[eDebate] Debate Like A "Gyrl!"

[debate at ou.edu]

I think this response proves something..................

" Actually, screw that"

> You posted a polemic with MASSIVE implications about how debate 
> should look
> and then wash your hands of it as if you never intended to say 
> those things.
> And if you think my arguments are so bad - answer them - otherwise 
> dont Ad
> Hom....I was respectful and attempted to be very measured. You 
> didnt post
> this to your internal list you posted it to EDEBATE
> Josh
> 
> On 10/18/05, Josh Hoe <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ummmm, the first half was you, the second half was them....they 
> asked> questions that I thought were meaningful...in the spirit of 
> that I responded
> > honestly.....Josh
> >
> > On 10/18/05, debate at ou.edu <debate at ou.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > Pleeeaazze =-
> > >
> > > Josh my novice wrote this. So you could give a 1nc vs my 
> novices aff.! I
> > > dont even think you did a good job.
> > >
> > > I think they could take you. I hope you feel good about 
> yourself now.
> > >
> > > Peace,
> > >
> > > Massey
> > >
> > > PS - Leave us alone -- go play wargames with your friends.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Josh Hoe < jbhdb8 at gmail.com>
> > > Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:47 pm
> > > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Debate Like A "Gyrl!"
> > >
> > > > Hey OU Debate,
> > > > Perhaps, the problem is that you seem to think some truths are
> > > > self-evident. For instance,
> > > >
> > > > 1. We were only telling a "sob story", only trying to sully the
> > > > judge's> rational thinking with our silly emotional notions 
> of pain
> > > > and suffering.
> > > >
> > > > Some people do believe that emotional appeals are a poor 
> yardstick> > > on which
> > > > to guage appropriate responses. Part of any successful political
> > > > projectbased around the use of real emonal appeals should be to
> > > > COVINCE and
> > > > PERSUADE those that disagree that your specific narrative 
> accounts are
> > > > objective and reflexive enough for people to base action upon.
> > > >
> > > > > 2. Nuclear war always outweighs forced abortions?the 
> devastation is
> > > > > greater. Tell that to a woman in China.
> > > >
> > > > To many people the question of what we ought do is resolved 
> in a
> > > > differentframe then the one you suggest. I would dare say 
> that by
> > > > far the VAST
> > > > MAJORITY of people on the planet do not believe policy should be
> > > > determinedthrough the eyes of the victims of status quo 
> policies.> > > Most people on the
> > > > planet are consequentialists and believe in ensuring the 
> greatest> > > good for
> > > > the greatest number. In order to have an effective political
> > > > project based
> > > > around this premise you must be able to CONVINCE and PERSUADE 
> the> > > judgesthat deontology or standpoint epistimology are a 
> better way
> > > > to determine
> > > > policy. The cool thing about debate, as currently practiced, 
> is you
> > > > get to
> > > > try to convince people that they ought change their ethical 
> systems.> > >
> > > > > 3. That we could never talk about women's rights in this forum
> > > > because we
> > > > > aren't willing to work in a fiat world and assign an arbitrary
> > > > tariff as the
> > > > > price for a woman's reproductive rights
> > > >
> > > > Most people outside of debate believe that where the rubber 
> meets> > > the road
> > > > is the effectiveness your idea has on local, state, and federal
> > > > governments.In order for your political project to be persuasive
> > > > you must CONVINCE and
> > > > Persuade people that we ought to look at the effectiveness of
> > > > activism at a
> > > > more personal level. You say personal locus/frame good they 
> say Big G
> > > > government locus/frame good.....Its debated out.....Part of your
> > > > projectshould be persuasion.
> > > >
> > > > > 4. We were told not to debate feminism with a women's studies
> > > > major?as if
> > > > > his scholarship invalidated our voices.
> > > >
> > > > That one is sad, although it is also possible his scholarship
> > > > could inform
> > > > your voices. It is certainly possible this was just a bad 
> judge or
> > > > a judge
> > > > not attuned to how personal the arguments were for you (see 
> #1 above).
> > > >
> > > > 5. We were told 3 times in one tournament that if we were 
> going to
> > > > debate> feminism, we had to do it "balls to the wall" well 
> here it
> > > > goes?
> > > > Odd turn of phrase for sure
> > > >
> > > > Why does debate work the way it does? Why should I as a debater
> > > > have to
> > > > > affirm a belief I don't agree with as a person in order to 
> win a
> > > > round?
> > > > Lots of reasons, a) informs you of your opponants arguments so
> > > > that when
> > > > you apply them outside of debate you learn to formulate your
> > > > arguments in
> > > > such a way that they assume the opponants arguments...this is 
> the> > > notionthat debate is a enclave in which academic debaters can
> > > > practice activism in
> > > > a somewhat protected environment that allows more 
> experimentation> > > than the
> > > > outside world (coverstone) as well as the argument for switch 
> side> > > debating(muir-smith-heidt-hoe et al). b) because it 
> creates an
> > > > issue in controversy
> > > > that forces a discussion. In your alternative world 
> affirmatives say
> > > > whatever they ideologically believe in and often what the 
> negative> > > alsoideologically believes in....The negative is then 
> forced to
> > > > think of
> > > > anything at all to say......Often the negative is then told that
> > > > "that is
> > > > not the X we mean" cutting out even more ground to discuss 
> what the
> > > > affwanted.....Often then, the affirmative changes projects
> > > > tournament to
> > > > tournament so the negative is perrenially a hopeless 
> exercise. When
> > > > there is
> > > > an issue in controversy both sides debate something they both 
> knew was
> > > > coming and could PREPARE for. This makes for rotating 
> education in
> > > > whicheach debater learns TONS about four or five full areas of
> > > > academic research
> > > > in their debate career. For instance, on this topic - a team 
> that> > > researchesand debates the actual topic learns all the 
> information> > > on both sides about:
> > > > Trade/Economics - the economic effect of a trade deficit, 
> inflation,> > > budgetary policy, poverty and wealth creation, how 
> currencies function
> > > > domestically and economically etc etc. Students can become 
> expert> > > in the
> > > > reality of the functioning of the international economy.
> > > > Human rights - about the Uighuyrs, Falun Gong, One Child Policy,
> > > > NorthKorean rfugees, Han chauvinism, Sudanese genocide, US
> > > > hypocricy etc etc etc
> > > > etc. Students can become expert in US human rights policy in 
> Asia.> > > Taiwan - there are 100s of intricacies to this debate - 
> thousands of
> > > > articles on china and taiwan....There are people who devote 
> their> > > entireacademic lives just to this issue.
> > > > Non-Proliferation policy - everything from Iran to North 
> Korea to US
> > > > hypocricy and Bush's nuclear posture. Another area that fills 
> whole> > > libraries.
> > > > A person who committs themselves to this learns as much as many
> > > > peoplelearn in an entire graduate career. I know I have a 
> debater> > > who has
> > > > LITERALLY read every scholarly article on PRC-US-Taiwan that 
> can be
> > > > accessedby normal means......He can walk into any international
> > > > relations graduate
> > > > program or internship and meaningfully discuss every single
> > > > academic work on
> > > > the subject.
> > > >
> > > > Why do we elevate some abstract form of "education" achieved 
> in a
> > > > narrow> framework of make believe policymakers forecasting a 
> light> > > shower of Uranium
> > > > > in the next week if our judge doesn't vote for them? What
> > > > happened to the
> > > > > way we feel?
> > > >
> > > > See my answer to your number 1-6 above. Its also not 
> competitive -
> > > > we can
> > > > include how we feel in our policy arguments. Policy arguments 
> also> > > informhow we ought feel in certain areas more fully.
> > > >
> > > > > THE PLAN TEXT: WE AFFIRM THAT THE RESOLUTION THE USFG SHOULD
> > > > SUBSTANTIALLY> INCREASE DIPLOMATIC AND ECONOMIC PRESSURE ON 
> THE PRC
> > > > IN ONE OR MORE OF THE
> > > > > FOLLOWING AREAS: HUMAN RIGHTS, TAIWAN, NONPROLIFERATION, THE
> > > > ECONOMY IS A
> > > > > GENDER BIASED TOPIC. WE SHOULD EVALUATE THE WAY IN WHICH WE
> > > > DEBATE, AND
> > > > > REFORM DEBATE TO MAKE IT MORE ACCEPTING TO FEMININE VOICES.
> > > >
> > > > I am certainly making an argument above about the educational
> > > > value of
> > > > debating a topic. In addition, I flatly dispute that topics are
> > > > what causes
> > > > gender discrimination - many if not most of my best debaters 
> have> > > been very
> > > > good womyn policy debaters. Part of the problem is that you have
> > > > not done
> > > > studies or even canvassing to PROVE your alternate topic is a 
> good> > > idea. As
> > > > of now it is a statement. I will also make the argument that 
> it is NOT
> > > > competitive - you can do things to address gender while 
> gaining the
> > > > benefitsof a traditional debate topic (recruiting for diversity,
> > > > speaking up when
> > > > discrimination occurs, traveling and encouraging women to 
> debate).> > >
> > > > > We refuse to play the game of debate?we believe that the words
> > > > said in
> > > > > this round count outside of it.
> > > >
> > > > I am sorry to hear that - we will continue to enjoy the game of
> > > > debatewhile also believing that "the game" informs our work 
> outside> > > of the round
> > > > and what we will and will not say "in" a round. Saying words 
> count> > > does not
> > > > mean you ought win simply because you spoke to something 
> personally> > > meaningful.....A debate should include meaningful 
> space for both
> > > > teams....Adebate should allow ACADEMIC progress for students.
> > > >
> > > > We will contend that the need for an examination of the 
> gender bias
> > > > within> our community is required to make space for the 
> voices that
> > > > are excluded.
> > > >
> > > > Prove that please.....Powerful statement
> > > >
> > > > Our speeches are a necessary starting point to help open up the
> > > > spaces for
> > > > > people who want to debate like gyrls.
> > > >
> > > > Prove that please....Powerful statement
> > > > We will talk about the rest in rounds......I think you probably
> > > > understandmy points.
> > > > Please take none of this as discouraging your voice or telling
> > > > you "how it
> > > > is." I am trying to engage you in a discussion you started about
> > > > pedagogy. Josh
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>