homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:18 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 7:51 pm 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
That's why I said your scenario doesn't fit. Look at the marriage scenario Daniel posted: Should I get married? That's a rez. The plan follows. If the neg wants to do their job and negate the rez then they cannot merely focus on the plan (Marry Ms. Scarlet)-- they have to keep in mind that it's part of a bigger idea (getting married).

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Last edited by thehomeschooler on Sat Jun 16, 2012 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 7:53 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
Mr Glasses wrote:
thehomeschooler wrote:
You're not getting it: The scenario is wrong. If the CEO is an example of the rez, we aren't talking about one plan-- we're talking about a resolution. The company has proposed a resolution to change foreign investment, and the CEO's plan is just part of that resolution. Mr. Chi may not like the plan, but he agrees with the rez. Fail on his part.

"Who cares if Mr. Chi agrees with the idea that we should change our foreign investment strategy?" asked Mr. Charles. "We all agree on that. That is why this board meeting is taking place. It is the particulars of the change that will determine the fate of the corporation, not the fact that we all want change."
"No, actually," objected Mr. Jones. "We don't all agree. We called this meeting to decide if we should change our foreign investment strategy. That's what the official statement on the meeting announcement says, anyway. I don't think we should."

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Last edited by MSD on Sat Jun 16, 2012 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 7:53 pm 
Offline
I know not this "leverage" of which you speak.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:52 pm
Posts: 2284
Home Schooled: Yes
thehomeschooler wrote:
That's why I said your scenario doesn't fit.

True, it doesn't fit for all debate rounds, but for other debate rounds, both teams agree that there should be change. Thus:

Mr. Glasses wrote:
MSD wrote:
How does that answer the question? You can engage in both plan-vs-plan debate and should-we-reform debate about whether to get married:

Plan-vs-plan
AFF: Marry Miss Scarlett.
NEG: No, marry Cleopatra instead.

Should-we-reform
AFF: Marry Miss Scarlett.
NEG: She's nasty. Don't do that.

Isaiah McPeak wrote:
What's even awesomer is to realize that you're always running a "counter" plan. When you advocate the Status Quo, you're advocating a course of action as an alternative that disproves the proposal.

With this in mind, plan-v-plan looks like:
AFF: Marry Miss Scarlett.
NEG: No, marry Cleopatra instead...or...
NEG: She's nasty. Don't do that.

Mr Glasses wrote:
Framework - Debate exists to teach and facilitate the exchange of Ideas. In the real world, ideas become actions. People use ideas to get things done. Thus, an exchange of ideas should be an effort to evaluate problems and weigh alternative actions.

Plan-v-plan provides more possible idea clash combinations. Ergo, plan-v-plan better facilitates what debate's all about. Prefer plan-v-plan.


MSD wrote:
"No, actually," objected Mr. Jones. "We don't all agree. We called this meeting to decide if we should change our foreign investment strategy. That's what the official statement on the meeting announcement says, anyway, I don't think we should."

At which point, Saito piped in, "Then make a case for why we shouldn't change and we'll make two different cases for why we should. There are still three separate opinions. Whoever's opinion wins is the opinion that will shape our company. The opinion wins, not the title of the board meeting."

_________________
This account doesn't express the opinions of my employers and might not even express my own.


Last edited by Mr Glasses on Sat Jun 16, 2012 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 7:55 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
Mr Glasses wrote:
Plan-v-plan provides more possible idea clash combinations. Ergo, plan-v-plan better facilitates what debate's all about. Prefer plan-v-plan.
So your standard is "more possible idea clash combinations." Having an absurdly broad rez also creates more possible idea clash combinations, but that's not preferable. What's the difference? (Just trying to clarify your position here.)

Mr Glasses wrote:
At which point, Saito piped in, "Then make a case for why we shouldn't change and we'll make two different cases for why we should. There are still three separate opinions. Whoever's opinion wins is the opinion that will shape our company."
The board chair interrupted. "Gentlemen, you are perfectly free to present alternate proposals, but the most important thing for the shareholders is if we are going to change course. They've asked us to answer yes or no. If we come up with an alternate proposal, that's still a yes answer. What plan we choose is entirely different from the answer that we have to give our shareholders."

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Last edited by MSD on Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 7:56 pm 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
Mr Glasses wrote:
True, it doesn't fit for all debate rounds, but for other debate rounds, both teams agree that there should be change.

No, I'm saying it doesn't fit into this discussion-- we're talking about RESOLUTIONS. You know, those things you have in TP debate?

"Oh yeah, I thought they were just for limits."

And I'm quoting this edit cause I'm not sure who saw it:
thehomeschooler wrote:
Look at the marriage scenario Daniel posted: Should I get married? That's a rez. The plan follows. If the neg wants to do their job and negate the rez then they cannot merely focus on the plan (Marry Ms. Scarlet)-- they have to keep in mind that it's part of a bigger idea (getting married).

The plan simply proves the idea to be true. The idea cannot be negated by saying that the plan isn't the best representation of the idea-- the idea itself must be disproved, and that is done by showing the the plan does NOT prove the idea (i.e., plan v. SQ).

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:04 pm 
Offline
I know not this "leverage" of which you speak.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:52 pm
Posts: 2284
Home Schooled: Yes
homeschooldebate wrote:
No, I'm saying it doesn't fit into this discussion-- we're talking about RESOLUTIONS. You know, those things you have in TP debate?

Interesting, because most AFF cases don't start their 1AC by saying, "We will prove this resolution true in this debate round and that's all that matters."

If one is in an argument with someone and he says, "So we both agree to change..." that's just an excuse to weasel out of being wrong. It doesn't matter if you both agree to change. What matters is what gets done. Debate isn't any different. You can insist that both teams agree with the resolution, but realistically, that doesn't matter because that doesn't mean both teams agree on what should be done. Cross apply my real world standard.

You can and have posited that the Affirmative Team's burden is to affirm the resolution and the Negative Team's burden is to negate that resolution, in which case cross apply my sexy-theory-contradicts-reality argument and cross apply Dr. Srader's hopelessly meaningless argument.

:debate completes one circular orbit:

_________________
This account doesn't express the opinions of my employers and might not even express my own.


Last edited by Mr Glasses on Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:05 pm 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1372
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
thehomeschooler wrote:
ParadigmPWNS wrote:
Props for MSD. Excellent questions, not-so-easy answers. Nobody is making the argument because there probably is no inherent reason why plan vs plan is better than should we reform. There are external reasons why plan vs. plan might be better in some circumstances, but in and of themselves, both forms of debate can lead to either interesting, informative, fun debates or boring, dry, and uninformative debates. It depends on the situation.

Exactly. Debate is pretty much the same with plan- or rez-centered debate. I've just always been rez-centrist for one reason: We have a friggin rez. That seems like a good reason to actually take the rez seriously, other than just saying "oh it's there for limits" when the wording clearly contradicts that notion.


And that's based on preference. The resolution's purpose is to provide an operating framework for the debate and to limit the discussion to one overarching topic. As I pointed out earlier, NEG's job is to simply oppose the AFF, not reject the rez. As Elijah pointed out, a plan-centric (plan vs. plan) debate can provide a lot more clash and an overall more interesting debate.

Rez-centric debate =
AFF: here's our awesome plan.
NEG: Here's why we should reject the plan and the rez and vote for the SQ.

Plan-centric debate=
AFF: here's our awesome plan.
NEG: Here's our more-awesome counterplan which achieves AFF advantages and more.

BTW, I am finding the narrative/evolving storyline on the CEO board meeting very interesting. :)

thehomeschooler wrote:
That's why I said your scenario doesn't fit. Look at the marriage scenario Daniel posted: Should I get married? That's a rez. The plan follows. If the neg wants to do their job and negate the rez then they cannot merely focus on the plan (Marry Ms. Scarlet)-- they have to keep in mind that it's part of a bigger idea (getting married).


Bingo.

Resolution: Mr. Smith will marry.
Rez-centric =
AFF: Mr. Smith should and will marry Miss Jones.
NEG: No. Mr. Smith should not marry Miss Jones because xyz.

Plan-centric =
AFF: Mr. Smith should and will marry Miss Jones.
NEG: A few options:
1.) Mr. Smith should not marry at all.
2.) Mr. Smith should marry Miss Doe instead of Miss Jones.
3.) Mr. Smith should keep dating Miss Jones for a couple more years.

_________________
http://www.ebsd.us/

As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. -Psalm 42:1


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:29 pm 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
Mr Glasses wrote:
homeschooldebate wrote:
No, I'm saying it doesn't fit into this discussion-- we're talking about RESOLUTIONS. You know, those things you have in TP debate?

Interesting, because most AFF cases don't start their 1AC by saying, "We will prove this resolution true in this debate round and that's all that matters."

ROFL. Don't we stay "we stand resolved that [the rez is true]" at the very beginning? Does that mean anything to you?
Quote:
At which point, Saito piped in, "Then make a case for why we shouldn't change and we'll make two different cases for why we should."

See how messy your form of debate is? :P
Quote:
It doesn't matter if you both agree to change. What matters is what gets done. Debate isn't any different. You can insist that both teams agree with the resolution, but realistically, that doesn't matter because that doesn't mean both teams agree on what should be done.

Actually it does matter. Because neg was lazy and stole from the rez that they were supposed to negate. That, sir, is a fail.
Quote:
cross apply Dr. Srader's hopelessly meaningless argument.

Dude, I already addressed that. And our "sexy theory" doesn't contradict reality. I'm....seriously, have you been reading the posts? Yes, this debate is circular.

Here's the thing: In the real world, you can do two things. First, you can talk about a broad idea. Second, you can do what the board members did in your example and argue about how to implement an idea that everyone believes is good. TP debate starts out with a broad idea: The rez. I'm sorry, but I'm right and you're wrong. My argument is hardly "complex sexy theory"-- it just friggin makes sense.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 9:51 pm 
Offline
I know not this "leverage" of which you speak.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:52 pm
Posts: 2284
Home Schooled: Yes
thehomeschooler wrote:
ROFL. Don't we stay "we stand resolved that [the rez is true]" at the very beginning? Does that mean anything to you?

touche
Quote:
Actually it does matter. Because neg was lazy and stole from the rez that they were supposed to negate. That, sir, is a fail.

1. If it's AFF ground, then the AFF, which has had months to prepare their case, should be able to whoop any NEG up side the head based on the merits of their case alone. Saying "NEG shouldn't be able to run T CP's" is like a football team crying foul when the visiting team beat them on their own home field.
2. Your response only makes sense if the negative team has the burden to negate the resolution. With a real world standard based on a clash of ideas framework, that assumption doesn't make sense.

thehomeschooler wrote:
Dude, I already addressed that. And our "sexy theory" doesn't contradict reality. I'm....seriously, have you been reading the posts? Yes, this debate is circular.

:toning down sarcasm:

Let me explicitly address what you said.
thehomeschooler wrote:
Look at the marriage scenario Daniel posted: Should I get married? That's a rez. The plan follows. If the neg wants to do their job and negate the rez then they cannot merely focus on the plan (Marry Ms. Scarlet)-- they have to keep in mind that it's part of a bigger idea (getting married).

Why? Why does neg have the job to negate the rez? Why does aff have the burden to affirm the rez? That brings us back to MSD's question.
MSD wrote:
Why is plan-vs-plan debate inherently superior to should-we-reform debate?

Let me reverse that. Why is should-we-reform debate superior to plan-vs-plan debate? Neither position gets the benefit of presumption, so there is no default answer. Is the decision left to personal preference? It doesn't have to be.

R2P - To provide some solid ground to this discussion, let me restate the framework: Debate exists to teach and facilitate the exchange of Ideas. That's the bottom line. Even when the resolution enters the equation, that's still the bottom line. Plan-vs-plan debate theory should be preferred because it better facilitates the exchange of ideas. (I don't think this was refuted yet. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

In Should-We-Reform World - Even if should-we-reform debate is the way to go, then AFF probably doesn't fulfill their burden to prove the resolution true. It is possible to inductively prove a statement true, but inductive reason deals in probabilities. To inductively demonstrate a statement, like the resolution, AFF needs to provide several instances/examples where the rez is true. If neg can provide more valid instances where the rez is false than AFF provides valid instances where the rez is true, then according to inductive logic, the rez has been proven false. If you think that it's unfair for NEG to bring up examples of bad reforms that have nothing to do with AFF's plan, then AFF's shouldn't be required to prove the resolution true and NEG's shouldn't be required to prove it false. (this sounds like parametric theory, but it isn't really)

You will probably respond by saying, "AFF only has to prove one instance of the resolution true to affirm the resolution." However, this still ignores the argument I just made. Is it reasonable to say that all Eljer toilets are good because my Eljer toilet is? No. Likewise, it's illogical to say the resolution is universally true because it's true in one instance. When AFF tries to defend the resolution, by the dictates of semantics, they must be prepared to defend the whole thing. Unfortunately, AFF doesn't have enough examples to prove the resolution true inductively.

Yes, that was a complicated argument. Before you jump on me for it, remember that the complicated argument lives in the should-we-reform world.

_________________
This account doesn't express the opinions of my employers and might not even express my own.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:46 am
Posts: 678
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I can't think of anything witty right now...so...RIX
MSD has it right. Debaters sometimes get over concerned with their own importance. We're NOT there to discuss different policies for the real world (Even though that happens and we like to think we are). We're actually there to decide one thing. Should we affirm the resolution? Or should we negate the resolution. There is a reason each team is called the affirmative and the other the negative. Because ONE proves why the rez should be affirmed. The other proves why the rez should be negated. To hijack the boardroom analogy:

Says the CEO: Okay Gentlemen, today we're here to answer one question and I'll decide on the answer based on your arguments. Here's the question: Should our company make significant reforms to itself?
Says Mr. Black: Ah, well, here's what I say: Our company has a huge problem in the area of data security.
Says Mr. Schow: Ah, but I'm here to explain why the answer to the ultimate question is NO. You can say our company has a problem with data security but that's not reason enough to make a reform. We need to know if there is a viable reform out there before we answer yes. Otherwise, we should stick with what we've got.
Says Mr. Black: But I was just getting to that! My plan is to upgrade our security systems, hire IT experts, employ white hat hackers to test our systems for potential weaknesses, etc.
Says Mr. Schow: That's all well and good, but that's not a good plan.

::FREEZE SCENE::

Okay, now Mr. Schow has two options. Let's play both scenarios out.

SCENARIO 1:

Mr. Schow: Your reform would cost us a billion dollars which will ruin our profits. This will cost us in the stock market and we're already near the bottom. Second, the proposal you put forth is still sketchy. Our real problem is the fact that we don't have strong employee loyalty. Employees are willing to sell private data about the company.
CEO: Okay, we may have established that our company has issues, but since no one has a solution, I must conclude that the answer to my question posed at this meeting is NO, the company should NOT make a significant reform. Maybe at the next meeting, Mr. Black will come up with a proposal that will actually provide REFORM not just a detrimental change.

Mr. Schow has just won as a traditional NEG.

But let's look at SCENARIO 2:

Mr. Schow: Your reform would cost us a billion dollars which will ruin our profits. This will cost us in the stock market and we're already near the bottom. Second, the proposal you put forth is still sketchy. Our real problem is the fact that we don't have strong employee loyalty. Employees are willing to sell private data about the company. So I propose a counter-proposal!! We're going to immediately fire any employee who sells or communicates company data. We'll also raise the salaries and make sure our employees are contented in X,Y,Z ways.
the CEO: Well, I've decided to vote YES then.
Mr. Schow: Wait, what???? I just disproved everything Mr. Black said! I just beat his proposal with clear evidence! I had the better solution!
the CEO: But you actually gave me a yes answer. You gave me a proposal to significantly reform the company that will work! And if I don't agree with you, I'd have to agree with Mr. Black! So either way, you both are telling me that ultimately, the answer to the Yes or No question is YES. You see, you're not here to beat Mr. Black - you're here to tell me why the answer is NO. You didn't do that.

_________________
http://siftingthroughmythoughts.blogspot.com/

08-09 | Thomas/Young | Broke to Regionals
09-10 | Brake/Thomas | Broke to Nats
10-11 | Black/Thomas | Won Regionals, 7th at Nats
11-12 | Comfort/Thomas | Won 2 Qualifiers, Won Regionals
12-13 | LD Debater | 3rd overall in RIX, 7th at Nats


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:34 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
Mr Glasses wrote:
However, this still ignores the argument I just made. Is it reasonable to say that all Eljer toilets are good because my Eljer toilet is? No. Likewise, it's illogical to say the resolution is universally true because it's true in one instance.
Grammatically denied. "We should do (something)" is not the same thing as "All versions of (something) are good", at all.

To use the analogy of Congress again:

The question is, "Should we reform immigration?"
To answer "yes", you need to prove that there is at least one good reform that should be passed.
To answer "yes", you do not need to prove that all possible reforms should be passed.

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 3:15 am 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
Mr Glasses wrote:
If it's AFF ground

Nonono. It's not aff's ground. Aff conceded it by not using it. Aff only proves .001% of possible cases that represent the rez. All of the other cases (the ones you say are now neg ground) are conceded to the neg (who has to disprove the entire rez). Neg wins one them because they haven't been proven. So now all neg has to do is disprove the aff case (sounds like plancentrism, doesn't it? Well it kind of is). The only problem is when neg tries to prove something that they actually want to disprove and has already been disproved for them. They shoot themselves in the foot. So no, it isn't aff ground any more-- it's conceded ground that nobody can touch, because neg already won it.
Mr Glasses wrote:
Your response only makes sense if the negative team has the burden to negate the resolution.

If aff's main goal is the prove the rez (obviously, just look at aff's opening statement) and neg's job is to beat aff, then why the frick is it somehow not neg's job to make sure aff cannot do what they intend to do: prove the rez? Why? Because people like their CPs. That's why.
Mr Glasses wrote:
:toning down sarcasm:

Sorry, I should do the same thing.
Mr Glasses wrote:
Why is should-we-reform debate superior to plan-vs-plan debate?

Neither debate form really gives superior debate-- not in a significant way at least. "Rezcentrism" is just right-- it's the rule, for lack of a better word. There's simply no reason to conclude that neg's job is not to negate the rez, when the rez is there and comes first and the first thing aff says is "we want to prove the REZ!"
Mr Glasses wrote:
Plan-vs-plan debate theory should be preferred because it better facilitates the exchange of ideas.

But that's simply bogus. Sorry, but there's no "educational" difference. Besides, TPers can't do whatever the heck they want to the format just because they think "hey, we might learn a little more!" Yeah, they might learn a little more if rounds were longer-- that's no excuse for the 2N to speak for 15 minutes. We need to realize that there's nothing actually WRONG with rezcentrist debate-- it provides great education, and I don't give a care if someone thinks plancentrism would give us 3 extra education points. There's just no excuse for ditching the purpose of the rez like that. Here's a revolutionary idea: think of the rez as a rule. It's there for a reason, and you can't pretend it doesn't exist.
Mr Glasses wrote:
To inductively demonstrate a statement, like the resolution, AFF needs to provide several instances/examples where the rez is true.

That's just not true. Rez: Should I eat something? Aff position: He** yeah! Eat ice cream! Neg: Well, dirt is bad for you and human meat is bad for you, so DON'T EAT! Aff: [censored]?

Your toilet analogy doesn't apply-- we're talking about a broad action here, under which many actions fall, and if one mini-action is taken, the larger one is as well. We aren't talking about proving a statement of fact-- that's LD. That's really the only difference between the two (besides time limits for speeches and the how Lincoln-Douglass [1 v. 1] thing).

::EDIT:: Great analogy Daniel...er, I mean Daniel-- I mean Daniel Thomas.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2888
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
I've skimmed most of the past few pages and found it very interesting.

I now pose a question, which I don't know if I've seen answered. But first a little bit of logical reasonocity.
1. The purpose of debate is education.
1b. Education should be held paramount.
2. Excluding arguments reduces education.
C: We should not exclude arguments unless the arguments reduce education.

1. Some competitive topical counterplans introduce relevant information and clash into the round.
2. More relevant information and clash --> education.
C: Therefore, we should not exclude all competitive topical counterplans.

With that basic proof aside, I have yet to see a reason-- based on education-- to reject topical counterplans. It seems that, up to this point, most rejection is based upon the existence of the rez with no application to education. For instance, Preston recently wrote: ""Rezcentrism" is just right-- it's the rule, for lack of a better word." Beside the fact that I am inherently skeptical of any claim of "rules" in debate, it appears to be based entirely on the symantics of the resolution, and is based on a statement of what "is." Debate theory, and, for that matter, debate as a whole, is based on what "should be"; we are trying to obtain an optimal world. Thus, my question:

Why does placing a resolutional burdens on the affirmative and/or negative teams increase education?

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:46 am
Posts: 678
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I can't think of anything witty right now...so...RIX
But Sharkfin, that's the thing. I'm not convinced you're starting out with the right premise: education. I think education is a good value but it is superseded by the fact that the resolution must be affirmed or rejected. In other words, it may be more educational to discuss X but Y is what can be discussed within the bounds of the rez. If you start with my premise, what Preston says does make sense.

Basically, I reject Education as paramount. I think it implies a level of disconnect because ultimately if all you care about is education? run topical CPs and have the judge write the following ballot: the Neg was so educational! I learned a lot! but as a JUDGE here to answer a yes/no question, the rez, I voted AFF. Therefore, both teams are happy. Neg educated someone. Aff affirmed the rez. what's not to like?

Ah, there's that thing that debaters try to do. Win. Well, to win, you can't consider education paramount. If you want education paramount, an informal discussion of topics related to the justice system would work better. Team Policy Debate is not a place where education is paramount. Winning is, and ergo, the Rez. And if you don't think winning should be the main goal, that's fine. Just be prepared that everyone else does think so.

*I'm not saying winning is everything. Far from it. I'm just saying that within obvious ethical boundaries, debaters come to tournaments and do rounds to WIN a judge's ballot on the rez, not to educate each other and the judges (that's a secondary goal).

_________________
http://siftingthroughmythoughts.blogspot.com/

08-09 | Thomas/Young | Broke to Regionals
09-10 | Brake/Thomas | Broke to Nats
10-11 | Black/Thomas | Won Regionals, 7th at Nats
11-12 | Comfort/Thomas | Won 2 Qualifiers, Won Regionals
12-13 | LD Debater | 3rd overall in RIX, 7th at Nats


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
FYI don't have time to respond to all that's happened, but I'm not on the "education" bandwagon. So subjective and leads to some really weird conclusions when you extrapolate (as has happened in all too many a parli round).

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:33 pm 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
@Anthony:
thehomeschooler wrote:
TPers can't do whatever the heck they want to debate just because they think "hey, we might learn a little more!" Yeah, they might learn a little more if rounds were longer-- that's no excuse for the 2N to speak for 15 minutes. We need to realize that there's nothing actually WRONG with rezcentrist debate-- it provides great education, and I don't give a care if someone thinks plancentrism would give us 3 extra education points. There's just no excuse for ditching the purpose of the rez like that. Here's a revolutionary idea: think of the rez as a rule. It's there for a reason, and you can't pretend it doesn't exist.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2888
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
I realized that my initial premise was misstated. More on that later.

Amodeum wrote:
But Sharkfin, that's the thing. I'm not convinced you're starting out with the right premise: education. I think education is a good value but it is superseded by the fact that the resolution must be affirmed or rejected. In other words, it may be more educational to discuss X but Y is what can be discussed within the bounds of the rez. If you start with my premise, what Preston says does make sense.

Restated question: what should we value when establishing theory? Winning? How does that make sense?

Quote:
Basically, I reject Education as paramount. I think it implies a level of disconnect because ultimately if all you care about is education? run topical CPs and have the judge write the following ballot: the Neg was so educational! I learned a lot! but as a JUDGE here to answer a yes/no question, the rez, I voted AFF. Therefore, both teams are happy. Neg educated someone. Aff affirmed the rez. what's not to like?

This is likely among the weird conclusions that Isaiah refers to earlier. and I agree. education can lead to to some wacky results, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be taken there... more on that later.

Quote:
Ah, there's that thing that debaters try to do. Win. Well, to win, you can't consider education paramount. If you want education paramount, an informal discussion of topics related to the justice system would work better. Team Policy Debate is not a place where education is paramount. Winning is, and ergo, the Rez. And if you don't think winning should be the main goal, that's fine. Just be prepared that everyone else does think so.

*I'm not saying winning is everything. Far from it. I'm just saying that within obvious ethical boundaries, debaters come to tournaments and do rounds to WIN a judge's ballot on the rez, not to educate each other and the judges (that's a secondary goal).

Winning is absolutely compatible with education. The thrill of competition is the motivation for education; I know I would not have prepared nearly as much for an informal discussion as for a debate tournament. Thus, designating a winner makes complete sense under an educational paradigm.

I realized I misstated my original premise. I'm not referring to the purpose of debate, but to the highest benefit of debate, or, in other words, "what should we value when establishing theory?" The answer, as I believe I supported above, is education.

Recap:
1. Winning is why we debate, but
2. theory should be such that it increases education, because
3. education is the highest benefit from debate.

In other words:
We educate because we want to win.

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2888
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
Preston wrote:
There's just no excuse for ditching the purpose of the rez like that. Here's a revolutionary idea: think of the rez as a rule. It's there for a reason, and you can't pretend it doesn't exist.

What is that reason?

Me, Earlier wrote:
Beside the fact that I am inherently skeptical of any claim of "rules" in debate, it appears to be based entirely on the symantics of the resolution, and is based on a statement of what "is." Debate theory, and, for that matter, debate as a whole, is based on what "should be"; we are trying to obtain an optimal world.

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:46 am
Posts: 678
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I can't think of anything witty right now...so...RIX
Here's my 3 points

1. Winning is why we debate
2. theory should be such that it complies with the ONLY rule of team policy. That the AFFirmative affirms the resolution and that the NEGative negates the resolution and the judge decides whether he agrees with either side (or affirms with the AFF or negates with the NEG).
3. Education is the highest benefit from the debate activity.

So we affirm the resolution or negate it because we want to win AND we know that the judge isn't going to give us a win unless we follow that basic rule. If in so doing, we also educate the judge, we've achieved the benefits of debate.

_________________
http://siftingthroughmythoughts.blogspot.com/

08-09 | Thomas/Young | Broke to Regionals
09-10 | Brake/Thomas | Broke to Nats
10-11 | Black/Thomas | Won Regionals, 7th at Nats
11-12 | Comfort/Thomas | Won 2 Qualifiers, Won Regionals
12-13 | LD Debater | 3rd overall in RIX, 7th at Nats


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:11 am 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
Sharkfin wrote:
What is that reason?

That's a good question. After thinking about for a while, I figured it out. The reason TP debate has a rez is to center debate/discussion/education onto a certain idea. The idea explored in TP debate is "can X be made better?" This is where my response to the education argument comes in: no form of debate is about learning everything that can be learned-- different genres of debate focus on/explore different ideas. If debate was about "trying to obtain an optimal world," then we wouldn't have/need different genres of debate. No debate focuses on that much breadth education-- it's really all about depth. In TP, debates dig deeply into the question "should X change?" That's what the rez is for.

That's why rezcentrist debate is what TP should be about, and that's why your education argument doesn't justify trashing the rez. Yes, plancentrist debate may result in more learning-- but if you want that kind of breadth, you can compete in other forms of debate. TP debate simply isn't made for plancentrism. Does that mean that TP debate doesn't teach debaters/judges/the audience things it could otherwise teach them? Heck yes. But that's not the point of any form of debate. There's nothing really wrong with rezcentrist debate-- there's a lot of depth education that goes on, and it's about plan v. not-plan.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited