Hello, I only have a small comment to one part of this email. On the whole, I agree with much of the idea that it is more valuable to look at debate as an important academic exercise then just as a game. Dr. Warner says:
"Or the suggestion that we'll "take you to the streets" because our students trained in fast rigorous policy debate are superior on debating a topic to your students "alleged" by you the community to only to be trained in style? But when the Louisville debaters start winning all the debates in the time period between Harvard and Wake, everyone starts not accepting the challenge, keeping their insular judges to debate the question of whether the debate community judges bias certain privileges not relevant to whether the public, including experts, thinks are necessary values of good policy debate." I say: We never were in any of these debates - and I assume you are talking about year before last and not this year - so I can not speak to the strategy of how others approached this question. However, I think you are conflating two different subjects here. Subject One: Should debate train debaters to speak primarily to laypersons Subject Two: Should debate be a game I will fully agree that speed, tech, insider language etc can be seen primarily as a gaming phenomena...But it also, alternatively, speaks to being able to reach a level of experience where you are using "technique" between people experienced in the highest level of public policy analysis. In other words, if you had a public policy discussion between three experts in a particular field - they would not see that conversation as a "game" and at the same time not speak in a manner that would necessarily be digestable by people "on the street" per se. The advantage to that discussion is those experts can use that EXPERTISE to push each other to make stronger arguments. Perhaps not more persuasive arguments to the person "on the street" but stronger arguments for those who ultimately try to craft policy for solving public policy problems. I think it is very dangerous to say debaters should only be able to make arguments that people "on the street" should be able to easily understand. If done with acadmic rigor debate pressures two teams to make public policy diamonds. In addition, as has been said elsewhere, it creates an atmosphere where people can make arguments that they might not be able to make in public forums (about heteronormativity, about class, about race, about sex, about structures of government etc.). While I think debaters should be able to speak in front of a variety of audiences...The assumption that the only alternative to debate as a "game" is "taking it to the streets" is an idea I will never think is a great idea (all due respect to Dr. Warner who I do respect greatly). Josh
_______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list [email protected] http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
