[eDebate] Bad Arguments
Wed Oct 10 21:44:17 CDT 2001
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.
>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
>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
>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.
> ----- 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:
> 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
More information about the Mailman