[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

New Thread: CEDA community reactions to new arguments

I've been meaning to initiate discussion regarding one view (mine) of how 
the CEDA community tends to react to "new arguments."  By new, I mean 
arguments which don't fit nicely into whatever the dominent social paradigm 
in CEDA purports to be, e.g. currently we are embracing full on "policy 
debate."

Perhaps I write this now after watching Kate and Dave (Emory) run 
Normativity a million times at heart (BTW thanks to the tab room:-).  Why 
does this argument remind me of the language argument Dave and I (and the 
rest of the Zags, Bahm children) ran on the advertising topic?!   All of 
your lame flames aside, the primary reason is in the way people respond (or 
don't).

Instead of, oh, I don't know, ANSWERING the argument, the initial reaction 
from this community seems to be "NO, YOU CAN'T RUN THAT -- WE WOULD ALWAYS 
LOSE."  Why, if these arguments are so "bad" and "ridiculous" do (the so 
called best teams in the country) debators fail to do more with them than 
assert their illegitimacy.

Perspectives on Normativity aside, I would like to see a team (especially 
the "elite") DEFEND policy debate, provide a model for autonomy that 
accounts for the social construction of debate, or any other strategy which 
ACTUALLY ANSWERS the supposed lame argument.

I'll stop here for now, I'm sure many of you will respond with more reasons 
why the argument(s) is/are illegitimate, even though that will be considered 
non-responsive.

Waiting for some REAL answers to these so called lame arguments,

Becky Galentine
p.s. --  Hey TRICE, why is it again that you like life?  I think teams ought 
to keep on asking you that question until "debate" is only one of your 
answers:-)
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page