2008 TOC Video: Elkins AC vs. Apple Valley CT
posted by Bietz on May 10th, 2008
SANTA MONICA, Cali. — Today, VBD Original Videos features a round between Elkins’s Andrew Cockroft on the affirmative and Apple Valley’s Chris Theis on the negative.
This was a quarterfinal round at this year’s Tournament of Champions. The decision was a 2-1 for the negative; the judges were Mike Bietz, Dan Meyers, and Tom Evnen. Evnen dissented.
Popularity: 25%
no more tag found, sorry
Posted from: 71.82.123.246
May 10th, 2008 11:37
I just want to say before people start what will inevitably be a flamewar about what I did in the round, that if anyone has any questions about the position, why I ran ran it etc you should email me about it.
ctheis09@gmail.com
(also I did not realize I sound like that…weird)
Posted from: 67.159.44.138
May 10th, 2008 11:38
Just wondering what the RFD was on this round. Pretty interesting round.
Posted from: 76.94.91.43
May 10th, 2008 11:41
intense
Posted from: 165.123.230.163
May 10th, 2008 11:44
Since the RFD was not taped, would judges be comfortable posting their RFD’s here?
Posted from: 69.105.108.177
May 10th, 2008 11:44
such a ballin round hahaha
Posted from: 69.105.108.177
May 10th, 2008 11:45
btw now tom evnen looks like a douchebag for voting for the holocaust…
Posted from: 71.42.73.82
May 10th, 2008 12:25
tom doesn’t spend a lot of vbd as far as i know, but his rfd did begin with “i voted affirmative presumably not because i am a fanboy of the holocaust” before explaining that he didn’t feel comfortable voting on a position that asked judges to embrace their moral intuitions without providing reasons why those intuitions might need to be rethought. he said that voting on this position, to him, was analogous to voting on an nc that says the bush doctrine is offensive and immoral and indefensible and you should vote neg if you feel the same way since the resolution mandates it.
Posted from: 76.84.155.199
May 10th, 2008 12:36
Wow.
Posted from: 128.83.206.200
May 10th, 2008 12:42
I love you Andrew. You are an amazing debater. I’m so glad I got the chance to debate you this season even though you brutally slaughtered me in a bid round. :o) You’re great
Posted from: 76.93.130.1
May 10th, 2008 12:44
talk about intense…
Posted from: 71.141.229.92
May 10th, 2008 12:47
mjocon, since you were there, what were the other two judges rfds? or are you gonna leave it up to them to post it themselves?
either would be cool, just curious is all.
Posted from: 98.197.201.79
May 10th, 2008 12:58
Controversial…
Posted from: 71.104.137.196
May 10th, 2008 13:17
Wow. I like, *felt* Andrew’s anger in that round.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 10th, 2008 13:24
I think one thing Chris does here which is really good is that he runs a discourse argument that actually links to Cockroft’s position.
In my mind, Chris’s discourse argument (and most discourse arguments) wouldn’t link to the typical “justice doesn’t exist” or “morality is subjective” argument, because neither of those arguments imply that the Holocaust actually WAS just, whereas in this case Cockroft’s arguments actually say that all state action is permissible/just.
Posted from: 70.138.96.26
May 10th, 2008 13:37
If Chris was truly offended by Andrew’s position (as he claimed after and during the round), then he should have acted accordingly. In CX, Chris should have said “screw the game (of debate), I want to know if you think the holocaust was just.” Barring the first concession, Chris put Andrew in a precarious situation: either concede that there are exceptions to the AC (which could possibly take out the case), or link into the kind of case Chris ran. Even if that would undermine his strategy, as Chris said himself, he didn’t care if he won the ballot, so this line of questioning would be the only type consistent with his position.
Posted from: 70.138.96.26
May 10th, 2008 13:47
The NC was also a lie. Andrew never said that the Holocaust wasn’t evil or immoral in CX as the first twenty seconds of the NC claims. (Maybe that’s why Chris stutters over the links.) Andrew actually said that “the argument is that we wouldn’t necessarily call [the holocaust] just or unjust. The argument is that we would call it a different term or a different concept.”
Posted from: 71.82.123.246
May 10th, 2008 13:50
Paul I respectfully disagree. The position was not based on whether Andrew personally thought the Holocaust was just, lets be clear here. I in no way think that he does. It was about whether it is acceptable to advocate a position which says it is. If you listen to my speech it even specifically talks about thinking one thing about it and doing another in a debate round. Also, I really do believe in the argument personally. Paul, I take offense to you insinuation that I was just using this to win. Think about this, as Andrew said himself I have coaches and I was pretty well prepared at this tournament. Do you think my best option (especially in front of those judges) was to run one argument slowly for 4 min in the NC? Really? That makes no sense. I am fine with people disagreeing with the position of its use, but I really do find attacks on me for running this offensive. But of course I would be happy to discuss this more in depth with you elsewhere Paul. I have a feeling that defending myself on this thing will not be productive so if any one else has something to say to me. Email me.
Posted from: 71.82.123.246
May 10th, 2008 13:51
Paul what is the difference between the word evil and unjust given Andrews case? They are both ethical concepts.
Posted from: 216.80.145.126
May 10th, 2008 13:52
beyond the truth of what paul said, i think it’s disheartening to use discourse arguments to write off the pertinent issues positions like cockroft’s questions. i.e. yes this does make the holocaust just, but that doesn’t mean that justice is good or a preferable measure of action; rather, it’s what the res assigns debaters. nc’s like this seem to assume the link that’s not there, and that leads to situations like this.
Posted from: 98.199.112.103
May 10th, 2008 14:02
I thought it was very strategic and I thoroughly enjoyed the debate round. What I thought was the key part of the round was in the CX when Chris asked Andrew if-under his interpretation of justice (or lack thereof)- murder or the Holocaust was permissible. But I do think Andrew should have made it a clearer distinction between justice and evil and how alternate words like that do not have a correlation to a morally ethical principle like justice.
Posted from: 24.186.38.46
May 10th, 2008 14:13
Chris - can I ask you a question because I’m trying to imagine how I would vote, and I have no idea. Do you think it was necessary that you “win” the fact that you weren’t doing this to advance to the next round in order for the judges to vote down Cockroft?
Posted from: 216.80.145.126
May 10th, 2008 14:14
addition: theis nodding while cockroft is giving the 2ar when he sarcastically cites himself as a douchebag is a lot more douchey than cockrofts case.
Posted from: 70.138.96.26
May 10th, 2008 14:21
In the name of clarity, I did not claim that you ran this NC to win the round. That idea was not explicitly or implicitly in my post. My problem with your strategy is not the strategy itself, but the way it was implemented (i.e., putting Andrew in the precarious situation outlined in my first post.) Even if my post did not come off in this manner, I am in no way trying to make “offensive” personal attacks against you.
Next, post 19 brought up an important point that I intended to bring up in my next post. That is, your NC may actually have been strategic because it let you get out of engaging a pertinent position and win the round, EVEN when you conceded the link that your case assumed but Andrew was indicting (that “justice is good or a preferable measure of action” or what justice truly means) by appealing to people’s emotions.
–
“Paul, what is the difference between the word evil and unjust given Andrews case? They are both ethical concepts.”
I think you hinted at the answer within your own question. “Given Andrew’s case,” justice is the only thing that would label the holocaust as permissible. In fact, the rhetoric of the AC is very specific to how “Justice is a system of rules governing social interaction”, not something being “evil” or “immoral”. Indeed, your link is that “they are both ethical concepts.” But, if you listen to the AC, Andrew never says that ethics consists of rules, and thus, cannot be given content, just Justice. Indeed, Andrew never even said “ethics” in the round.
Posted from: 71.82.123.246
May 10th, 2008 14:22
Contillo, as I said multiple times during the round I thought that positions like that should lose or else they would continue to be run. The judges could make of the round what they liked. I even said If you disagree with me vote for him, and one judge choose to. I was not the only person in the round that felt that way. I hope that helps.
Anon, maybe but not as “douchey” as posting insults anonymously. Oh and wow look you are from Houston. What a deal! Seriously, though anyone who knows me, knows I am very reactive during my opponents speeches, it is admittedly a problem. At that time I was just reacting to the unnecessary profanity and personal attacks that turned into his strategy, which is understandable but in the heat of the moment I was a little upset.
Posted from: 24.186.38.46
May 10th, 2008 14:23
Sorry for asking here - I didn’t see your first post. I’d greatly appreciate a response at cactuspun@yahoo.com if you ever find the time. Thanks
Posted from: 24.186.38.46
May 10th, 2008 14:26
nvm, lol.
Posted from: 71.82.123.246
May 10th, 2008 14:34
“If Chris was truly offended by Andrew’s position (as he claimed after and during the round), then he should have acted accordingly.”
That is what made me think that Paul. If I took It wrongly Im sorry.
When it comes to Just vs any other word. I still think it linked. His own words said that just= permissible that sounds like saying it is ok to me. Moreover the arguments at the bottom of the case such as MacIntyre apply to all ethical concepts in general not only justice.
But I feel I will go crazy defending this all day so Im out.
Posted from: 70.138.96.26
May 10th, 2008 14:37
fair enough
have a nice day
Posted from: 205.188.116.76
May 10th, 2008 14:41
wow this round was pretty intense. I know the nc says that apologizing in the 1ar wouldn’t be sufficent to make up for the Ac position, but I think I remember the AC saying something like it reserved the right to sever… I don’t really know what the round would have become, but I’m trying to decide whether that might have been strategic. Also, I think Andrew touched upon this, but I don’t know why you can’t accept both positions and just conclude that Justice is an awful evaluative mechanism. I know Chris’s argument is that in the real world calling something Just, means something to people and the judges should embrace their role as human beings to reject the position, but I really don’t see why Andrew couldn’t have just said yes my case says the holocaust would be just… but that isn’t a flaw with me or my position, but rather a flaw in society caring about the justness of an action when justice is such an awful tool for determining how atrocious an act was (b/c it can justify things like the holocaust… warrant my AC). I do agree with Nc in many ways.. I’m just upset that it happened to Andrew (who I hung out with briefly at Marx and seemed to be a genuinely nice individual)
Posted from: 24.186.38.46
May 10th, 2008 14:59
So, I suppose the round comes down to the function of the word permissible. Does the word permissible denote that the action can be actualized or does it just mean that it doesn’t violate a certain criteria governing action? As Jesse noted, is this all predicated on pre-conceived notions of what justice is. To say that X action is permissible under a “justice paradigm” would seem to me to imply that the it would be consistent with the parameters set up by the definition of the word justice. I’d say the word “permissible” followed by an infinitive phrase “to walk” can only be evaluated via the context of the “thing” governing the action. In other words - it is permissible to drive my car when the light turns green [because it doesn’t violate the law] - that doesn’t mean that it is a moral/ethical/nice/happy thing to do. Granted, driving a car is a an action far more “amoral” than genocide but it was the first example that popped into my head.
Posted from: 70.190.24.216
May 10th, 2008 15:07
I don’t buy that Chris Theis is not just playing the game. He seemed to know exactly what Andrew would say the moment he started talking in the first cx. To me, the fact that Chris has people scouting other debaters proves it was all just part of the game that Chris wants you to believe he wants to change. Chris ran an argument knowing exactly how to beat this specific debater. The whole thing about going slow and spending 4 minutes of the NC on one argument is all just so Andrew can’t come back and say he is just playing the game also. It’s constructed very well, and I can’t say its a undeserved win, but it is a load of crap out of Chris to say he did not use all the strategy he could to win the TOC. He was never going to waste time in the biggest tournament all year with something that might blow it for him. If Chris really wanted to show everyone watching that Andrew’s line of argumentation was unacceptable in debate, he should have won with the same strategies that anyone could use, not just the debaters that had scouted his case.
For the record, I do go to a big school, and I understand that people from powerhouses have inherent advantages, but with those advantages you have to concede that you are just trying to win in a competition.
Posted from: 24.174.12.201
May 10th, 2008 15:40
First off, before I start AV’s predicted perhaps “upset” responses to that round, I wanted to say that my opinion on the decision in the round in no way is a personal attack on Chris, but is rather a response to the tactics/strategy that AV used. I know Chris worked incredibly hard for the tournament (when I saw him at the Rad he said he hadn’t slept in three days prepping) and I think he’s a smart and talented kid that I admire a lot. Moreover, I know he’s a nice person and he’s been good to me this year. I know he cares about the activity and helping out other kids, which I think is great. What I don’t think is so great, though, is the decision in this round. Normally, I wouldn’t make comments about team strats, because ultimately that’s up to their discretion, but seeing as the strat referenced the “community’s values” it seems like it was almost necessary for me to point out that not all of the “community” agrees with how AV has characterized our opinions. Further, the NC was only supposed to be evaluated because of its impact on the way we view debate and what sorts of arguments we think should be acceptable. I’m willing to admit that I may be the only one that thinks the outcome of this round was ridiculous, but given the position that was run, I think expressing my concerns is hardly illegitimate.
I realize the case wasn’t meant to be evaluated as a resolutional position but as an opinion statement, but it seems to me that Andrew’s “wrong forum—we can discuss it afterwards at great length and try to change stuff” response, which has no NR ink, is directly responsive to what Chris was advocating. If debate has any sort of rules at all that we recognize, it means that Andrew was winning on the flow of both the AC AND the NC. If AV was seriously offended by the types of skeptical positions that are proliferating, they should have conceded the ballot at the beginning of quarters and instead allocated the time to substantive discussion about the problem to actually get change or they should have taken Andrew up on the discussion afterwards and forfeited the rest of their rounds because people that don’t watch this video won’t be affected at all. Because it wasn’t a big deal at the tournament, it didn’t and won’t make people change their strats. I can promise you, if AV had forfeited all the rest of their rounds to talk about their take on what the activity should be, people would’ve paid much more attention and there might actually be some kind of change or at least movement towards finding a solution. As it is, all I can see is that the position couldn’t have mattered THAT much to them, given that they didn’t bring it up at the breakfast of champions and they didn’t talk about it afterwards, but instead continued to debate. This whole discussion seems like it will devolve into personal attacks and if we learned anything from CPS, the big team always wins out, which isn’t productive at all. Instead, I think that if AV takes their position seriously, then this should be a discussion of their criticism and NOT of whether we’re good or bad people for agreeing/disagreeing. This is exactly what people chewed Cameron out for at CPS (bringing up a problem in debate and trying to change it), but the difference is that Cameron gave up the ballots and did it in the most pubic place he could. He opened the floor to community discussion for change and he ran it in finals, when nobody had anything to lose (since bids had already been allocated). If AV really wanted stuff to change, they should have had us all discuss it and treat it seriously, not run it randomly in one round that had low publicity with the end result being that it was the last round of a very talented and probably the hardest-working independent debater on the circuit’s career. Running it in finals would have made more people listen and if it wasn’t an appeal for the ballots, AV shouldn’t have gotten them. It seems to me that the AV strat put Andrew in an extremely unfair situation. If Chris really agreed that he “didn’t care” about the outcome, and it was clear that Andrew did, I don’t see why he should have been given the win. Also, I see a few more important conceptual inconsistencies with AV running the position apart from the ones that Andrew brought up. First, I know that AV didn’t run it in other rounds, but if they actually cared, I don’t see why it would just be quarters where they addressed it, especially as other rounds that Chris debated had arguments that linked just as hard. That just punishes Andrew for having the bad luck to be in the random round where they decided that they wanted to arbitrarily use this strat. Also, because they didn’t bring it up, there was no way that Andrew could’ve avoided offending them. If they had disclosed the position before round (as clearly it was already scripted out what Chris was going to do with carded apology preempts) then Andrew could have affirmed with something else. It feels a lot like this strat was run against Andrew because he doesn’t have a big team to stick up for him and to protest. I understand why that might be a good way to win the round, but seeing as the case expressly said that it wasn’t supposed to be about the win, I don’t understand it at all and it just seems unfair. Moreover (and perhaps more importantly), people, empirically, aren’t their positions. We advocate stuff because we think it’s strategic or interesting, but not necessarily because we believe it. If debate had to be our personal opinions, I wouldn’t have been able to debate death penalty because I already have an opinion. Thus, regarding people as having to advocate what they believe doesn’t seem to make any sense in terms of the way the activity is structured. This seems to take out any justifications behind AV’s criticisms. Beyond that, all AV’s theory arguments all have “vote on fairness because debate is a competitive activity/game” or at least they’ve been okay with accepting this in order to make responses to theory in the rounds I watched them in. To me, that links a lot harder to the criticism that they’re advancing. If the NC was serious that debate isn’t a game, then it shouldn’t have been a game in any of the other rounds they debated. What I think is the funniest thing of all, though, is that the AC Becca ran in finals links so much harder than what Andrew was advocating because it was about watching burning children after we nuked ourselves. I mean, really, AV. Seriously. I don’t see how that isn’t MUCH more offensive than just saying that the way that we look at the resolution grammatically means that labeling things with the word “justice” doesn’t make sense. Andrew’s position wasn’t something prescriptive like “the Holocaust ought to be just” and AV’s NC doesn’t make the link that the AC WAS prescriptive. Absent that analysis, I think finals would have been far more appropriate a time to comment on debaters viewing debate as an abstract. The way the conditional statements AC is phrased is hardly about saying atrocities are good. Rather, it says that in terms of the way the resolution works, you’d affirm because of the sentence structure. I’d bet Becca doesn’t really think we should nuke ourselves. The discursive link is way stronger and the round was far more public, yet AV was able to be un-offended and to debate “normally” there. I don’t see Andrew’s case as worse than Edina running Hagglund to say that justice is derived from violent exclusion or from LOTS of other cases this topic. It’s pretty lame that Andrew, the person least equipped to know that positions like that were being run hits Chris, the person probably best equipped, and had to lose to some disingenuous discursive argument that was being taken out on the flow. I don’t know if this post made a lot of sense because I went through it all pretty quickly and messily but I wanted the rest of the debate community to know that I heartily disagree with strategies like this that end wonderful kids’ careers for ends that don’t really matter. The way the round was evaluated couldn’t have been on the flow or for change and that makes me really really sad about this activity. I think that, ultimately, it’s worse to get ballots for no purpose than to get them because you wanted to win.
Posted from: 98.199.112.103
May 10th, 2008 15:59
my gosh madeline…
Posted from: 74.36.136.254
May 10th, 2008 16:08
I feel very strongly that Chris meant his position. Sure, he wanted to win, but that is not why he ran the argument. EVEN IF it was Apple Valley’s “strat” to run the discourse K before round, that doesn’t mean that Chris wasn’t being genuine in his concern for holocaust survivors, etc.
A couple things make me think this:
1) The K wasn’t 7 minutes long. If he had been trying to win, or get “pity” ballots, then there would have been much more “lots and lots of people died” within the K itself. I was very surprised there wasn’t more said about the holocaust than whether this position was legitimate in the round.
2) This is not the best strat to go all in on. Chris is a hella strategic debater normally, and for him to divest all of his time into a position that (in terms of the game) doesn’t have a ballot story and asks for judges to intervene doesn’t seem like something Chris would do for the sake of winning.
3) Everybody has discourse blocks. The point of running something critical like this, if trying to win the game, would be to catch someone offguard, but honestly, who hasn’t heard of a “H-Triv” or generic “My opponent is mean to ____ group, vote them down.” Chris would have broken something extremely critical if he wanted to, I’m sure there is some kritik AV didn’t break at TOC that is like “Andrew Cockroft doesn’t like babies.”
4) Purely speaking from “inside the game,” Andrew concedes that that the reason AV doesn’t run nihilism is because they are hella offensive. That seems to be sufficient reason (even as a judge in a round) to think that this wasn’t a huge AV conspiracy.
I think that Andrew really couldn’t do much after the NC, but he surprised me with his responses- I thought it was a great round for a number of reasons.
I’m also sure that my post was incredibly non-responsive to a lot of the discussion above, but just thought it might be cool to throw in my two cents.
-Christian Keil
Posted from: 74.36.136.254
May 10th, 2008 16:09
And @33… agreed. :P
Posted from: 24.165.9.37
May 10th, 2008 16:13
i am shocked at the direction of this thread. the fact that people do not think that trivializing the worst genocide in human history and a singularly evil campaign of hatred to make a debate argument, even when faced with visceral evidence of that evil, is worth a loss. i would have voted negative after cross-x and i am sure that i am not the only judge who thinks that way.
no one put a gun to andrew’s head and demanded that he say the holocaust wasn’t unjust. that is a decision he made, and he should have to bear the consequences. people do not seem to get that andrew, not chris, was the one who trivialized the holocaust; the notion that chris should have to give up the ballots to point this out is beyond absurd. the fact that chris prepped it just indicates that too many debaters think that it’s ignore the real-life implications of their arguments, and that he was going to send a message to the next person who did it. based on my limited experience watching him, i am not at all surprised that andrew cockroft was the person to do it.
Posted from: 24.165.9.37
May 10th, 2008 16:20
*is worth a loss is beyond me.
Posted from: 216.80.145.126
May 10th, 2008 16:23
smitty,
1. others (ie trin prep, edina, etc) were running cases that could come to the same conclusion.
2. i think you’re gripping way too hard on the whole ‘is it just or unjust’ thing. as i said before, can’t cockroft’s case be a means of pointing out that justice is ridic; i think recognizing that makes it clear that he is not trivializing the holocaust, he is trivializing justice.
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
May 10th, 2008 16:27
Ok, I really didn’t want to get involved in this discussion but post 31 and 32 are ridiculous. If you don’t want to read a rant, then just read what smitty just wrote about 3 times and let that sink in. In all this discussion the point is getting lost, but nonetheless I think it’s reasonable to address what people have written.
Post 31:
What the hell does AV scouting have to do with this round? We like to debate, wow, brilliant, but the whole point of THIS ROUND is that sometimes arguments go too far. Chris could have approached this round like any other round, but you know it gets kind of disgusting to hear positions over and over again that connect the term “just” to the Holocaust. And actually, we didn’t even talk about this aff before the round. There was 0 prep on this affirmative. In rounds where people decide NOT to conflate the term “just” with the Holocaust, yea Theis will simply debate.
How would Chris know what his opponent was going to say? I’m sure he had an inclination, and I’m glad he did, because you know, I think we would get railed a lot more if we didnt clarify exactly what Cockroft was saying, and then made the point that this would result in labeling the Holocaust just. When we talked about approaching debate in this manner (not this round, but any round where this issue came up), we knew Theis was more likely to lose if he decided to do this, and he told us repeatedly that he didn’t care if he lost because he felt perfectly ethical doing what he did. And everyone on our staff agreed with that: there’s a line to be drawn about what you should argue, we felt it was wrong. You can speculate all you want about his motivations and whatever you think in the long run doesn’t matter because our team knows why Chris did this.
He didn’t use “the same strategies as everyone else” because we’re sick of people engaging cases like this as if there is intellectual value to them.
And wow, of course the argument was written as a blippy 1 minute NC and then spread the AC. That would be the point Chris was trying to make. God, how stupid.
And Im sick of this AV is a giant empire bullshit. I got my last paycheck in January, and so did Cherian. We make enough money to buy groceries for half a year. Andy Poker didn’t get paid a dime, and had to fly himself out to the tournament. The value of loyalty and hard work at AV just happens to be high.
Post 32 reminds me of a stacked case that tries to hide how bad its arguments are by having 400 of them.
1.) We should have conceded? We should have allowed a position to advance that labeled the Holocaust just? We felt something being advocated was repugnant, but we should accept the loss and give the win to a case we find awful? Yes, that makes so much sense. Theis says, vote against me if you want, but the general feeling is that CASES LIKE THIS SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED WITH A “W.” People would have paid more attention if we forfeited? Why? Bring it up at the Breakfast of Champions? How should we schedule that? Before or after the induction of ToC hall of fame coaches? I don’t remember J.W. justifying the Holocaust during the ceremony, either. And I had discussions with coaches immediately after we ran this position. Hell, if J.W. wanted to shut the tourney down for a discussion we would have been game. Unfortunately, we have no control over that. And we’re discussing it now anyway, so it doesn’t really matter. I’d say this round has high publicity since its, oh I dunno, one of only 7 or so videos that will be posted on this website. Think before you write.
2.) The fact that Chris didn’t care about the W and Cockroft clearly did is not a reason to give a debater a W. If someone stood up and started spewing racist, homophobic, anti-semitic remarks, but really had the desire to win, they probably shouldn’t win. The other debater is taking a risk by pointing out that what the other person did is unacceptable.
3.) Theis did not arbitrarily use this “strat.” This round was the round where he saw something that (to him) appeared clearly unethical. I think cross-ex is pretty clear
I mean I can’t honestly sit here and read what you wrote anymore. We ran this because he doesn’t have a big team? What does that have to do with anything? If he had a giant team would it make this position ok? How is this position taking advantage of a small school? We have never included as part of our preps the size of the school we’re debating and the advantages they might have because of that.
I hate to sound dismissive. I realize people have objections to what happened. But everything I’ve read so far is beyond stupid.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
May 10th, 2008 16:30
first of all, i’m glad cockroft didn’t win, because then we’d all want to be nazis and nihilists. thank you AV for preventing that. but i have to say, i’m worried about debate anyways. Logically following AV’s arg, we can say that really terrible discourse arguments are going to proliferate like mad. This may sound hypocritical from someone who also ran discourse at the TOC, but let me explain myself.
The thing that primarily grinds my gears about the ballot story is AV saying, yo, we don’t run nihilism or skeptical args, so we rock. this is completely unverifiable as to why they don’t. but more importantly, AV has ran things that implicate the same scenarios. how is running an affirmative that says securitization comes before deontic concerns not implicitly condoning concentration camps? or what about the realism argument that chris extended against me that said that states don’t have any moral constraints in the international sphere, and that’s fine. unless AV is willing to never run such positions both before this round and from now on, i will see this as an attempt to “win the game,” in which case all of cockrofts’ arguments apply.
personally, i would say that theis is substantively winning the preclusiveness of his “vote how you feel” ballot story. however, i think the primary problem is that someone could feel that the holocaust is evil (which it most certainly is), and still vote for cockroft.
i am also sort of repulsed by the implication that voting for skeptical positions means you’re a nazi/nihilist. as a jew who has run skeptical arguments, i think this position takes an unacceptably sanctimonious and underhanded route towards holocaust trivialization. i love israel. i hate nazis. i will punch someone out if they so much as intimates that i don’t believe that the holocaust was evil or unjust, and that i’m just using my skeptical arguments as a screen for what i truly believe (YOU CAUGHT ME, I HATE THOSE DAMNABLE CROOKED NOSES).
i agree with a lot of what madeline has to say, but i think most important to what happens in the round is that cock’s skeptical position doesn’t say the holocaust is just. it says that based on how conditional logic works, the resolution is a true statement, but not necessarily a statement of value.
as much as i hate nazis, i hate the potential implications of debate for this argument even more. i thought it was particularly telling that cherian brought it up as a joke in his thank yous on the main TOC thread, but i think that the main test of this argument will be to see if AV continues to stand by it.
i respect AV and chris sooo much, but i really really strongly disagree with what went on in this round and this position.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
May 10th, 2008 16:35
i also agree with a lot of what tim has to say, but i will add that perceptually, it’s hard not to think that chris was just going for the win. CK says, look, it’s hella unstrategic! but the fact of the matter is that’s not true. this was an extremely strategic decision that threw the AC completely off track.
i don’t think AV ran it to fuck over Elkins. i don’t know why they ran it. i can only take the intents they gave me. what i can say is that i disagree with their method and with that method’s implications.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
May 10th, 2008 16:40
the important thing is that we are debaters AND we are people. the game of debate is based on an implicit consent that it is separate from the real world. the impact scenarios we all know and love would be very explicit evidence of that.
Posted from: 98.199.112.103
May 10th, 2008 16:45
Madeline:
Talking about it later- I don’t think talking about it later would really have any impact. Sure after the round he could go up to Andrew and say that was not cool your a jerk don’t run that again- but what will that really do. I don’t mean to speak for Chris, but I think that yes he did want to win the game but he also wanted to stop positions like this to be able to win. The most important thing, which smitty pointed out, was that the debate had real world implications. It is not like when we go into the debate round we are shut off from the real world and all the things we say have no correlation to the real world. Sure Chris and AV might have run positions like that before, but alot of people have to keep up with other people that do it to, its like another strat in your aresenal and you don’t want to be behind everyone else. And even if he does positions like Andrew’s in the past, that doesn’t even matter- the only thing that matters is the round itself.
Andrew being in a hard position- I thought Andrew defended his position excellently. I was very impressed. I think he had several opportunities to win the round. If he made a clear distinction between evil and unjustness (as I said before) I think he would have had alot more weight in the round. Moreover, if he pointed out some of Chris’ strat as just a tool to appeal to emotions and an arbitrary factor, that could have helped him too. Andrew might have had alot of setbacks structurally before the round but that does not matter, it isn’t Chris’ fault he goes to AV.
And i completely agree with Rebar on one thing- Andrew could have definitely called the Holocaust evil and still won. If in the CX Andrew did not concede that by his case the Holocaust was “permissible”, then it would be a whole new game.
Posted from: 24.6.237.64
May 10th, 2008 16:45
smitty,
what, precisely, is in CX that’s so offensive? is it the part where andrew specifically says we can use some other term to criticize the Holocaust, just not justice? Or maybe it’s the part where he tries repeatedly to make clear that he’s NOT saying “holocaust good”? Not to get too personal here, but I would think that you of all people would be aware of how easy it is for someone to think you’re defending the holocaust in a debate round when you’re doing nothing of the sort…
i’m not really sure which way i would have voted, not having been in the room when it happened and/or flowed it while watching the video. however, i am extraordinarily sympathetic to the view expressed in post 29: if something as truly evil as the holocaust can be considered just, this may be a reason to think that justice is a bad term to use when trying to condemn actions. why not at least give the debaters a chance to grapple with that argument before you sign the ballot?
all i’m saying is this - issues like this one are extraordinarily delicate. before we rush to condemn andrew or chris for their advocacies in this round, perhaps we ought to commend them for maintaining that balance so well. one of the exceptional things in this round, i think, is how well chris avoids making this into a personal attack…and how well andrew keeps his cool in the face of such a strong condemnation of his advocacy. i would only hope that others could follow their example and allow everyone a chance to fully explain themselves, not rush to judgment the first time they heard something that might be offensive.
Posted from: 69.105.108.177
May 10th, 2008 16:46
people, be logical
chris did not care about the position enough to forfeit the round at the TOC, the culmination of all of his ridiculously hard work for the last year.
he did, however, care enough about the position to run a very risky argument that jeopardized his chances to make it to semis and then finals. this was a very big risk for chris to make, and he obviously really wanted to move on in the tournament or else he wouldn’t have worked so hard. he was willing to win a debate round on a non-debate argument.
chris didn’t have to run this position to win. he could have run a more streamlined NC like the one he used to beat Becca Traber on a 6-1 in the final round of the TOC. obviously, he can debate a standard neg.
Posted from: 68.175.16.169
May 10th, 2008 16:50
The German Workers Party did start as a debate club….
Not sure the “game” point is that important either way - certainly negative wanted to win an argument . . . I don’t really need to know the negative’s true soul in order to consider whether the argument convinces me or not. The negative’s point is that the “debate is a game” line-of-thinking should not be excuse for reasoning so convoluted and apparently dangerous that it compels the affirmative to reply “sure” as to whether Holocaust is just. I think the negative came off as a little overly pious in his point; and posited the response too much as an issue of judges trolling for acceptable or permissible argumentation (I think many judges would resist thinking of their role in that way); however, the gist of the point is well-taken.
I think that affirmative in cross-examination or rebuttal speeches could have clarified what he meant that there are other normative descriptors for holocaust that are 1) not analogous to justice regarding his description of the indeterminancy of justice and the consequences of that indeteterminancy; and 2) still carry enough resonance to properly condemn such state action that the negative critique shouldn’t apply.
The resolution (I had to look it up) is that it is just for US to use military force under certain conditions; if affirmative’s reasoning somehow compels the affirmative to make that “sure” response, I do not take much comfort that affirmative’s reasoning should be guiding my views on the state’s use of violence, no matter what level of theory or “debate is a game” approach it is wedged in. Whatever the explanation for why it is okay to say the Holocaust is just because there are other descriptors that adequately criticize or condemn this atrocity would have to be sufficient in convincing that we were not adopting reasoning/advocacy that would guide us to making a poor choice about the use of military force, since the potential consequences seem significant…
Really interesting debate, though; difficult to imagine a more interesting one…
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
May 10th, 2008 16:53
AND ANOTHER THING: madeline points out that becca probably linked harder to a similar sort of discourse K, and yet they didn’t run it then. if chris is not defending this position for ballots, doesn’t it behoove him to run it whenever there is even a tenuous link?
also, why not advocate double loss, with neither debater moving on? that way the ballot doesn’t even come into play, and joan byes to finals. that seems to solve the issue of punishing cockroft for his morally repugnant position without even engendering any thought that chris wants the ballot. if he doesn’t care about the ballot DON’T CARE.
like i said, i think i would’ve voted for chris, and i 100% agree with the substance of the position, i just hate the way it was ran and the ballot story.
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
May 10th, 2008 16:54
Rebar,
There is a difference between justifying security concerns above rights (i.e. wiretapping) and the Holocaust. The logic of that argument does not need to terminate in the Holocaust: in fact, I see no way that it could. The logic of realism does not terminate in the Holocaust. Why would security concerns for states in anarchy justify such a horrible act? I don’t get it. And if Chris was asked “does this justify the Holocaust,” his answer would be NO. You’d have to be making some pretty awful arguments for that to be the conclusion of your argument.
I don’t know what the place is of skeptical arguments in debate. I think the way debaters run them is likely the problem. Ya’ll love the short and sweet “so nothing is unjust/everything is just.” Figure out a way to craft a moral paradigm that isn’t that simplistic and potentially repugnant. Rebar, in no way am I trying to imply that you love Nazis because you run a skeptical argument. You are responsible for how your argument evolves in a round and whether or not you decide that atrocities are covered under your skeptical approach. I think Chris in CX does a good job trying to figure out what exactly the AC advocacy covers. We will never approach a case generically with this mindset, and that’s the point I’ve been trying to make. We are not making a blanket statement about skepticism: we are making a statement about how the argument is applied, and whether it has a place in discussing ethics, etc. in relation to a specific case.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
May 10th, 2008 17:00
fair enough tim, i buy those responses. i’m still troubled about the way i see this argument playing out, but once i understand more as a contextual response it irks me a little less. i guess i just don’t understand what advocacies this would cover and what it doesn’t, because to my way of thinking, security over rights does justify concentration camps (which originated because of “security concerns”). it seems to be an issue with a very hard-to-determine brightline.
i’m actually really glad AV brought these issues up in a videotaped round so we could actually talk about it.
Posted from: 66.68.159.87
May 10th, 2008 17:07
Now I dont want to get off on a rant here but:
First of all I did not physically flow the round nor was physically there. However I find myself agreeing with post 29; if the holocaust is just then all that means is that justice is a bad term when condemning action. I also think there is no reason why we cant just call the holocaust evil. Additionally i find myself agreeing with madeline that if debate positions reflected our personal opinions then we physically could NOT debate both sides of the resolution. There is 0 reason why writing a strategic position should not be allowed or punished in a debate round. I personally run tons of positions that would be seen as absurd in the real world. but what really annoys me about this round is that cockroft’s position is simply being arbitrarily silenced. It seems rather bad for debate to simply silence a particular argument because it ‘might’ call the holocaust just in addition to excluding diversity in argumentation and destroying any hope of education we could get from being in debate. I personally don’t know anything about how AV preps but I think that blindly silencing certain arguments is just unacceptable for an activity that is supposed to be educational. (maybe instead of running squirelly discourse arguments and narratives in CX we could actually start answering arguments) I also think that there is no way this wasnt meant as a strategic NC, paul hit it right on the head with why CX proves this. Forgive the spelling and grammar mistakes I’m sure there are many and I wrote this rather quickly.
But hey thats just my opinion I could be wrong.
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
May 10th, 2008 17:08
Nazi security concerns are not legitimate security concerns?
Posted from: 69.180.210.210
May 10th, 2008 17:10
there doesn’t seem to be a compelling reason why a competition-focus paradigm and genuine discourse argument are mutually exclusive. i completely agree with tim that there is no reason why someone running a position with offensive implications must be criticized in a manner that concedes the competitive aspect of the debate. in fact, i think competitive incentives definitely help to shape the norms of the community and what generally run and deemed acceptable. two examples come to mind. first, spirtos’ ellipsis k has had an incredible impact–most people now underline and minimize the text of cards. second, the proliferation of theory against multiple a prioris seems to have made a substantial dent in the amount of pre-standards arguments being run. of course, both of these theory arguments function with the “flow” and “game” paradigm, but i don’t see a reason prohibiting the formation of a debate norm against morally repugnant arguments. many judges openly express their unwillingness to listen to to such arguments, and people dont run them in front of those judges. if more judges were to embrace that idea, fewer debaters would run arguments with offensive implications.
also, paul and a few others have mentioned the:
“precarious situation: either concede that there are exceptions to the AC (which could possibly take out the case), or link into the kind of case Chris ran.”
debaters who run skeptical cases should have an answer to these “precarious situations.” If a debater chooses to run a skeptical position like this one, he or she does not inherently deserve a free pass to avoid answering hard questions like Chris’ in the round. debaters should either come up with a compelling reason as to why the holocaust is always unjust regardless of their position or, alternatively, they can articulate why justice may not be an inherently good concept, as others have stated. both of these have potential for very tenable arguments, so i don’t see why andrew was at any type of unusual disadvantage in this round.
Posted from: 71.142.66.127
May 10th, 2008 17:13
Like Alex, I am totally shocked that people find Chris’s position more offensive than Andrew’s:
1) When asked in CX whether or not, under his interpretation, murder is permissible, Andrew said yes. In fact he said that anything is permissible.
2) He later tried to retract by saying that we could call the Holocaust ’something else’, which he then clarified later to mean ‘evil’ or something else. The fact remains, though, that Andrew a) said that murder is just, and b) said that murder is permissible. Even if you think (a) is somewhat mitigated by Andrew’s case, (b) definitely definitely is not. Regardless of whether or not Andrew’s case would allow us to call the Holocaust ‘evil’ (which would be an extremely charitable interpretation), the Holocaust was still ‘permissible’ according to Andrew’s position.
3) Chris’s mistake was to even engage Andrew on his ridiculous argument that ‘Chris is trying to use the Holocaust to win’. As Chris’s position clearly elucidated, there is an obvious distinction between a) using something to win in a manner that trivializes it, and b) using something to win in a manner that magnifies its importance. Chris (and hopefully most everyone!) passionately believed in his position, and his use of the narrative served to blow up the real world implication of accepting Andrew’s position.
4) To say that Chris should have just yelled at Andrew if ‘he really believed’ what he was saying is ridiculous. You can really believe something, and still resolve things in an orderly way. In the context of a debate round, this means being prudent enough to allow for the judges to give your opponent a loss - serving as a deterrent for future positions like Andrew’s. Analogously, if I witness a murder, should I immediately exact vigilante justice on the murderer? Does it trivialize the victim’s life to allow the criminal justice process to run it’s course? Obviously not. One doesn’t have to be emotional/rash to ‘truly believe’ something, and going through a more orderly process to punish the perpetrator (in this case Andrew) does not trivialize the incident.
I think that Chris could have done a better job in explaining (3) and (4), but even so, Chris clearly won. Absent the ballot though, to think that Chris’s position is somehow more offensive than Andrew’s is absurd.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
May 10th, 2008 17:15
hogan, you just called 6 million of my people, and millions more of others a security concern. ouch.
Q for AV/Chris: Would saying yeah, the holocaust was unjust, but that statement can’t be proven true, answer the argument? If i have a feeling, but i can’t provide factual basis, does that make my feeling any less important?
Posted from: 24.174.12.201
May 10th, 2008 17:24
Okie dokie Mr. Hogan. In that case, I’m sorry. I guess I was upset about the outcome, but it wasn’t meant as a personal attack on AV. I didn’t mean to make you mad and to have you think I’m a bad person for saying something. It’s hard to voice your opinion when you know that people that can judge you are deciding that you’re a stupid person. Sorries. :o(
Posted from: 24.165.9.37
May 10th, 2008 17:26
ankur: the part where he gets all flippant and defensive when chris reads the testimony of a child during the holocaust, then says “nope, can’t say it’s unjust.” that part.
Posted from: 85.195.123.25
May 10th, 2008 17:27
come on, let’s just be honest. to suggest that apple valley ran this case because they believed that cockroft was defending the holocaust and they were offended is the height of absurdity. tim gave the answer himself…
“And actually, we didn’t even talk about this aff before the round. There was 0 prep on this affirmative.”
exactly, you ran a generic case because you had no idea about the affirmative and the apple valley empire hadn’t scouted or written a prep-out for it yet. anything to prevent engaging a case on the spur of the moment. i’m more horrified that we live in a community where the massive privilege of certain debaters goes unchallenged than the horror story advanced by the nc that we’re going to become a community that endorses the holocaust. get off your faux moral high horse.
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
May 10th, 2008 17:27
Rebar -
What? I just said that the Nazi concept of security was abused horribly to justify concentration camps as a security concern. They were wrong and motivated by evil. That would not fall under our purview of an actual or ethical security concern. I dont know what you think I said…
I don’t care how people try to weasel out of it: you have to be able to say that the Holocaust was unjust. If you’re wishy-washy about that, that’s disturbing.
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
May 10th, 2008 17:36
Way to twist my words, 57. We did not sit down and say “Oh no, we don’t have a prep, better run this!” What I said is that we did not discuss running the position Chris DID run (the Holocaust is awful).
But really, I don’t feel the need to respond to that. You’re wrong, you know it, everyone else does too.
I’m done responding for a while. This is sad.
Posted from: 71.164.175.69
May 10th, 2008 17:40
i don’t think anybody who worked hard enough to get to toc quarters deserves to be a sacrificial lamb in some vigilante effort to change debate.
pardon me if that rhetoric happens to be in a theory block somewhere, it would be purely coincidence.
also theis, while good hearted, still seemed like he was just a bit too overeager bust out that heartwrenching narrative and try to guilt andrew into abandoning his extensive case position.
Posted from: 71.82.123.246
May 10th, 2008 17:42
@#57- Fuck You. I am sick of this rumor that we write extensive prep outs to every case and that somehow I am not able to debate without them. We wrote Prep outs for a total of 2 AC’s the entire tournament. Sure I had tons of answers to things but maybe that is because I worked my ass of to research before hand. You must realize how stupid you sound of you wouldnt hide behind fake names and proxy servers. Oh and man this was such a generic case everytime I have no idea what to do I just read the Holocaust argument. Is this serious? Do you not think I have answers to skeptical arguments? Do I really deserve all of this criticism because I go to a school that has coaches who care? Apple Valley is by no means a rich school Cherian and Tim get paid much less than they could make elsewhere yet they stick around anyway. That is how are team still runs, loyalty. If you want to make this personal maybe you should man up and take some responsibility for what you say.
Posted from: 71.82.123.246
May 10th, 2008 17:49
are should be our*
Posted from: 68.117.54.190
May 10th, 2008 18:21
This discussion board has started to become very repetitive. AV is a big school. Elkins is a little school. Therefore, Theis has a huge advantage. Everyone seems to assume that going to a big school is a ticket to success. With this logic, every person at Apple Valley High School should be able to have major success at the TOC. Had this tournament been a complete fluke then some argument about the size of Apple Valley leading to their success would have made much sense. Throughout this whole season however, Theis has been amazing. He’s won the Iowa RR, Barkley Forum, The Heart of Texas,The Greenhill RR, and has excelled at many tournaments. Even if Theis had hundreds of people going around watching various rounds at the TOC as many people claim, he was able to dominate many other tournaments on his own. Not to undermine the AV coaching staff, but to be the TOC champ, a lot of talent and hard work is needed on the part of the debater. Throughout the season Theis has exhibited major success and that can’t be all based on the “largeness/richness” of AVHS. What i’m basically saying is that had Chris gone to Elkins, i’m sure he would still have major success in L-D debate. As far as the actual round goes, I felt that both sides did a great job. I felt that the risk Chris took in advocating the unjustness was appropriate and had major benefits. The only part of the NC I didn’t buy was when Chris said he didn’t care about the outcome. He rook a risk but i’m sure he had some hope of winning the round. I agree with what some people have previously said about the round coming down to the difference between Evil and Unjust. Because of this, I felt the judges made an appropriate decision.
Congratulations to both Andrew and Chris on a great perforence.
Posted from: 68.117.54.190
May 10th, 2008 18:27
should be The unjustness of the Holocaust.
Posted from: 69.115.18.52
May 10th, 2008 18:41
Personally i thought this was an excellent debate round and its really hard to find something of this quality and congrats to both debaters for making it that far.
but heres what i thought of the actual round, at the end of the day regardless of winning or loosing i am more inclined to negate for several reasons.
1) Chris Theis himself multiple times during the 1st c/x gave Andrew the way out by saying it was unjust outside the debate round because he asked what Andrew personally thought.
2) i understand Andrew’s frustration in terms of prepping out and not having multiple coaches. however i evaluate that be thinking ok he has worked extremely hard to become a good debater which he is but i accept Chris Theis’s argument that its not his fault that he goes to Apple Valley. Moreover who hasn’t prepped out seriously?
3) in terms of the discourse K as most of the previous posts prove if Chris really cared about winning his K would have been faster and 7 minutes long. From my own standpoint i do thing he was sincere about holocaust victims/ Chris answers about Apply Valley ethics. etc support his position as a whole.
4) in Chris’s speeches he gives reasons to vote AFF several of them rather then just ‘if you believe the holocaust is just etc; however his rhetoric still leads me to negate because he weighs the “game” of debate and how we make decisions as everyday people.
5) you may totally disagree with this but debate doesn’t have to be winning the flow, link, etc. for any debater its also about persuasion and how to make that judge like the agreement regardless of any links, justifications, etc. For example personally i enjoy both positions Andrew’s and Chris’s but at the end of the day if i was not really looking at the technicalities Chris’s position has more effect on me as an individual since he points out himself TOC sets a precedent.
6)finally i don’t believe Chris is talking bout Andrew as a person, the rhetoric in his speech is saying to reject Andrew’s position because it is bad for “x” reason, not because Andrew is a jerk or w.e.
side-note: although an intense round i don’t believe either person is like “bad” per say, both people are great debaters regardless of how the round went
@ bryce: wow i did not know that that is really interesting, im really gonna look the up right after im done writting this
again congrats to both debaters and congrats to Chris Theis for winning the TOC
Posted from: 69.115.18.52
May 10th, 2008 18:43
re 61: damn straight :D
Posted from: 128.54.165.135
May 10th, 2008 19:11
i would have been a lot happier had i never seen this video…
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
May 10th, 2008 19:21
Agreed with 36 and Hogan. The idea that cockroft should have won seems, to me, absurd.
Posted from: 71.60.209.85
May 10th, 2008 20:00
I generally try not to get involved in flamewars as a vast majority of random debaters’ arguments go unnoticed or are pointless, but I figured I would give it a shot because I have some time.
There seems to be a few general themes in the attacks coming from those who do not support Theis’s position.
Concern 1 – If Theis cared, he would have given up the ballot.
I think there are a couple fundamental flaws in this argument.
First and most importantly, Chris’s NC very explicitly gives you two reasons why you reject the logical implication of the AC argument: 1) reject Andrew as a debater by virtue of the immorality of the position; 2) reject this line of argumentation to prevent further proliferation of immoral arguments. While I think the first reason would provide sufficient warrant for Chris taking the ballot, the second reason to reject would definitely preclude Chris accepting a loss, even for a good cause. Andrew is not a Nazi. The problem lies in the willingness of debaters to run positions like this in order to get ballots despite such cases being morally repugnant. Having a discussion may help prevent people from calling the Holocaust just (who knows). However, this would do nothing to change Andrew’s mind. I am pretty damn sure that he would NEVER claim outside of the context of that debate round that the Holocaust is legitimate, just, not evil, etc. The point of the critique is to negate in order to close the gap between debate bullshit and what the real world tolerates. Saying “send him to semis, why don’t we have a discussion” wouldn’t solve because the issue doesn’t truly exist outside of the debate round anyway.
Second, I agree very strongly with Corey on the issue of ethics and victory not being mutually exclusive. From what Tim says, it doesn’t seem that the point of AV’s decision to run the NC was either to solely gain a strategic advantage or to lose the round while provoking social change. While I don’t know Chris personally, it sounds as though he chose to run this position against an anticipated AC because he thought it was both ethical and persuasive. Ultimately, I think trying to stop the proliferation of positions like this is a good thing for a number of reasons; for example, making school administrators lose faith in the activity’s educational value when victory comes from strategic garbage (and then ending the program, stopping funding, preventing use of school name, etc.)
Third, on the issue of a “double loss,” this would probably have not worked either. A) As I said with the second argument I made, I don’t think that being ethical in rounds necessarily must prevent someone from winning. In fact, I think this mentality is pretty scary…
To that end, Chris shouldn’t have to ditch all the hard work he apparently did and the chance at winning (in light of the result, probably a good choice) in order to stop an unethical position from advancing over him.
B) I don’t think logistically the double loss option would work. My judge Alexander told me at TOC (I believe he was recalling the 2003 tournament) that one round resulted in the judge accepting a double win argument in prelims. However, JW ultimately told the debaters, “The TOC has champions, and those who are not,” which resulted in the judge being forced to vote.
Concern 2 – We can re-label the Holocaust with other terms
I think (if I remember correctly) that Chris was making arguments in the NC about why it is necessary for us to conceptualize justice in some applicable, legitimate way. I am pretty sure that he extended a piece of analysis stating that we have an innate understanding of what just and unjust are, and, therefore, that debaters should not have judges tolerate the creation of screens to block such moral intuition. While Tom apparently sat out because he was not willing to vote based on intuition, it would seem that extending this argument would at least give Chris a significant boost on the issue of whether or not we should use other terms. Insofar as we all possess some relevant understanding of just and unjust in governing actions, ignoring it completely and accepting injustices as justices would appear to be a serious internal conflict.
Concern 3 – Chris should have read the NC in other rounds
A – I think a significant number of affs on this resolution simply did not require this argument. Considering that quite a few cases upheld some conception of negative rights and their violation as a result of the imminent threat of nuclear attack, I would say that the risk of justifying the Holocaust is not substantial enough to warrant going all in on this type of discursive argument (through some tenuous link to state security I suppose).
B – Even if Becca ran a case that linked in the next round, I still don’t think Chris had to run the discursive argument. First, I don’t think what he ran in previous rounds matters that much. Chris’s argument wasn’t “I’m a saint, Andrew isn’t, sign the ballot for AV,” it was just that the position he saw was terrible. Second, considering that Chris had just run the position, running the NC again certainly would not have been strategic (which I still think is legitimate as per the mutual exclusivity argument). Hell, if we accept that positions like Andrew’s are harmful not only in round but in the future, losing to that position in semis may have given “murder/Holocaust/killing babies is just” arguments a shot in the arm. Third, I guess I am not sure that Becca ran the case that would have linked even worse. I was already driving back to PA and can’t confirm/deny how the round played out, I don’t think the person who indicted Chris’s decision not to run the critique stated that Becca was definitely running a similar argument.
Sorry that this is long.
Regardless, congrats to the “Empire.”
Posted from: 24.140.53.64
May 10th, 2008 20:05
First off, I don’t know Andrew or Chris. I don’t even compete national circuit.
But I do think that Chris’s position has merit. He definately brings up an issue that I find repugnant in debate rounds. Just this year, I saw a policy team run a K that said baby killing was good. That, like the Holocaust argument, is too far.
However, I think Cockroft defined Justice as rules governing social behavior or something of the sort. (Not positive on that cuz I didn’t flow the round). Would this not imply that something just would be in accordance with the rules of social behavior? and something unjust would not be in accordance with the rules of social behavior? Thus, if the holocaust is not unjust, doesn’t that make it not not in accordance with the rules of social behavior ie. in accordance with the rules of social behavior?
I do think that Chris wanted the ballots, but not for the reason that he wanted to win; rather that he wanted the offensive position to lose.
That said, I also think there’s something to be said about a position that Chris made in the beginning of the NC, that the fact that they were in a debate round does not mean that we should allow a desire to win transcend our moral duties as humans. While justice may be a crap term per the AC, I think that we do have a conception of justice regardless of what he says, and that the Holocaust will inevitably violate that conception.
Finally, I’ve gotta give major props to Chris for running this position at the TOC. It takes balls to do that, especially in elimination rounds, where there’s so much on the line. He must have known it was a risky case to run, but it clearly succeeded in pointing out these flaws to the debate community.
Sorry this turned into a rant.
I’m not going to read this thread anymore, so feel free to flame me if you would like.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
May 10th, 2008 20:05
oh my god some of you are fucking retarded. like, really? seriously!?
Posted from: 12.216.111.70
May 10th, 2008 20:15
i sort of agree with the point rebars question is getting at in 54 (although i think this is not relevant to the round given the cross-ex question of whether the holocaust was permissible). i’m not sure why skepticism as to the truth-value of ethical statements necessitates throwing out our moral concerns. prashant is mentioned in the round, and i assume the skeptical position being referenced is the NC cut from wittgenstein’s lecture on ethics. wittgenstein was a christian. the lecture only questions whether there is an empirical basis to make factual statements about ethics. he actually mentions that he has a deep respect for ethics at the end of the lecture. to be clear, I am not making a statement about the the arguments presented during the round. I just think there is a misconception that being skeptical about the truth of moral claims necessitates valuelessness or the belief that it is okay to do whatever you want (e.g. the holocaust). why do we need a logical proof to say murder is wrong?
Posted from: 71.82.123.246
May 10th, 2008 20:31
@matt. This argument is not about all skeptical arguments. It depends on how it is run. The Prashant example was not saying that he would have linked necessarily, only that it proved that success influenced what arguments people decide to run.
Posted from: 208.99.78.158
May 10th, 2008 20:34
This is not aimed at Chris/AV in particular but all discourse arguments with debaters finding a way to lead their opponents into conceding some implicit endorsement of the Holocaust or find some tenuous link in x argument that might lead to something equally horrific. Debaters like to say things to the effect of, “Oh shit, our rhetoric will have real life implications and lead to mass atrocities. This disgusts me.” The moral crusade and disgust really doesn’t manifest itself outside the round (and outside the realm of debate.) Sure, we’re talking about it right now on a VB thread, but I’m pretty sure, correct me if I’m wrong, that this wasn’t some strategic action on Chris’s part. It just happened to be filmed and then people started to talk.
Now, deep down there is some desire to win. Honestly, debaters like to maintain some morally righteous façade and that everything they do will make the world a better place. But what’s done outside the round? Outside of debate to stop these morally repugnant actions from continuing? Nothing. Or attempting to make people more sensitive to the things they advocate and the implications they may have? Why don’t debaters do something more conducive in saving the world, like going into regions of plight and warfare?
Just because you reply with passion in what you do, some “God your arguments are fucking stupid since what sheesh, I’m stopping future Holocausts,” doesn’t mean you’re making a real life impact. You’re also just being a pretentious asshole that doesn’t attempt to engage people on why their beliefs might not be exactly okay. (OH POST 71! Belittling usage of the word “retarded!” The Holocaust persecuted physically/mentally disabled individuals. By using it pejoratively, you have demonstrated that you don’t have respect for those individuals and might lead to another Holocaust!). Not everyone is going to have the perfect opinion or view on life, but punishing someone who clearly isn’t explicitly endorsing the actions of Nazis is unnecessary. There will be people who think the Holocaust was just, in its complete meaning and all, not just “it’s a poor evaluative term that I must begrudgingly accept.” I know I’m going to be bombarded by an onslaught of vituperative remarks for saying that/some other things. How is it any better to silence someone’s pov, no matter how egregious we may find it? (A digressive point: Similar to the resolution up for discussion – Societies should be tolerant of intolerance.)
For the impacts to matter, people have to believe in what they’re doing and not because they fear losing ballots. EG: I have cards in full contexts not because I believe in some standard of integrity needs to be maintained through this means (frankly, I can just not ellipse at all and remove the unnecessary words). Instead, it’s an effortless, preemptive mechanism by which I can stop my opponent from questioning the integrity of my evidence, and then blowing that as the most important issue in the round or worst, the ellipses K. Debaters don’t feel a deeply rooted shame for their words post-round. They stop those words because ballots are on the line and instead must not reevaluate what they say based on the premise that someone is going to make political correctness an issue. They’re not reevaluating their words because “Wow, my words will really affect the world!”
And just as a totally arbitrary point, there have been more genocides than just the Holocaust and more than just Jews were murdered. The word has been thrown around so many times during this discussion. All sweet jesus, that was longer than I intended.
(I’m anonymous not because I fear political repercussion, rather it is done to protect my team.)
Posted from: 24.215.189.183
May 10th, 2008 20:35
why is everybody arguing about a round that is over. like, seriously, there is nothing you can do about it and it is really not worth giving shit to the person who won the TOC and is probably a better debater than those of you who are criticizing him. it is not like the world (or the debate community) would have improved any if andrew won. in fact, we should be commending chris for setting a precedent for judges not to vote on arguments that justify things which are inherently bad. after all, we are humans before we are debaters. i am sorry if this sounds somewhat condescending but seriously, come on.
Posted from: 98.197.201.79
May 10th, 2008 20:42
Round was super controversial… I would not want to be a judge lol
I think this discourse argument would have had a stronger link and a greater impact run against Becca in the finals (like Madeline said).
Also,let’s be honest. Cockroft isn’t a Nazi, and Theis did have some intention of winning the debate ballot.
Ultimately, I think it all boils down to the evil vs just. It is really unclear to me who is winning that argument.
Posted from: 12.216.111.70
May 10th, 2008 20:51
@ctheis. i should have clarified this but i didn’t mean to criticize the argument you made in the debate, it just happened to have been mentioned in the debate and served as a decent example for the argument i was trying to make (which again, is pointed towards a general misconception made about skeptical arguments, rather than the discussion in this particular round)
Posted from: 69.115.223.185
May 10th, 2008 20:58
anon are you serious? one of the purposes vbd puts these videos on the web is that people can discuss them for educational purposes. You expect us to watch the video and then say, WELL TOP NOTCH DEBATERS DO THIS. I SHOULD TOO. VBD is for DEBATERS. These videos are posted so we can watch and enjoy (of course) but also so that we can identify whichs trategies are legitimate and which are not (not taking any shots at chris’s strat just talking about videos in general)
Posted from: 136.152.136.128
May 10th, 2008 21:13
What is the distinction between “permissible”, “just”,”evil/good” etc? Cockrofts position would seem to apply to any moral term. Even the demarcation between good and evil or between permissible and impermissible would be indicted.
Also, arguing that the AC operated to delegitimize the term “just” rather than to legitimize the holocaust is ridiculous.
“The holocaust is permissible” sounds 100% AS REPUGNANT to me as “The holocaust is just” or “The holocaust isn’t evil”.
Posted from: 98.199.112.103
May 10th, 2008 21:25
I 100% agree with Jay. If Cockroft delinked them in a clearer sense throughout the debate, things would be different.
Posted from: 98.197.201.79
May 10th, 2008 21:28
I agree with posts 79 and 80
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
May 10th, 2008 21:29
Congrats to Chris and Andrew.
Posted from: 63.246.171.199
May 10th, 2008 21:46
In debate we MUST advocate positions that are against our moral intuitions/our usual moral judgments. Given that we have to advocate both sides of the resolution, it seems that if someone has a personal sense of moral rightness they will disagree with at least one of the sides. Advocating positions contrary to one’s true moral beliefs is part of the game of debate, and I don’t think someone should be punished for it any more than an actor should be punished for playing a serial killer or a pedophile.
Rather, I think these kinds of arguments are necessary for making us better people. As a critical thinking exercise, exploring and re-evaluating our morals is invaluable. Instead of simply rejecting arguments because they are contrary to what we believe initially, it is far more valuable to explore the flaws in these arguments. Without examining why the arguments are wrong, we have never categorically rejected them. After Chris’ NC, we have no reason to reject the substance of Cockroft’s AC. All we can do is weigh it against our moral intuitions. Actually attacking the logic of the AC would’ve made a far stronger statement of moral beliefs, since it would have shown not only that Chris held the beliefs that he did, but that he was prepared to (figuratively) fight for them as well. By actually engaging in substantive debate, we strengthen our own morality by showing why other moral systems are wrong from a perspective outside of our own beliefs. This makes our moral condemnation stronger, since analytical truth presumably has some universality.
It also strengthens our beliefs by forcing us to discover the reasons why we hold the beliefs that we do, rather than just continuing to believe because that’s what we’ve been doing.
Lastly, I want to thank both Chris and Cockroft not only for a good round, but for opening up a discourse about morality and the structure of debate that I think will make debate better, and make us better people as well.
Posted from: 24.90.20.221
May 10th, 2008 21:49
although i would have affirmed in this round, i don’t understand some things.
a) why are debating the flow and taking offense to Holocaust trivialization mutually exclusive?
and b) how did Andrew’s argument that he’s from a small school that’s not as privileged as Apple Valley answer the argument in the nc that he should lose for what the mindset he endorsed?
Posted from: 66.68.159.87
May 10th, 2008 22:14
everything devin said is right on.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 10th, 2008 22:23
OK, everyone just needs to read Tim Hogan’s post (39) twice before saying a word.
It’s really simple - Chris made a discourse argument saying “don’t vote for a position which says that the Holocaust was just”. There are many ways to beat this argument, and Cockroft simply didn’t. He could have ran better “no link” arguments than “we can call the Holocaust ‘evil’ instead of ‘unjust’” (it seems to me that most things we would label “evil” we would also label “unjust”, correct me if I’m wrong), and he could have made better arguments against the case than “TURN: I have to run a case that justifies the Holocaust because I lack travel experience outside of Texas”.
All it comes down to is this - Chris won the discourse argument, and that’s that. He clearly had a link, impact, and reason to vote for him. Once he wins that judges should only vote for arguments that correspond to their personal moral beliefs, all the judge needs to ask him OR HER self is, “do I think that the Holocaust was immoral?” I understand why someone like Tom may have not wanted to vote this way, but at the point where Chris is actually winning his arguments (whether or not he’s strictly playing the game), I think a neg ballot is very clearly warranted.
Posted from: 66.41.255.202
May 10th, 2008 22:24
“After Chris’ NC, we have no reason to reject the substance of Cockroft’s AC. All we can do is weigh it against our moral intuitions. Actually attacking the logic of the AC would’ve made a far stronger statement of moral beliefs, since it would have shown not only that Chris held the beliefs that he did, but that he was prepared to (figuratively) fight for them as well.”
substance of 1AC = cant label things just/unjust
substance of 1NC = saying you cant label the holocaust unjust is bad, reason to vote against you.
in what world would a 1NC be more substantive? also, if that isnt an attack on the “logic” of the 1AC what would be? 7 minutes of deterrence good? 7 minutes of “justice doesnt exist but ha! that means you vote negative”?
hogan is god and i wouldnt really question him on his holocaust knowledge.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 10th, 2008 22:34
Devin Race said some substantive shit so I’ll take time to respond.
1) I agree we have to contradict our moral beliefs in debate all the time. The problem is 1) this was not an argument that Cockroft made, so it can’t be a reason to reject Chris, and 2) there are certain moral beliefs that we have which we NEVER have to retreat from. I do remember being forced to argue that the death penalty is just but I never recall being forced to argue that the Holocaust was permissible. In other words, your objection doesn’t apply in this scenario since debate never acts us to contradict beliefs such as “the Holocaust was unjust”.
2) About how Cockroft’s arguments and discourse make us more thoughtful people - that’s just not true. I do not believe in rejecting personal beliefs on face, but I also don’t think that accepting disingenuous views such as “the Holocaust was permissible” in any way makes us broader or more in-touch with various moral perspectives. Should we all start attending lectures from Klan members to better understand unique moral views? Give me a break. Listening to arguments that justify atrocity in no way makes us better people.
Posted from: 63.246.171.199
May 10th, 2008 22:54
Ken–
Let me first preface this by saying that my post was not a challenge of the decision in the round. Rather, it was my personal evaluation of the issues raised by the round. Although I disagreed with the decision, Chris was asking the judges to make a personal choice as to what practices they thought were legitimate in debate, and I was just saying what my thoughts would’ve been.
I think your argument in 1) is valid. There is definitely a difference in severity between advocating the death penalty and advocating the Holocaust. However, something I should’ve said when I posted was that Cockroft’s position never was advocating the Holocaust directly–it took several minutes of angry CX to reach that conclusion, and to put Cock in the precarious position that Paul talked about. I think that if we are going to apply the moral beliefs that we never have to retreat from, we should only be doing so if the case directly challenges them, not if our beliefs are challenged by a logical extension of the argumentation in the case. Otherwise it’s not a true affront to our beliefs–I doubt that anyone who was watching this round even thought about the Holocaust after hearing the AC until Chris started questioning him about it.
In 2) I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’m not saying that we should accept arguments that the Holocaust is permissible, or that we should just ‘listen’ to them. Rather, I’m saying that we should defend our moral beliefs, and should not let people get away with running arguments that contradict them if we truly believe strongly. My argument is that the best way to defend our intuitions is by engaging in substantive debate against arguments that are contrary to our beliefs. Rather than just saying ‘look, we all know the Holocaust is bad’ when we are confronted with an argument that seems to deny that, I think that it is far more valuable to actually engage the argument, to prove why it is wrong, and in doing so better justify our own beliefs. This not only forces us to give our beliefs a solid grounding, but it is the only way to persuade others as well. To use your example of the Klan, if we really think that what the Klan supports is wrong, then the best thing to do would indeed be to understand their arguments and positions. The only way we can challenge them or persuade them to believe otherwise is by understanding why they believe what they do, and attacking them on the justifications for their beliefs. To them, the argument that something is intuitively morally wrong will not work, since they clearly have skewed moral intuitions. So, defending our moral beliefs requires that we entertain beliefs contrary to our own for the purpose of substantively arguing against them.
Posted from: 74.36.136.254
May 10th, 2008 22:59
I re-watched Chris’ cross-x of Andrew, and there seems to be an EXTREMELY clear concession that I didn’t catch my first time around.
7:19
Andrew: “If the rules themselves do not exist…everything would be