[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
re:NO TOPICS
O.k. here are a number of reasons why I oppose the concept of a selection of
no topic
1) Hurts Novices and Junior debaters for multiple reasons. First, for the
young debater understanding the theory and evolution of theory that is
represented by contemporary practice is a serious challenge. Many students
struggle to understand even the basics of "policy" and "value" topics and
how they change the nature of and the application of theory. It can hardly
be denied that the root justification for much theory enters into practice
only through the gateway of a permissive topic. Throwing all theory away
from its theoretical grounding, although it sounds intellectually
interesting for true students of theory, becomes operationally oppressive
when all starting and endpoints - all theoretical referrents - are opened
up like a can of worms. Who is certain to be most alienated by such a
tactic? I am suggesting that it is the debater who barely understands
how a round operates in the first place. As a coach do you suggest the
how to book that has no pages? Should we really sacrifice our activities
future to the gods of whimsy?
2) Shared Meaning and community decreases - Wendy Leeds Hurwitz explains that,
"We create our social world through our words and other symbols, and through
our behaviors; thus these become research topics (Hurwitz,Com. Theory,133).
What debaters have, in the past, referred to as "Social Contract" or "prior
notice" or "fair ground" are in fact pleas to maintain a workable community
of shared understanding. The topic represents the code of hammurabi of
debate and, in fact, our only shared guarantee (rule). (Yes, I know we have
a constitution but can anyone quote it who debates...I am not sure it is
a living document like a topic). In addition, by agreeing to discuss a
limited social cubbyhole for a few months we create more meaningful
discourse between the lot of us. Even if you hated Whole Resolution
arguments, Bile did a fine job citing the research that proves that we
understand things that have common grounding...
3) Bungee Jumping may be fun but.... Tim seems to assume that if he does
a belly flop of of a cliff that everyone else will also belly flop. I
think it more likely that one person will belly flop another person will
do a swan dive and then both will appeal to the authority of theory based
upon a topic which does not exist until I will be forced, as the judge, to
dive head first into a large rock. In other words, if there is no topic,
and therefore no shared meaning, who sais that an "affirmative" must run
a "case" (perhaps interpretive dance would be hard to negate but it could
be done for eight minutes). No, I think that these suggestions all dissolve
into fun mental masturbation but have little practical utility. You cannot
force people to run a case when there is nothing that forces a case to be
run. People could choose to run a case, a counterplan, plan plan comparison
Dungeons and Dragons character evaluation, or simply hum the star spangled
banner. And as a judge, what reason would you have to vote for or against
them. Perhaps that is the best reason not to do this, it dissolves the
judges requirement to be objective because it dissolves the judges only
tool for division and competition between teams. Indeed, Tim Mahoney and
Mike Korcok, two of the largest advocates of judge diversity, advocate
a world in which they could never say, "we got screwed." Can you imagine
it?
I think this is a fascinating idea but one that no one has looked through the
full range of implications for. Hope everyone is having a good summer. Josh
Joshua B. Hoe
Asst. Dir. Forensics
Arizona State University
e-mail:IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
(602) 965-5578
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page