this taken care of?

 

u can email them. an easy way to get their emails is to go to their college website and look them up in their directory or you can send them an email out on that eboard(?) thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What?

 

Edit: I watched the Ft. Hays v. Towson round. I thought the only good speech was the 1NR. I actually thought the round was pretty bad overall. Then again, any round that results in 'ol Willy S. mooning the crowd is worth watching! I also thought Ft. Hays decidedly won that debate.

 

did shannahan really moon the crowd?

 

I'd love to see the ft hays round.

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...