[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: ans Sherwood
So, is it simply the fact that I disagree with P2 that makes you assume that
I have not spent much time thinking about it?
Actually, I think it is the fact that you say there has been no logical
justification when he put out a 1300 line post offering dozens of them. You
may not agree with them, but just to ignore the fact that they were there
would imply that you were not paying that much attention to the debate.
If you meant that you weren't buying his justification arguments then
perhaps that would have been better said.
In fact i have been following the discussion form its beginning. the reason
i rarely comment is because I, like many others I have talked to, have been
waiting to see if a decent logical justification were forthcoming.
Ah, you see the difference. Now the word "decent" implies you don't agree,
whereas the previous inference was that none existed.
I am sorry, Mike, that I dared to contradict your obviously well thought-out
theory which relies on the notion that we should abandon the teaching of
tradtional approaches to debate because you think a new paradigm would be
Lots of people have contradicted, you refused to acknowledge that which
existed. There is a difference on how one responds.
Additionally, I shudder to think about the future if we refuse to break
tradition for no better reason than it is tradition. Mike gives SEVERAL
reasons, which none but Ken Broda-Bahm has bothered to address, why what we
do now is bad. He offers an alternative that, so far, has only one real
disadvantage (and that one ain't all that bad). However, you would rather
stay with the tradition for no better reason than you just don't believe in
the alternative. I, for one, do not consider this to be progressive
thinking, but I defer to your right to do so.
My position simply translates to a low threshold for defeating such an
approach. Anyone who claims that he or she does not intervene in a debate at
some level is
rendering a no-decision in every round. Every judge must intervene to decide
It really does bother me when judges support their intervention this way.
Right, perfect non-intervention IS impossible. But this IN NO WAY means that
we should just abandon all attempts to try. I admit that I have
predispositions, but when I am in the room I do my level best not to let
them influence me. I DO NOT just say, "oh well, I can't be perfect, so here
are a list of 3,000 things that I will or won't vote for.
Damn, I really had not intended to get off on a rant of whether intervention
is good or bad. I repect your right to intervene (as I would hope you would
respect my right NOT to), just please do not attempt to cloak it in a veil
When I judge two teams in a debate and one argues for P2 and the other
argues against it, what am I supposed to do?
Well, if I were judging the round and the neg made lucid analysis why
competition was bad and how ground predicates all competitions, and then the
aff argues tradition and lack of logical justification (we used to call
these pimps), I'm thinking I would probably vote neg......... how about you?
I'm not saying you should believe in P2 in the face of sound argumentation,
but when someone just pimps a bunch of very good logical reasons, I think
that strays from the "non-intervention is impossible" cloak.
If you do handle this situation in this way then we obviously cannot agree
on what this activity should be.
Well, that is very true. My first problem is that your example was a speech
"class" and your rhetoric assumes "competitive" debate. I do not necessarily
believe that the two are synonymous. Do I believe that this activity should
be student centered? YES. 'Nuff said on that subject. This was not the
intent of the post.
Regarding my specific complaints about P2 that you don't want to take the
time to answer, all i can say is that I don't think I am the only person in
the community that has been waiting for a good response to why we should
adopt this new paradigm and dispense with the resolution and its purpose in
Just another example of how I know you haven't read the posts. There has
NEVER been a P2 advocate that has done ANYTHING but support the resolution
as absolutely crucial to the debate. How can both plans be resolutional
without the rez??? As for the purpose of the rez, I would say that there are
one heck of a lot more camps on that question than just the P2 vs. the rest
of the world. In fact, there are still many people who would say that to
even allow plans in debate violates the purpose of the resolution.
As to taking the time to answer, let me just say that I am fairly confident
that Mike and I spend more time answering the questions of those who would
ask then you could possibly imagine. So pardon us if we do not answer your
question that we have already answered 60 times in previous posts that
people just didn't bother to read, but after a while it gets frustrating.
As I said, I have been following this discussion from its inception and I
haven't seen a response to this issue that I consider persuasive.
Then that is all I will say on the subject. You can lead a horse to water,
but you can't make him drink.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page