I don't think Hunters and Jacob's want, of West texas to go progressive, is a means of mindless robots. Your interpretation to how education should go about and their interpretation of how education should come about via debate, I agree should be respected. However, the question then becomes which methodology is producing what we call "education", more educational. Their method entails telling the debaters what they need to work on. This then allows, for the obvious reasons, to make things better. Make things better in the sense that they know what they did wrong. They know what happened, and how they can improve. The next things about disclosure of affs. Come on now, is it really educational for teams to read weird affs, that has hardly any literature basis except in regards to the basis of the aff? There's enough judges in the general who do not like the T debate. Even if you convince me that a majority of judges will buy T in that area, which they may and frankly I don't really care, the principle of fairness is just completely down the drain. Debates are supposed to be fun but, what happens when all the time one team wins because they have arguments that no one else knows about? How is that, in turn, education? Debates where one team has no idea what is going on, and the other team in all honesty, tells barley anything about the aff except that the other side dropped it. For spreading, anyone can really get good at spreading. It takes time, patience, reading drills, ect. It's not like a particular person, unless they physically (such as a large speech impediment) or mentally can not do it. Spreading, also increases education. It allows for greater indepth argumentation due to a increased pace of speed. Finally, it's not very fair when evidence is not called out after the round. I remember as a freshman, going into these rounds where teams would have weird affs that no one has heard about. Talk about why the evidence is terrible, and it not be called for. A lot of the time, the judges hate that too. I mean, what can you do? If that and T is all you have. In retrospect, I offer the last following comments. I think Hunters suggestion about what we should, as said above, is education. Your comment above about people being educators, and about you and others have a process of educating your kids is fair. No one should ever tell you what you're doing is in correct. What you're doing, is educational. HOWEVER, depriving kids of the above things, and maybe more or a little less, is depriving them a opportunity for education. What are paradigms? A lens through which we view something, correct? What happens when this lens becomes so narrow? Especially in a activity in which we all participate in? The education, becomes narrower and narrower. Education, yes, still happens. The question becomes, how much of a depth of education. IS denying these things good? Is denying them a chance to view things in a different lense, such as what they suggest, bad?
On the other hand, is denying them the opportunity to view debate as WTJAZZ indicates, which I agree is educational in it's aspects as hunter's strategy is educational in its different aspects, bad?
The question becomes one of a tradeoff. As all people in debate, we should be here for educational purposes. What happens when one lens is destroyed because of a tradeoff as indicated? We should encourage debate of all caliber. One of different perspectives. Will we agree with all of them, obviously not.