The_DavidSomers
11-29-06, 01:18 AM
Whilst know for being funny, shooting my mouth off, amusing most and offending many, here is last year's philosophy, marginally softened... Ok, I took out almost all of its teeth. :kisses
I used to think that coaches who wouldn't tell debaters what their "philosophy" was were so mean and scary. I would think, "well, what if I make an argument you don't like?" In retrospect, I think that is the debaters problem. It never really was the arguments they didn't like, just the worthless claims, unrelated data, and feckless warrants. I've reduced my own philosophy to a few sentences and I don't know if it's good or bad. I do know that it doesn't change what I'm about to hear, and it shouldn't. It's not my job to impose upon you how I coach, or what I teach my own debaters. It's my job to write down what you say and compare your arguments. I tend to think that nothing exists until the Prime Minster starts speaking. Once you do, any conventions of debate that you assume, or contexts you infer or invite into the discussion are subject to my understanding of them. But I will listen to anything. The deeper the analysis, and more complex the arguments, the better the debate. I favor critical over jurisdictional; and jurisdictional over case. But it is still up to you to play the game how you want and weigh out all the arguments in play. I won’t even tell you not to be racist, sexist, heterosexist, classist, imperialist, hegemonic, etc. It is one team's job to hold the other responsible for poor or oppressive speech, and then make that a voter.
I used to think that coaches who wouldn't tell debaters what their "philosophy" was were so mean and scary. I would think, "well, what if I make an argument you don't like?" In retrospect, I think that is the debaters problem. It never really was the arguments they didn't like, just the worthless claims, unrelated data, and feckless warrants. I've reduced my own philosophy to a few sentences and I don't know if it's good or bad. I do know that it doesn't change what I'm about to hear, and it shouldn't. It's not my job to impose upon you how I coach, or what I teach my own debaters. It's my job to write down what you say and compare your arguments. I tend to think that nothing exists until the Prime Minster starts speaking. Once you do, any conventions of debate that you assume, or contexts you infer or invite into the discussion are subject to my understanding of them. But I will listen to anything. The deeper the analysis, and more complex the arguments, the better the debate. I favor critical over jurisdictional; and jurisdictional over case. But it is still up to you to play the game how you want and weigh out all the arguments in play. I won’t even tell you not to be racist, sexist, heterosexist, classist, imperialist, hegemonic, etc. It is one team's job to hold the other responsible for poor or oppressive speech, and then make that a voter.