the birth of melodrama in southern utah

Tue Feb 15 00:12:44 CST 2000

> Standard Time,
> dbteam at westga.edu writes:
> Bear,
> once again laughing at the claim that NDT produces a
> better "product."

These days I read this list for entertainment and to
keep up on how my old friends are doing.  I'm up late
studying and this is just one night I've got something
to say.  Bear, I don't want anything to do with your
disagreement with Hester, but for someone who is
fighting for CEDA rights and recognition and equality
and participation and inclusion, you seem all too
ready to condemn everyone in the NDT.  Both circuits
are made up of individuals yet you insist on judging
the whole based on your perception of some of the
parts.  You hate being categorized as some
"consipracy-theory" guy because that affixes a label
you see as derogatory and that particular label
provides a convenient way to dismiss your arguments.
Some of your arguments are compelling but your
methodology is somewhat insulting.  I was an NDT
debater that travelled both circuits and met a host of
wonderful people in both CEDA and NDT (if there really
is such a separation) and I also met some assholes.
I'll also readily admit there's a bunch of people that
think I'm an asshole but based on that they didn't
derive the abomination of logic that since I'm an
asshole, all Emory people are assholes.  You put
myself and everyone else in the NDT in the same
category.  Products of an evil machine that produces
malevolent souls with nothing better to do than give
you a hard time.  Wake up!  I never had a problem with
you when I debated but I will have a real problem if
every time you spoke to me the undercurrent of your
thinking was EVIL.  NDT = EVIL.  This means VIC =
EVIL.  Don't stereotype.  There's no relation betwen
the type of debate you participate in and the kind of
person you are.  Please realize this and in the future
when you condemn the whole of the NDT, at least try to
exclude someone from that condemnation.  Surely you've
met someone from the NDT that you don't think is evil.
 Just as Hester is not the whole of the NDT, the way
you feel about him personally should not infect your
opinion of the NDT as a whole or a couple of debaters
from WGA that are really nice people and have
absolutely nothing to do with your argument.  Maybe
when you say all of the NDT is evil, you only mean
that the person of the week that you're mad at is evil
but you still condemn everyone else in the activity
and we all have to read it.  Back to Property!

Victor Tabak
GWU Law School

"I must not fear.  Fear is the mind-killer.  Fear is
the little death that brings total obliteration.  I
will face my fear.  I will permit it to pass over me
and through me.  And when it has gone past I will turn
the inner eye to see its path.  Where the fear has
gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

>From  Tue Feb 15 01:53:57 2000
Message-Id: <TUE.15.FEB.2000.015357.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 49718 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:52:52
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from f05n15.cac.psu.edu (f05s15.cac.psu.edu [128.118.141.58]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA25196 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:52:45 -0500
Received: from C720607A (c720607-a.scllg1.pa.home.com [24.8.222.118]) by
 f05n15.cac.psu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA38858; Tue, 15 Feb
 2000 01:52:34 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Message-ID: <LPBBLBMKPFPCBBICGOKCGEEDCFAA.pjg154 at psu.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:53:57 -0500
Reply-To: PatG at psu.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: "Pat J. Gehrke" <pjg154 at PSU.EDU>
Subject: CFP: Budapest Panel on Re-Visioning Debate
Comments: To: Debate-L <debate-l at mailhost.soros.org>

I am organizing a panel proposal for the Budapest conference.  Right now,
there are 3 papers in the panel.  I am looking for one more paper and a
respondent.

The current papers are:
1.  "The Politics of Polemics and the Possibility of Dialogue: Debating
Beyond the Zero-Sum." (Exploring a reconsideration of debate through
Jean-Luc
Nancy's philosophy of politics and community)
2.  "Toward a Post-Structural Perspective on Argumentation: Re-Visioning the
Practice and Pedagogy of Debate." (Heavily influenced by Jacques Derrida and
Michel Foucault)
3.  "Debate Training and Transitions to Democracy." (Building on the
research
that examines potential effects of democratic transitions, and particularly
on
the work of Mansfield and Snyder.)

All three papers seek to substantially re-evaluate the fundamental models or
philosophies upon which debate is practiced or argumentation theory is
taught.  From such a revisioning of debate, the papers move to propose
alternative modes of thinking about, practicing, and/or teaching debate.
The authors' perspectives are linked to concepts of ethics, politics, and/or
resistance in important ways.

To add one more paper to this panel would be nice.  I would like to find
others
that are either interested in challenging the dominant modes or philosophies
of
debate practice, pedagogy, theory, etc. OR that are interested in presenting
a sustained theoretical defense of those modes/philosophies.  Papers that
address issues of politics, ethics, democratism, or similar themes would be
especially welcome.  We only need titles and abstracts in order to submit
the proposal.  The only thing I really want to see happen with this panel is
that the papers maintain a broad vision rather than focusing upon specific
argument forms (topicality, kritiks, etc.) and that the papers have
something to say about the relationship between debate/argumentation and our
ethical and/or political relationships/experiences.

Please email me soon if you would like to be either the fourth member or the
respondent.  All participants will, of course, need to attend the IDEA
conference
in Budapest.  Panelists are expected to present completed papers.

Looking forward to your reply,

Pat

Pat J. Gehrke, Director
Speech and Debate Team
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802