Skip to content
October 22, 2012 / compassioninpolitics

Answering the Bouroughs Affirmative Run by Omaha Westside

“The very decision that is made every year a debate resolution is written, and that is what we remember about each resolution, that we have all already decided what the resolution is, and what it is not. This globalizing identity has put debate on an island, leaving us we all spout off our archaic lessons at each other, while the self-dubbed Gods of debate, the framers bask in the glory of their all-powerful decision.”

This is hyperbolic gibberish.

Their version of creativity is radically one sided. All games have rules–otherwise the game doesn’t exist. These rules are protect the least advantaged–so that their creativity is honored and respected–on a level playing field. Games with rules exist as social contracts…..if you want to temporarily alter the rules…..you can negotiate cooperatively with the other team or judge. Instead, the aff choses to ram this type of argument down our throats in an attempt to exclude our arguments and our voices and our creativity (ergo….no net creativity….and certainly not fair creativity).

Was John Steinbeck a creative human being?

(Yup)

Is he widely considered creative?

(Yup)

Didn’t he write mostly in paragraphs? Didn’t he write in book form?

(Yup)

Why can’t you turn this argument with constraints good for creativity???

And you can be creative…..and lose for creating unfair rules–a rigged game with almost zero accountability or transparency (especially versus the topic process that is democratically decided.)

There’s lots of room for you to break the assumptions and unstated rules of debate without being untopical & unpredictable…..without systematically screwing the negative team.
Also breaking the rules is not a warrant for winning.

These types of affirmatives turn the negative into the turtle –especially when YOU TYRANNICALLY impose this framework on the debate.

Affirmatives like this may pull at your heart strings….they make inspire you or make you cry. But they aren’t particularly fair or provide the neg. with a lot of predictable and fair ground.

Also, this story is the precise problem with hyperbole and weak metaphors (ie the overuse of control & robot-like references). As applied–they result in extremes not grounded in reality or how people really encounter it.

Run art and creativity….but actually defend something like the resolution….not some vague notions about the human spirit.

The debate isn’t the position of a nomad. In the same way a friendship or a marriage or yelling fire in a crowded theatre or having a kid–you aren’t in the position of a nomad–you can’t pitch the baby in the river for reasons of reason, emotion, and justice. You are in a relationship–you have to consider the interests & obligations. Theses are flexible–but you have to consider them.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: