Monthly Archives: November 2009 - Page 4

Logical Decision-Making: In Defense of Harrigan’s “Judge Choice” Theory

[T]o say that representations matter—insofar as [they] determine/influence policy outcomes—says little or nothing about which justifications should be used for policymaking. The representations presented by the 1AC that are justifications for action, instead of outcomes of the plan are neither mandatory nor inevitable outcomes of voting Aff.

Thus, the judge, at the end of the debate, should be able to choose (for themselves) why to vote Aff or Neg. Logically, one can choose the best arguments from the set of available reasons presented in the debate. Not every 1AC justification needs to be part of the final “package” of voting Aff. If one or more representations for voting for the plan is undesirable, they should not be used. If, at the end of the debate, positive/beneficial justifications for acting remain, the plan is desirable and the Aff should win.

With that, University of Georgia Debate Coach Casey Harrigan has levied a fundamental challenge to the theoretical viability of representational critique as currently conceptualized in academic policy debate. This article will defend Harrigan’s “judge choice” theory against the attacks of its critics and thereby contribute to the developing theoretical literature about representational critique.

Read more »

AT: heidegger

Zizek, defense of Lost Causes, 08

p. 174

The problem here is not terror as such — our task today is precisely to reinvent emancipatory terror. The problem lies elsewhere: egalitar­ian political “extremism” or “excessive radicalism” should always be read as a phenomenon of ideologico-polideal displacement: as an index of its opposite, of a limitation, of a refusal effectively to “go to tbe end.” What was the Jacobins’ recourse to radical “terror” if not a kind of hysterical acting-out bearing witness to their inability to disturb the very fundamentals of economic order (private property, etc.)? And does the same not go even for the so-called “excesses” of political correctness? Do they also not display the retreat from disturbing the effective (economic and other) causes of racism and sexism? Perhaps, then, the time has come to render problematic the standard topos, shared by practically all “postmodern” leftists, accord­ing to which political “totalitarianism” somehow results from the predominance of material production and technology over intersub­jective communication and/or symbolic practice, as if the root of political terror resides in the fact that the “principle” of instrumental reason, of the technological exploitation ol nature, is extended also to society, so that people are treated as raw stuff to be transformed into New Men. What if it is the exact opposite which holds? What if political “terror” signals precisely that the sphere of (material) pro­duction is denied its autonomy and subordinated to political logic? Is it not that all political “terror,” from the Jacobins to the Maoist Cultural Revolution, presupposes the foreclosure of production proper, its reduction to the terrain of the political struggle? In other words, what such a postmodern perspective effectively amounts to is nothing less than the abandonment of Marx’s key insight into how the political struggle is a spectacle which, in order to be deciphered, has to be referred to the sphere of the economy (“if Marxism had any analytical value for political theory, was it not in the insistence that the problem of freedom was contained in the social relations implicitly declared ‘unpolitical’ — that is, naturalized—in liberal discourse?”)

Podcast Number 6

The latest edition of the 3NR podcast is now available — you can download it directly or access it through iTunes. This week’s topics include:

  • Small School Success (link)
  • Poverty/Means Testing PIC
  • Word PICs
  • Debating Extra-Topicality/Theory
  • Collaborative Research Project/Open Source

If you’d like to suggest a topic for our next episode, please do so in the comments.

NDCA Ethics Statement

So recently an ethics statement produced by the NDCA failed to get passed by a pretty large margin. It seems fairly obvious that counting people not voting as a no vote was the cause here (despite arguments made to the contrary…) so I think either people just didn’t know about it or didn’t care enough to vote. Below I have gone through some of the provisions and given thoughts and then suggested some ways the statement could be improved.

Read more »

Judging Methodologies: How Do Judges Reach Their Decisions?

Paul Strait of the University of Southern California recently authored an interesting post on the CEDA forum about the time it takes judges to make their decisions. As discussed in a previous column, this is a hot topic in the college community because the average length of decisions at that level is forcing tournaments to consider reductions in the number of preliminary rounds offered in order to prevent marathon tournament schedules. Paul’s contention is that we need to foreground consideration of judging methodologies in order to determine what contributes to lengthy decisions and what effect this has on the quality of decisions.

Read more »

Shortening Tournament Days: Simple Steps For Debaters And Judges

There is an ongoing discussion occurring in the college debate community about the length of tournaments and the need to balance competitive opportunities with a humane schedule. Many of the major college tournaments have moved to seven or even six rounds of preliminary competition in order to accommodate the substantially longer length of current debate rounds without forcing students and coaches/judges to endure a marathon schedule.

While this issue is not nearly as salient at the high school level, both debaters and judges could do substantially more to make the average day at a debate tournament more livable.

Read more »

Global Conflict Uniqueness

There was an edebate argument a while back about neoliberalism/modernity and global conflict levels- new research sheds  some light:

Read more »

Collaborative research- FAQ

1. Why?

Why not? It is only natural for like minded individuals to band together I think, no reason for that to end arbitrarily at the end of the summer. When I was in high school I collaborated in an ad hoc fashion with kids from a few other schools- we would share case negs against the evil established debate programs and then lose to them anyway. In thinking about that recently I came to a few conclusions

Read more »

Collaborative Research Project-Updated X3

I want to run a little bit of an experiment. What I want to do is run a debate camp lab style research assignment during the year. The final product will be released to the public along with a review of how things went (in my opinion). In order for this to work I will need 10 volunteers who wish to participate. More explanation below the fold

Read more »

Page 4 of 41234