cheesewright
10-18-07, 01:33 PM
"Henceforth, my dear [debaters], let us be on guard against the dangerous old conceptual fiction that posited a "pure, will-less, painless, timeless knowing subject"; let us guard against the snares of such contradictory concepts as "pure reason," "absolute spirituality," "knowledge in itself": these always demand that we should think of an eye that is completely unthinkable, an eye turned in no particular direction, in which the active and interpreting forces, through which alone seeing becomes seeing *something*, are supposed to be lacking"
-Genealogy of Morals, Fredrick Nietzsche
debate is a game . . . it’s a wonderful, ever evolving, constantly changing flow . . . directed byparticipants in the debate round. under this conception, i will attempt to remove myself from the debate round as much as possible (while bearing in mind that this process is completely impossible, and gets more difficult in many debates). in order to allow me to make this attempt, i have a few requests that i will make of you:
first, please offer clear tagline for your arguments. this will allow me to transcribe as accurately as possible the argumentative claim that you are providing.
second, please compare warrants. many times debaters get so wrapped up in their drive to win that they extend a bunch of argumentative claims, and never interact with the argumentative justification for these claims . . . this makes it exceedingly difficult to determine who’s claim is better.
third, please do not speak so quickly that it impedes your strategic decision making abilities. i can probably understand you at whatever speed you choose to engage the other team, but in many cases the use of speed becomes a crutch that results in the extension of many arguments, without a subsequent extension of their justification, or an explanation of how those arguments interact.
fourth, for the love of all that’s light . . . COLLAPSE YOUR STRATEGY. you may very well have the potential to win every argument in a debate round. but the desire to win every argument makes the round a) exceedingly messy for me to evaluate as i have to discover the interactions of a multitude of arguments without any guide from the debates, and b) think that you will be more likely to loose some of those arguments because your choice to go for everything, which can end up hurting you. plus, i’m just not smart enough to evaluate the 30 arguments you are extending in terms of the 30 arguments the other team is extending based on nothing more than what i have written on a “flow.”
fifth, please do not assume that i know things about the world. there are many things that i know, but relying on “fact” to be the basis of your argument as opposed to “justification” means that your relying on your assumption of my knowledge base to be able to determine factual claims for you. justify why your facts have more fidelity or coherence.
finally, a hodge podge of things- i will not assume that just because your practice is common, that it is better. if someone runs a speed k, absent arguments made to counter this assumption, i will expect debaters to contextually slow their speeches when responding to a question of speed as a legitimate form. i also assume that everything you do is 1) always already performative, and 2) always already discursive. it is up to you to explain why your practice of being performative or discursive is does or does not matter in the debate round. and, the rules are so full that they are empty. clarification with face to face talk or kylecheesewright <at> gmail.com
-Genealogy of Morals, Fredrick Nietzsche
debate is a game . . . it’s a wonderful, ever evolving, constantly changing flow . . . directed byparticipants in the debate round. under this conception, i will attempt to remove myself from the debate round as much as possible (while bearing in mind that this process is completely impossible, and gets more difficult in many debates). in order to allow me to make this attempt, i have a few requests that i will make of you:
first, please offer clear tagline for your arguments. this will allow me to transcribe as accurately as possible the argumentative claim that you are providing.
second, please compare warrants. many times debaters get so wrapped up in their drive to win that they extend a bunch of argumentative claims, and never interact with the argumentative justification for these claims . . . this makes it exceedingly difficult to determine who’s claim is better.
third, please do not speak so quickly that it impedes your strategic decision making abilities. i can probably understand you at whatever speed you choose to engage the other team, but in many cases the use of speed becomes a crutch that results in the extension of many arguments, without a subsequent extension of their justification, or an explanation of how those arguments interact.
fourth, for the love of all that’s light . . . COLLAPSE YOUR STRATEGY. you may very well have the potential to win every argument in a debate round. but the desire to win every argument makes the round a) exceedingly messy for me to evaluate as i have to discover the interactions of a multitude of arguments without any guide from the debates, and b) think that you will be more likely to loose some of those arguments because your choice to go for everything, which can end up hurting you. plus, i’m just not smart enough to evaluate the 30 arguments you are extending in terms of the 30 arguments the other team is extending based on nothing more than what i have written on a “flow.”
fifth, please do not assume that i know things about the world. there are many things that i know, but relying on “fact” to be the basis of your argument as opposed to “justification” means that your relying on your assumption of my knowledge base to be able to determine factual claims for you. justify why your facts have more fidelity or coherence.
finally, a hodge podge of things- i will not assume that just because your practice is common, that it is better. if someone runs a speed k, absent arguments made to counter this assumption, i will expect debaters to contextually slow their speeches when responding to a question of speed as a legitimate form. i also assume that everything you do is 1) always already performative, and 2) always already discursive. it is up to you to explain why your practice of being performative or discursive is does or does not matter in the debate round. and, the rules are so full that they are empty. clarification with face to face talk or kylecheesewright <at> gmail.com