[eDebate] Bad Arguments

[matt stannard]

Parcher, this disingenuous bullshit from you would have made a lot more 
sense when we were actually discussing and voting on the topic.  It makes 
zero sense now.

stannard


>From: "Jeff Parcher" <parcherj at mindspring.com>
>To: "Harris, Scott L" <sharris at ku.edu>, <edebate at policy-debate.com>,        
>"Ross Smith" <smithr at wfu.edu>
>Subject: [eDebate] Bad Arguments
>Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 19:01:58 -0400
>
>Those who have defended staying with the Indian Country topic by reference 
>to the politics of our attention are placing their arguments on the weakest 
>possible grounds.
>
>Discussing the problems of Indian Country is perhaps the greatest injustice 
>we as a community can commit toward indigenous peoples.
>
>Discussing Indian Country as if it were our problem to solve, our fight to 
>make, our cause to win is a gruesome attack indigenous sovereignty.  
>Highlighting it as an important issue to us, one deserving OUR attention 
>within OUR own lives is the ultimate co-opting and assimilative act.  
>Integrating people into the bounds of academic discourse as just another 
>problem to be discussed by debaters along with our usual topics is to 
>normalize the problems of Indian Country within the very framework that has 
>given rise to misery throughout such lands.
>
>Listening to people call out for attention to these issues because such 
>attention will somehow be beneficial for indigenous peoples is laughable.  
>Has anyone looked at the numbers of laws and program in "Indian Country"?  
>Seems like more attention is exactly what is not needed.
>
>Frankly, I can't believe all the radicals out there haven't stood up and 
>DEMANDED that we switch resolutions and leave indigenous people alone!!!  I 
>guess they like playing the rhetorical game of shaping people lives, after 
>all.
>
>Ryan, do you really think anyone in Indian Country is going to sleep easier 
>knowing that academic debate is on the case?
>
>Spare me all the righteous indignation about colonialism and pay attention 
>to all the double turns on the flow.
>
>JP
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Ross Smith
>   To: Harris, Scott L ; edebate at policy-debate.com
>   Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 5:53 PM
>   Subject: RE: [eDebate] Terror topic and I.C. Today
>
>
>   At 02:38 PM 10/10/2001 -0500, Harris, Scott L wrote:
>
>     Ross,
>
>     I'm unclear if that article is a reason to focus on terrorism or an 
>argument for refusing to allow the focus on terrorism to divert us from 
>focusing on other "less important" issues.
>
>   Just thought it an interesting article. Maybe it says both. Yea, call me 
>a destabilizing interpretive post-modernist!
>
>
>
>
>   Ross Smith
>   WFU Debate Coach
>   336-758-5268 (o)
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at policy-debate.com
http://policy-debate.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate