2492 Regis LDers

Or close to that. For some reason this event is always jam-packed. This year it's more jam-packeder than ever. I've seen the list of debaters; I'll do the data entry tomorrow afternoon (I have a half day off to go "shopping," which for me is a stop at the local handmade chocolate shop, 11 minutes at Target wondering why I bothered, then a dash home for a nap--shopping at its finest!).

As usual I have put out a call for another student judge this weekend. As usual, no response. I guess everyone is recovering from all the work they did at Bump. Jeesh! What a bunch of schlubs!

Thinking about the Jan-Feb topic (and putting aside the nonsensical idea that came up at our meeting that somehow the neg, who has to affirm that ED for Private E is just, will run a K, meaning essentially that they'll be defending justice by claiming that the aff is not just on face, which is, duh, the affirmative position, which is why it is unimaginable except from debaters so lacking in true debate skills that they've given up trying), I was thinking a little about something that I don't like (the consequentiality approach) but which is nonetheless interesting. In a nutshell, the position that the neg defends is that some grandiose and complicated scheme of city planning (in this case, requiring acquisition of private land for development by other private interests) will lead to urban improvements. This calls to mind all sorts of efforts in the past to "improve" cities, resulting in the horror of Moses's urban renewal projects, the concepts of Jane Jacobs and the maintenance of varied life at street level, gentrification/enfranchisement leading to a Gap on every corner of Manhattan, the pure visionary concept of the original EPCOT which is totally contrary to the enlightened visions of today--all sorts of things of that nature, some of which are in Variations on a Theme Park, some of which are in the Moses book, some of which I've just picked up from the gutter. Hell, even Baudrillard could conceivably apply, if you think about it, on the level of the creation of the postmodern landscape as devoid of content. The point is, so many visions of urban improvement have proven false; perhaps they've improved urban economics but they've destroyed urban soul and culture. The life and deaths of cities may be best left to the market/social forces on the ground, allowing for improvements of those market and social forces but not for playing the god game of selecting new forces to replace the old ones. That is, it's okay to clean up Thompson Square Park to make it an open park again, but not okay to turn it into a WalMart.

These are interesting thoughts that this topic can lead to. Not necessarily interesting debates, again because arguing that it doesn't work or won't work or didn't work is simply a weak strategy on any topic, but just interesting meditations. Which is why we do this activity in the first place, right? Not to win debates but to expand brains?

And to judge this weekend, because if you have time to read this, you have time to judge a few rounds, you spalpeen!