Lectures

How to Cheat on The Aff: A Defense of Non-Plan Affirmatives Against Framework Arguments

Video Duration:

$10.00

This lecture has not been rated.

Comments

Previous Comments

On cheating.

posted by jsharp on 05/14/2010 at 12:46 AM

You know, maybe i am just nostalgic for a time in the way-back machine when debaters were taught that ethics mattered, but this whole notion that there are sorts of \"cheating\" that are ok is more than a bit disturbing.  If we are ok teaching debaters that cheating (when \"cheating\" describes certain strategic or argumentative choices, such as not reading a plan on the AFF) is something desirable, then it makes it that much harder to take a principled stand and say that there are kinds of cheating (like clipping cards, bribing judges or evidence fabrication) that are not ok.  I realize that this is not limited to any one side of the ideological spectrum (sometimes it is not reading a plan that is celebrated as cheating, other times it is reading three counterplans in the 1NC), but the fact that anybody would embrace the idea that they were a cheater flies in the face of virtually any conceivable justification for our activity.  I mean, how could we explain this to our administrations (much less the parents and teachers of the debaters we are training to believe that ethics are optional).  If we train each other to seek out opportunities to cheat, we have no foundation whatsoever to punish each other for discovering new (or re-discovering old) methods of breaking the rules.  I know it is currently fashionable to pretend that nothing matters but the win.  Just don\'t pretend to be shocked when our students, peers and administrators take our statements at face value.


Just to be clear.  This is not an attack on the present lecturer, for whom i have nothing but the utmost respect and affection.  I believe his ethics to be above reproach.  Nor am i a regular reader of the internets (debate-related or otherwise).  This page simply turned up in an unrelated search and it saddens me to think that this is how we represent our activity and the moral fiber of our community to civilians who may or may not realize that we are just trying to be funny (and, in the process, ceding the moral high ground to the many (many) individuals who see our activity as a waste of time and resources better employed in, well, actually educating ourselves and our fellow travellers).  Worse still, the impact of this sort of casual slander (self-employed or otherwise) cannot be divorced from the aspirations of many in our community to contribute to the socio-political systems we debate about.  Would Lawrence Tribe or Erwin Chemerinsky or Bill Smelko, Ryan Goodman or Derek Jinks or Lindsay Harrison or Tom Goldstein be the respected legal scholars they are today; would Neal Katayal or Colin Kahl have been able to reach the levels of government service they presently hold; would Glenn Greenwald or Hannah Rosin or Scott Segal have the credibiity to shape the national political debate they now demonstrate; would Evan Madeiros or Jay Finch or Jason Patil have been able to obtain security clearance if debaters were understood to celebrate cheating?


Why can\'t we just call strategy strategy and reserve \"cheating\" for what it is.  Cheating.  We should all be able to identify the line between controversial strategic or argumentative choices and practices that are definitively unethical, but what is to be gained by erasing this vital distinction?  If we must employ a vacuous debate concept to parse this question, let me suggest (for the first and only time) \"offense-defense.\"  The risks in encouraging our community (and our compatriots in the so-called Real World) to embrace this understanding of \"cheating\" has clear and present risks.  Other than a slavish devotion to the fashionable terminology of the moment, what is to be gained by wrapping ourselves in the mantle of a concept almost exclusively understood to be a synonym for \"unethical\"?


End Transmission.

Reply to this | Reply with quote

Leave a Comment