thoughts about the "wrong forum" arguement
Wed Feb 21 21:33:16 CST 2001
>From: Mbx00 at aol.com
After reading most of the posts yall have been making, I began to think
about the arguement that policy debate is the wrong forum for kritiking. I
think this is an issue that's discussed often but certain parts of it tend
to be skimmed over. I have new question: what are the implications for the
team hitting the K? More specifically, is policy debate truly the best
forum? Are there any other venues that might serve better?
Oh, I'm sorry. This is a "new question?" [Aaron starts laughing, coughs,
falls over, and hits his head on the floor, all the while laughing
Do people really rethink?
I don't know. Let me think about that for a second. [Pause]
is it fair for a team that comes into a round prepared to debate the
resolution, to find themselves having to defend normative legal thought, or
1ac discourse that may marginalize women for example?
Is it fair to the women being marginalized? Don't you think that normative
legal thought is part of the resolution?
After being in debate for 4 years as a debater and a judge, I have begun to
feel that policy debate truly is the wrong forum. If certain persons are so
concerned about social problems such as racism and sexism, why do they have
to use the debate as their forum? why can they not preech on the street, or
in a forum specifically set up to address the problems they aim to solve.
Yes, you are right. I will hereby cease all thought and discourse regarding
racism and sexism within the academy and buy a soapbox. I will set up my
soapbox on the corner of Walnut and Main (in front of my apartment) and
'preech' to anyone that walks by. Care to name this mysterious 'forum'
that's set up for the misguided liberals like me who think that racism and
sexism are important issues?
I do not think it's fair for a team to have to defend the "hidden discourse"
of their 1ac authors; I feel that many teams just want to debate policy
issues. Is it really fair for a team to travel across the country, and after
spending hours researching a case, to then have to debate the philosophy,
and theoretical issues of the 1ac? i think not; I dont believe its fair for
those indivuals who just want to debate because its fun.
Kritiking is fun, because if we are really lucky, we get to hit poor suckers
like you. "NOT FAIR! WHO'S THE FUCKING NIHILIST HERE?" (Walter Sobchak, _The
DEBATE IS A GAME - GET OVER IT! we all know nothing is really going to
happen when you vote neg on a K, except that one team with have one more win
than the other.
You know the best part about games is that when you're good at them, people
get mad, and they complain about how unfair you are because they lost.
In all my years of debate, i have NEVER met anyone who has been impacted
because they lost on a K.
Hi, my name is Aaron and I'm [gulp, pause] IMPACTED BY KRITIKS! [sob]
the only thing that happens is we got out and research answers so we can
beat them next time.
Well, go and do it, big guy!
for the persons who run kritiks with so much passion, why is winning the
round important? why cant you just speak your beliefs, and give the other
team the win? this way both sides could be happy. the policy team can get
their win, and the K team can educate about what ever they feel needs to be
Hey wait a second. I thought debate was a game. GET OVER IT!
I honestly feel its unfair for a team to do work on a resolutionally based
case, to have to defend the hidden assumptions of their discourse. it is
just not fair for a team to work hard, and travel far. to lose because they
didnt cut answers to some wacky K that they couldnt predict.
Personally, I think it's unfair that some teams take this 'resolution' and
pick some little part of it (the most annoying of these folks call it "the
plan") and then expect to win. "NOT FAIR? WHO'S THE FUCKING NIHILIST HERE?"
if people want to solve the ills of society why not public debates forums
before, during or after the tournaments? this way intrested parties can take
part and listen,while others who dont choose to take part, can go about
their business and debate policy arguements?
Yes, and we can all go about "the business of business" and crank out
capitalist clones and well-dressed, racist, sexist lawyers who can _really_
solve the ills of society.
recently, i saw a final round of a big NPDA tourney in which audience
members gave floor speeches during the round. why not incorporate that into
the demo debates or forums, so everyone can have a voice that wants one.
I WANT A VOICE! Can I have one please, sir?
"Some chinaman took them from me in Ko-rea, but I went out and acheived
ANYWAY! No, I cannot solve your problem, only you can Mr. Lebowski. I
suggest you do what your parents did - get a JOB sir. The bums lost, Mr.
Lebowski, do you hear me!"
The bums WILL ALWAYS lose.
Aaron Richard (Dick) Klemz
with help from Megan Aubrey Volpert and Alex Barton Briesacher
Illinois State University
"You, you, human paraquat!" "Strong men also cry - STRONG MEN also cry."
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
More information about the Mailman