[eDebate] Policy RR

[E Choi]

>howdy,
>
>sarah--i'm sorry if you thought my post was directed at you personally.  my
>comment was directed to the line of argument that it's not convenient/fun 
>to
>change.  sarah was not the only person to use that sort of language today.
>

That may be true, but regardless of whom you were attacking, the fact that 
you draw these analogies makes your attacks *personal* by their very nature. 
  You did not name Sarah, but you did basically call out all people who 
prefer policy debate as Nazis.  I would like to personally say that I am not 
a Nazi, nor does my pining for PICs and Nuclear Wars over Foucault *justify* 
concentration camps.

>the fact is (and this is important), genocide and the conditions that make
>it possible to kill and destroy a group of people do not occur overnight.
>those conditions require a system put in place that would allow something
>like genocide to take place.
>

Ok, this is still not good enough.  Equating "policy debate good" with the 
political conditions that allow for the extermination of an entire identity 
group requires a leap of logic that you have yet to convince me you can 
bridge.  You can hide behind your "framework justifies" argument, but that a 
coherent argument does not make.

Explain to me why your twisted logic can't equally be applicable to the K?  
Your arguments to prefer Ks marginalize those who do not agree, which is 
inherently authoritarian and Stalinistic towards Sarah and her crew.

>the reason it's effective to parallel those types of things to, say, 
>slavery
>or the nazi Holocaust is because people don't realize the implications of
>what they say.

No, I would argue that *you* don't realize the implications of what you say. 
  Again, if you're confident you can go and explain to an Auschwitz survivor 
that this debate about "which to prefer" is analogous to the horrors and 
atrocities of the middle of the last century, then I suppose more power to 
you.  This is trivialization, in its most pure form.  Stick to defending 
warrants.

>few people imagine that discarding fiat for the purposes of
>rejecting racist or sexist or gendered language can reinforce a system that
>really allows things like slavery or the Holocaust to happen.

I'll explain to you something that upsets me:  The prospect of my talking to 
Indian women activists, explaining to them that people have voted against 
our aff that heeds the call of these women to increase enforcement against 
rape because a dude named Alfred wrote some cards that wish away centuries 
of plenary power and colonial oppression as a K alternative to colonialism.  
That is discarding fiat for the purposes of rejecting racism, but it 
*justifies* the rape of Indian women to continue as a bunch of tribal 
leaders sit around brainstorming how to *wish away* centuries of colonial 
oppression, which may eventually free these women.   If we're going to play 
this card of reinforcing systems, then I think that you're always going to 
have to sacrifice one struggle for another (thus, one team wins a debate, 
one loses), and I don't think that makes *anyone* a Nazi.

>yes, free speech is good.  that's exactly why i responded like i did.  i
>don't understand the difference you're making between *real* and *not 
>real*.
>my argument (which hasn't even been made, really) was not specific to
>sarah's plea for "one tournament a year..." but was specific to the idea
>that it's "not fun" to debate about whether fiat should outweigh concerns
>like sexist or racist language.

No, this is not the argument.  The argument is that you equated people who 
prefer to debate consequences of policy to Nazis.  You can say that they 
exclude discussion about other important issues, such as real world sexism 
and racism, but for you to say that she is a NAZI for this is ridiculous.  
Policy debate can destroy the patriarchy, save minorities from system 
oppression, etc.  Make your arguments, man.  I will stick to my original 
criticism: that your "Nazi" analogy is wrong, and it trivializes real 
holocausts and oppression.

>i never said policy = whitey.  obviously there are non-whitey policy 
>people.

YES YOU DID.  Who else would murder the blacks, pagans, jews, etc.  You said 
we justify that framework, which means we must be the oppressors themselves 
(the conclusion of your argument).

>that was simply another parallel--like the nazi, slavery thing above.  it's
>parallel because a conservative argument against change has, for awhile and
>across many situations, been one of convenience, and also because policy
>debate carries a position of privelege--just like whitey.

No, it's not necessarily about convenience.  I think you are essentializing 
many of the nuanced defenses of frameworks that individuals have put forth 
and instead have resorted to ad hominem attacks.  I have not the time nor 
the energy to reiterate all of them here.  I don't agree with all of them, 
but I think a lot of them are good and stay away from simply attacking 
opponents with ludicrous analogies.

>
>secondly, i think there is an argument to be made that less "policy"
>oriented debate *can* mean liberation for subaltern groups.  there are a 
>few
>subpoints:
>a.  style--jargon-ridden debates can be complicated and exclude public
>participation

Turn:  try explaining K arguments to people who have not read Foucault, 
Habermas, Heidegger, etc.  There is jargon (ontology, epistemology, 
genealogy, subjectivity, etc.) that exists in K debates that equally exclude 
your average joe on the street, or even a subaltern who is wondering why you 
voted against feeding them because it entrenches a "development good" 
mindset.  At least with policy debate, you can explain something like a 
spending disad to most, but Ks demand much more academic prowess and 
background.

>b.  technocratic skill--moving around policy structures can be daunting and
>discourage participation

I have no idea what this argument means.  what is "moving around policy 
structures"?

>c.  role confusion--it's difficult for some to imagine inculcation into a
>policy project when they know the deck is stacked against them.

What?  How is debating the consequences of policy action mean that the deck 
is stacked against them?  who are these "they" that you speak of?  The 
subalterns?  You think that liberation through academic discourse of a bunch 
of intellects is *better* for them than lobbying Congress for policies?  
Postmodernism doesn't feed a starving child, see above.

>d.  speaking for others--i learned a lot when we debated louisville this
>year.  they have a lot to say about listening and how policy debate 
>silences
>the voices of the oppressed.

Ok, this is amusing.  The debate about speaking for others / 
representations.  I have yet to see an effective alternative to the way that 
most 1ACs explain Indian Country.  One thing that I really think is a shame 
about this topic is that I feel like I've learned next to nothing about 
individual tribes and their positions in the policy world.  I can explain to 
you a lot about the history of their appropriation, but only from a very 
superficial level.  We try our best NOT to talk about Indians (find affs 
that regulate anything but Indians, avoid linking to Ks).  Again, I can talk 
to the head of the Shawnee about Alfred I think, with some degree of 
sophistication, but s/he would probably be offended to know how limited my 
knowledge is about their current political struggles within the realm of 
policy after a year of research...

>you're absolutely right.  people across the debate community can experience
>oppression.  whether it's because there exist gendered, sexist, and racist
>biases in the judge pool and competition, or because you school happens not
>to have good coaching, or lots of coaching, or lots of money, or because 
>you
>didn't have access to tournaments.  why is that a reason policy debate 
>makes
>it easier for "subaltern" groups to participate.  this argument doesn't 
>seem
>like offense for you.
>

No, but it's damning defense, and presumption goes my way.  My arguments are 
true.  I could equally argue that it is equally unfair to come from a place 
where I have an archaic dinosaur of a coach who believes in the free market 
and has read less postmodern literature than Shanahan in a world where Ks 
are becoming more prominent :P.  You seem to just assume that your 
interpretation of debate is the voice of the jews, pagans, blacks, etc. 
(since we are the Nazis) and so I'm explaining to you why you have no a 
priori claim to the subaltern voice.

>i'm not sure how this relates.  i never said you shouldn't have a plan, or
>that it shouldn't be topical.  i never said anything about pomo.  this 
>seems
>like a separate discussion.

Ok, what *do* you defend then?  what Ks do you know of that don't have 
something to do with those examples above?  What are you fighting for?

>
>jason
>


ey "Viva la Disad" c

*caveat*:  i run Ks, i think they add a lot to the activity, and i like a 
lot of them; i'm just arguing against the notion that ks are a-priori less 
"Nazi"esque than policy debate.


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