Jump to content
feldsy

NDCA round 6 open forum on policy debate

Recommended Posts

St. Vincent de paul MY has forfeited the last round at NDCA to hold a live-streamed debate on the community

 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I commit to watching a 2h video, can we get some context on why this happened?

1) It doesn't start till 20 minutes in

2) I don't really know why they did this, but its a very good discussion (though i disagree with their blatant dismissal of framework).  Also, you can just listen to it while doing other shenanigans since there's no need to visually want it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, following everything that happened in the forum discussions had by the coaches in the past two nights and our round against Damien, Ricky and I and Nevada Union Teddy and Kris decided to forfeit our rounds and have an open forum discussions. Itll go on as long as it can, so if any of you have anything that you think should be discussed or questions or any form of input, message me or comment on this or comment on the livestream

Closest explanation I've seen from Adam Martin, M from SVDP MY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(though i disagree with their blatant dismissal of framework)

 

When'd that happen? I think they nearly unanimously agreed that the next generation of framework arguments (USfg policymaking as a methodological counter-advocacy rather than a procedural issue) are good. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When'd that happen? I think they nearly unanimously agreed that the next generation of framework arguments (USfg policymaking as a methodological counter-advocacy rather than a procedural issue) are good. 

Because though they do have that discussion (I actually ran something similar to that this year, a CTP DA with an alt), they unanimously agree that limits are bad.  No matter what.  Always, always bad.  There's absolutely zero discussion on how banishing limits can oft help privileged teams more than disadvantaged teams.That discussion also ignores the possibility of roleplaying being uniquely k2 education (a discussion of competing methodologies is NOT the same thing)

Or that assigning wins/losses to personal advocacies is discursive violent and exclusionary

 

Also, one thing i discovered about policy-counter advocacies is that the perm is almost impossible to respond to.  Especially cuz there's virtually No authors that say "critical theory is incompatible with policy" from a policymaking good POV. Luckily so many people were surprised by the K they forgot to perm it

 

Edit: A comment i made on the live stream while it was going on mentioned that I don't see how its uniquely evil to read framework and have a discussion of what debate should and shouldn't be over when the alternative is often reading cap or nietzsche every round(and Nietzsche is 1000X as morally repugnant as any limits arg ever made)

Edited by feldsy
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Limits are bad?  I strongly disagree.  Time is a major limiting factor, and debate is not the whole life of the competitors - no limits just means people who don't want to run the same generic K every round have an insane time burden applied if they want to debate.  The activity that results in I have no interest in judging or coaching.

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Limits are bad?  I strongly disagree.  Time is a major limiting factor, and debate is not the whole life of the competitors - no limits just means people who don't want to run the same generic K every round have an insane time burden applied if they want to debate.  The activity that results in I have no interest in judging or coaching.

I agree with you---that's what i was saying was flawed with the dicussion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh, finally have some time I can listen to it, and the video is now 'private'...

 

Oh, and Feldsy - yeah, wasn't disagreeing with you, was disagreeing with the apparent consensus of the discussion that limits are bad.

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh, finally have some time I can listen to it, and the video is now 'private'...

 

Oh, and Feldsy - yeah, wasn't disagreeing with you, was disagreeing with the apparent consensus of the discussion that limits are bad.

I messaged Ricky Young (the Y in SVDP YM) about the video so hopefully that gets fixed

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think this "discussion" was mainly problematic for a few reasons. first, why didnt these teams do it round 1, and not a round where both of them knew they wouldnt break? second, why did it take like 30 minutes for a woman or person of color to talk in this video? and why was this discussion group mainly comprised of white males with the exception of a few on video chat? why did they need someone to tell them to talk about the issue of minority participation in debate? and why did they keep making the incorrect, universalizing claim "debate is good, debate is good, debate is good"? especially when for many who are NOT totally included in the activity/are basically excluded on a structural level

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It almost bothers me a little bit how that one kid from Nevada Union talks so much about how hard getting to tournaments is. Coming from a small rural school in Nevada we just can't go to large tournaments. We can't afford it and we aren't near a lot of schools. We have 6 local tournaments a year with no more than 10 policy teams entered in one tournament probably averaging about 6. I have not debated one fast round this year. My point being things can be substantially worse and it is substantially worse in a lot of places. If you get to go to ANY large tournaments then you are extremely privileged. Hell if you get to debate you are extremely privileged. I just don't feel like anyone recognizes that nearly enough for how much they talk about how privilege needs to be recognized. I am by no means under privileged I just don't get to go to every tournament there is or compete on the national circuit. That is literally all being from a rural area has done to me. I still have extreme privilege in every other aspect of my life and I feel like he doesn't recognize that at all. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that just more reason to agree? I don't buy the argument that one should reject a claim because the person who made it could have it pretty good in comparison. I think that the argument that tournaments are hard to get to is valid, and screaming “BUT WE HAVE IT WORSE!" does nothing for the situation. Also, I like to think that the discussion was worthwhile, no matter when it happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that just more reason to agree? I don't buy the argument that one should reject a claim because the person who made it could have it pretty good in comparison. I think that the argument that tournaments are hard to get to is valid, and screaming “BUT WE HAVE IT WORSE!" does nothing for the situation. Also, I like to think that the discussion was worthwhile, no matter when it happened.

When you talk about the fact that you need to recognize privilege in the same discussion it's completely contradictory...

 

The discussion was really meh to me. I've watched much more productive discussions, this just felt really unauthentic to me. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least one was had. Obviously, it would feel more authentic, had they had it when they had a shot at breaking. But they didn't. A discussion is a discussion, and the other team auto-won, anyway. Policy debate won't be able to find its issues and resolve them if we don;t have these types of discussions. Especially if we discount points made because of the people who made them. The point made, if I understand correctly, is that tournaments are hard to get to. Which is a fact. Just because they are fortunate doesn't mean the argument is invalid. That's the same as saying that a white person can't say that minorities are underprivileged, because they;re not a minority. It's a fact, and should be accepted as such.

 

I, again, think these discussions become more important the more often they are had. I'm glad they didn't use said discussion to garner wins. That is the symbol, to me, that these people care about debate. Again, I still think that we, as a community, have a very long way to go to fix all of our issues.

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...