[eDebate] re: ADA rules etc
Fri May 7 23:59:22 CDT 2004
>Let's suppose I am the coach of a team that is an ADA member. Why would I
>vote to allow a policy that is primarily supported by someone who hates
>everything the ADA stands for, insults our members, cheers for our
>failures, and is seemingly unable to have a constructive conversation?
Umm, because the policy in question is alleged to be unwarranted,
independent of the tone or manner of the person who objects to it? I mean,
essentially what you're saying is: I won't consider the merits of your
argument because you are rude. Am I missing something here? My
argumentation textbook calls that fallacious.
>This is the D7 love in me talking, but I really do not appreciate your
>insulting my friends. I have to echo Jake's sentiments that I find the
>idea of calling on the ADA to "Debate as you will and let us do so as
>well." I think that's what we are trying to do. We realize that the
>planless form of debate that so many of us despise exists at national
>tournaments, but we just want to be left alone to debate as we want. If
>you want to create the "planless debate association" and exclude me, by all
>means do so. I won't rant on edebate about it. I certainly won't cheer for
>your failure, call you names, or try to get you to change the rules that
>define the nature of your organization.
Are you saying that _disallowing hybrids_ defines the nature of the ADA? Or
that _requiring plans_ defines the nature of the ADA? Or both? Just
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar ? get it now!
More information about the Mailman