exclusion

[Ede Warner]

and i guess i don't understand why for twenty years, the debate community
has excluded "race", but i'm oppressive if i ask the community to debate
only race for one year...i'm sorry, but i'm uncomfortable with all of
this.  Deep down, I have to believe there are OTHER ways to show
solidarity short of broadening this debate resolution...I would rather
limit this topic to debates about persons with disabilities or alternative
sexual orientations rather than INCLUDE all groups...so in the end, i
choose to not advocate for anything since any attempts at discussing
limits is read as exclusion...i hope folks are as judgmental about their
own personal lives as they are about others...

Personally, i believe that i should be able to "advocate" for debating
race, and still show solidarity for other oppressed groups...See Mari
Matsuda, Looking to the Bottom Harv CR-CL LR, 1988...Dualism is an
experience generated from the bottom.  or maybe not...


 On Tue, 23 Jun 1998, Michael Miroslav Korcok wrote:

> i guess i don't understand the difference between:
>
> a debate community that thinks it would be difficult and inconvenient
> and impractical to include discussion of persons with disabilities or
> immigrants or persons with alternative sexual orientations
>
> and
>
> a corporate or educational community that thinks it would be difficult
> or inconvenient or impractical to hire or teach persons with
> disabilities or immigrants or homosexuals
>
> i know, i know,
> we could do it another year,
> after we fix/discuss the race and gender issues,
> the lawyers aren't talking about THEM, and
> it would be IMPRACTICAL, DAMMIT!
> yes, i know.
>
> michael korcok
>

Ede Warner Jr., Director of Debate
Strickler 308E, Department of Communication
University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292
1-502-852-7126 (office); 1-502-634-0306 (home), fax: 1-502-852-8166
UofL Debate Web Page: http://www.louisville.edu/a-s/comm/students/debate

>From  Tue Jun 23 20:43:13 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.23.JUN.1998.204313.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 61718 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 21:51:30
 -0400
Received: from altair.selu.edu (altair.selu.edu [147.174.1.5]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id VAA74518 for
 <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 21:51:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from selu.edu by selu.edu (PMDF V5.1-9 #24747) id
 <01IYL7X8B0CG9NDGOM at selu.edu> for edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 23 Jun
 1998 20:50:20 CDT
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01IYL8016YT69NDGOM at selu.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 20:43:13 -0500
Reply-To: selliott at SELU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: selliott at SELU.EDU
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
Subject: Re: exclusion
In-Reply-To: "Your message dated Tue, 23 Jun 1998 20:23:51 -0400"
 <199806240114.VAA15353 at lab.housing.fsu.edu>

Are agent of action counter-plans and clinton winning arguments?
I don't recall voting for them too often.
Among equally matched opponents, I haven't seen them as winnable positions.
You can run them if you want. But, sittin' in the back of the room with the ballot in my hand, I usually raise an eyebrow when I hear the link story. Why someone doesn't just say "There is no F------n internal link Scott, its just bullshit
cards strung together," I don't know. But Clinton doesn't really pass the smell
test too often.
        Now I'm sure that YOUR Clinton disad is different. I'm sure that YOUR
Sacramento Bee evidence comes close to the internal link you claim. But, I doubtthat outside of a debate round, you could get any rational policymaker to buy it. Given we boast so much about how debate teaches good policymaking, I wonder
which of the judges out there are buying such bad arguments.
Scott Elliott