(Untitled)

Dec 09, 2003 21:37

sorry about all the debate entries. really. i am ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 6

expresos December 9 2003, 23:09:56 UTC
first off, you know that rogers is still the mitigation topic in novice, right? you don't start debating the new topic til UPS. or PLU. whichever's first.

second, your 'ding's are very death-of-trotsky

third, this comment is far too debate for its own good.

fourth, without trying to sound cold, have our plans changed for tomorrow?

fifth, i came to the revelation that i can like teachers as people and as teachers just a week or so ago meself. and i like mr. gans as both. as for him being gay, my gaydar is at odds with regards to what i'm picking up. there's some evidence to support gay or straight, which probably means he's bi. or just metrosexual.

love,
sean

Reply

littlerose December 10 2003, 07:56:47 UTC
1. my affirmative case has a "logical fallacy" that 2 out of 3 whitman judges pointed out.

2. i was thinking 'sure thing' but 'death of trotsky' is closer.

3. youre far too debate for your own good.

4. to some degree. the party will be considerably shorter than originally planned but im still up for lunch if you are.

5. ugh i forgot about my resolution not to guess at peoples sexualities. why do i fucking care hes a teacher.

love,
ari

Reply


expresos December 9 2003, 23:20:14 UTC
and my two cents on the debate thing:
the majority of what you learn in debate is transferable to the real world. it teaches effective arguementation, speaking skills, and the ability to research a topic effectively. stuff like times and the requirement that you respond to what your opponent says are merely ways of structuring the debate. but without structure, you'd not have anything at all, and couldn't achieve the benefits. so you have to take the good with the bad.
also, the time constraints & nodrop rule force one to improve word economy/clarity of thought, so that one can respond to an arguement in a short & sweet way.
and my personal point of view is that doing a competitive activity and not being in it to win is a bit of a contradiction in terms.

sean

Reply

littlerose December 10 2003, 07:46:28 UTC
i think doing a competitive activity without the intention to win is completely acceptable. things like trying out for stuff you know you wont get into just for the practice. or me playing soccer. there is no non-competitive debate team, so if you want to debate you have to compete and whether or not you want shiny things is personal.

Reply


Dingage caprahircus December 10 2003, 02:01:11 UTC
1. I think that it is important to remember that debate is a game and (no offense to anyone) is not a particularly effective vehicle for making progress in terms of exploring an issue. No matter which way you look at it, the point of the game is to win, really. And, of course, Fraga has a point when he says that it hones applicable skills - it just probably wouldn't be a good idea to try to convince someone as if you were in an LD round.

2. I would suggest that you go through with your initiative to begin using typical English conventions, but I'm afraid that your blog would become as boring as mine.

Reply


gogglerificgirl December 10 2003, 14:26:54 UTC
I miss you, too.
<3

Reply


Leave a comment

Up