[eDebate] re: ADA rules etc

[matt stannard]

>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 
curious.

stannard

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar ? get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/