[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
CEDA-L Digest 957 topic comments
Alfred C. Snider, University of Vermont
==========
Pacedebate@aol.com Tim Mahoney writes:
"I agree with D. Klein that "the authors of these topic proposals" should
"offer the same advocacy and defense as afforded the community by kate and
becky." "
You will receive these in plenty of time to consider them.
"Is it just me or is the way this topic reads different in that it seems to
demand a more "wholistic" interpretation of industries? IMO, the original
version would allow an aff to regulate two industries forcing them to
decrease their pollution however the 2AC could argue that those decreases
would be offset (maybe even increased) by other industries. Does this topic
preempt this possibility? If so, is this an intentional change by the topic
committee?"
That's "holistic," Tim.
The regulations must require a decrease, it does not mean that overall
pollutants must decrease. Your offset scenario would seem to still be valid.
------------------------------
Glen Strickland <strick9r@cadvantage.com> writes:
"1) I can not see the link between the value topics that are proposed and the
promotion of the worthwhile objectives of diversity and creativity; "
I do not believe that they are all value topics. The species one is clearly
policy. That being said, I think they support diversity because the Stepp
survey showed a strong majority of schools wanting a non-policy option on the
ballot, and based on email received by myself. To deny an option which a
significant portion of the membership wants is to reject the "big tent"
concept I am committed to. I think that they support creativity because they
are new and different and they challenge contemporary formulaic notions of
topic construction.
"2) The three topics that are listed as value topics would be terrible
topics to debate for an entire year...if anyone challenges me to defend this
generalization, I will set aside five hours and do just that."
I guess I respectfully disagree. I look forward to being able to spend that
time with you, but my guess is that we would probably do something which was
more fun.
------------------------------
WHITNEMR@snymorva.cs.snymor.edu Mark Whitney writes:
" Just a short note, as I haven't been involved in the topic thread. But,
personally, I think the Biocentric vs Anthropocentric topic would be a kick.
Don't let the polarization scare you. This is essentially THE issue that is
at the root of a lot of the environmental debate. This does not
necessarily have to be a single issue topic however. I think everyone knows
that if this topic (or one similar to it) were adopted, there would (as
usual) be a lot of different interpretations and demonstrations of it."
Exactly. I can see Emporia running that commercial meat production is a bad
idea, and they want to affirm biocentrism by cutting back on meat. This was
their case on the advertising topic. It was a tough case. We could all find
something to support on the aff, and it wouldn't get old any more than our
recent topics have.
"I hope that a few vocal contributors to the list do not sway the committee
to disregard potential topics (this is not directed at ANYONE in
particular)."
Isn't it directed at vocal contributors? If we had not allowed a non-policy
topic on, that would have been the case.
------------------------------
dklein@dailynews.net David Klein writes:
"my claim was fairly explicit. ADVOCATES OF VALUE RESOLUTIONS UNDER THE
CLOAK OF "DIVERSITY AND CREATIVITY" ARE INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST. the goal
is to construct a certain method of debate and diversity and creativity is
not the goal. defend the benefits of debating a value resolution, as pat
has done. don't play some big tent game."
Your ability to read their minds and motives is astounding. I guess I don't
agree with doing that. Sorry, when I do the "big tent" it is either not a
game, or in a completely different context, is an expressive dance for a
circus.
"there is also a big difference between presenting a topic paper and pulling
some words out of one's ass. what are the reasons for including a value
resolution just for the sake of having one on the topic? smacks of
retardation to me."
I guess this qualifies as an ad hominem argument. In case you are curious as
to why this concerns me, I will simply note that any list of argumentative
fallacies features this rather prominently. I note it not because I am thin
skinned (I have feelings, but I can take the heat) but because I am a student
of argument. Just hang on, though, we have another test of the ad hominem
principle coming up.
------------------------------
yuri <YURI@siucvmb.siu.edu> writes:
"From: yuri just one thought about (woods) resolution: how many negative are
going to win defending anthropocentrism?"
We wondered that as well, then it came to us that anthropocentrism IS the
status quo. I think I could win in a debate. Last year we had a critic say
that no matter what the arguments were, they were more important than
critters. Our beef addicted culture surely has some arguments in its favor.
Besides, people will parametricize, and you'll have lots of arguments against
their example.
------------------------------
Glenn Ellingson <gellings@niu.edu> writes:
"I think the deep eco resolution best avoids the "either-or" oppositional
relationship present in other topics; it does focus the debate on one
philosophy, but I think that's OK... let's debate that
philosophy/perspective."
I would expect a Vermont alum to respond like this. In opposing Deep Eco you
can advocate just about anything that competes ... and a lot of stuff does.
------------------------------
CORI DAUBER <cdauber@email.unc.edu> writes:
"They may be broader but they (as I understand the issues, been wrong
before) shunt the debate to the LEFT. If we want broad, can we do it in
such a way that those of us who really don't want to debate the
philosophical implications of the rights of Koala bears or what-have-you
can at least take a stab at avoiding those issues in some rounds? Not all
of us are fascinated with deep ecology and while I understand the issue
will be unavoidable in the season as a whole, don't stick us with it for
every single debate."
Heaven forbid a debate shunted to the LEFT! The casual way in which you
dismiss animals in this post concerns me. Frankly, I know that you would
prefer an analysis of military issues (your area of research as I recall),
but I HATE THAT, but have spent a lot of time coaching it. I think it might
do us all a bit of good to have our visions broadened the way endless
military debates have broadened mine.
Also, the aff will parametriczie and there will be a way out for you and
others. As John Meany has indicated in spelling out the illusory nature of
limits, and as I have pointed out in my notion that debaters will talk about
what they want to talk about no matter what, there is little danger of being
boxed in under almost any topic.
------------------------------
hobbsj@nicanor.acu.edu Jeff Hobbs writes:
">From: yuri
> just one thought about (woods) resolution: how many negative are going to
>win defending anthropocentrism? >
As many as on any other topic. If anthropocentrism is unbeatable, I'm sure
that affirmatives on any topic could demonstrate that pollution is rooted in
anthropocentrism. In my opinion, this question gets to one of the "roots" of
the environmental topic."
True. How many won saying don't protect the oceans?
------------------------------
Gregory Alan Achten <achten@ksu.ksu.edu> writes:
"My only thought on this thread is to question why value topics represent
diversity. In my history with Ceda (which admittedly is only 5 years) there
have been only 2 explicitly policy topics and 7 value topics. The reason
that policy topics won the last two ballots is because everyone debated
value topics as if they were policy topics. "
Diversity of type of topic. Diversity of approach to topic construction. I
think your numbers game at least justifies one out of 6 being non-policy.
------------------------------
dklein@dailynews.net David Klein writes:
" perhaps you could look back at tuna's post regarding me this morning, as
the ad homs were mutually provided. for example tuna wrote:
>Your questions illustrate a profound lack of information about these issues,
>but I am sure you need a topic paper to help you. We will be providing an
>analysis of these topics later. Sorry I didn't type up a topic paper last
>night."
If that is an ad hom, I give up. You say you don't know what deep ecology is,
and I say you "need a topic paper to help you." That just isn't in the same
league as "retardation." What I said was factually accurate. Now, if you
think I really am mentally retarded, it isn't name calling, but a factually
correct statement.
By the way, gentle reader, David Klein and I have decided to be nice to each
other and elevate our discourse.
------------------------------
dklein@dailynews.net David Klein writes:
"fine, contribute to the marketplace of ideas. write a topic paper
supporting a value resolution. defend the reasons for providing a value
resolution. this appeal to "significant number of people" want value topics
does not justify the inclusion of a value topic for its own sake without the
same standards as any other topic wording proposal."
A topic area paper and wording papers are designed to help the committee, NOT
TO REPLACE THE COMMITTEE. This might change if more people write papers, but
for now this is the way it is. I think this is a significant step, as it used
to be that we would show up at the meeting and start talking then.
------------------------------
yuri <YURI@siucvmb.siu.edu> writes:
"why are you automatically including a value topic on the ballot? there was a
huge thread about those who support the value topics, and i didn't see any
reason to include value topics because ceda(at least some members,
apparently) think we should include value topics. diversity and an open
process are laudable goals but how did you come to this decision to include
value no matter what?"
The topic committee voted unanimously.
" if it is the case that you think everyone should have an actual voice in
the topic selection in this way, then please note that i don't like the
environment, so please include a national security topic so that i get my
equal voice as a member of the community. i think the world of you(tuna) but
why are some voices of more "value" than others?"
Yuri, your position is illogical, and I like you as well. Your complaint is
that we value some voices more than others. How, by giving them one of 6
topics? Why isn't it better to say that THEY are being left out because they
get one of six topics? Now, what is your solution to "valuing some voices
more than others," to ignore those voices totally? If we did what you want,
we would value Yuri's voice more than the vast majority on the survey who
said they wanted both on the ballot. You might like that, but it would not be
fair.
Here is your argument: you are not being fair to Yuri unless you ignore
everyone who wants policy and non-policy mixture on the ballot.
------------------------------
Pat Gehrke <pjgehrke@ecst.csuchico.edu> writes:
"I think we can say that the topics interpreted as value provide additional
locus points for thinking about the topic area. It's a form of diversity, in
the sense that it is a diversity of perspectives. Diversity is a pretty
widely interpreted phrase, so the intended meaning may be far far from the
received meaning. "
I try to use dictionary definitions, not simplistic key words, in my
communications. Some may think diversity means "including excluded groups"
but to me, and especially in this case, it means variety.
"I cannot remember the last time debaters were primarily engaged in the
overt analysis of ethical and moral systems. Seems to me like a fundamental
(and fatal) flaw of contemporary debate, education, and politics."
This is a good response to Achten's complaint about value dominance. To the
extent you believe that refusing to consider some sorts of questions is a
weakness in our community, I agree.
"I think we have a couple of very excellent conventional wordings which I
expect will be interpreted as policy. I see little cause to provide nothing
but resolutions from within that frame. Personally, I am not in favor of
providing a quota for value resolutions, but there has been some discussion
and interest, and at least a minimal justification to date for their
consideration. "
Exactly. Three pretty standard topics, one "different" policy topic, one
non-policy, and one sort of unique topic ("we"). This is what I mean by
variety and diversity.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page