[eDebate] thoughts and AT: Matt, Bryan, Veronica-- 'Roe' and What I am NOT trying to do. . .
Thu Apr 13 09:23:26 CDT 2006
I hope that some people will join in on the discussion of the resolutional
wording standards/concerns I posed, as well as my analysis of current
interpretation practices and switch-side debating. I hope that someone
would address the communication ethic concerns and the trauma support
systems that don't exist. I think maybe we are so disattached because we do
not have such systems. I need pedagological input.
To Matt: I think the "high-tech strategy" tradition DOES mean those with
abortions can't be in the debate. I DO understand the strat's available (I
also think they result from and in the interpreataion practices I talk
about in #2 as potentially damaging to identity and conviction). Marissa
says I should deal with debate as it is- a game-, but I want you to show me
an communication ethic and resolutional wording that supports the risk these
women would have to take to participate on a personal (real, not imagined)
level. What good is a neutralized debate about abortion to training our
future advocates? In the future, how will they deal with people with
abortions?? How does being the SC (ie nine people) better than being me in
To Bryan: I do not change my argument, and you are responding with emotion-
that's good. The Roe topic is doing more than saying I can't walk somewhere
or I can't have job or I can't help others kill themselves. It is focusing
debate competition on the inside of my body- my blood, my love, my soul, my
humanity. Abortion is an issue that effects all people, but it is only the
female body that is being regulated or ripped open. The pro-choice
'murderers' and pro-life 'facist' voices both have access to the resolution
as hypothesized-- assuming this is the only way to focus the resolutional
issues is a false and denies humanity a chance to change!! and you political
categorization seems to be perpetuating the critical/policy divide args
rather than addressing the fundamental problems with debate practice and
agency. My argument is not that the resolution should support my political
agenda, but that affirmation of the resolution should be neutral to current
political lines. That it should address the issues central to Roe and not
guide agency through predetermined standards.
To Veronica: My totalizing claim is that the community can't support the
trauma of this topic and I refuse to watch it happen. Everyone can learn
about Roe, I am not stopping them. I am happy that you feel safe in debate,
but a lot of women don't, and especially not about this topic! My classroom
debaters deal with pro-life and intelligent design, I help them build strong
arguments even though I don't agree with them. But in the classroom I can
also monitor problems, create forums for discussion and resolution
afterward, provide trauma support, and guide the ethic of communication that
is really central to the notion of switch-side. I CAN NOT do this in
CEDA/NDT debate where competition outwieghs pedagogy, ego outwieghs empathy,
simulation outweighs love. I can not do this individually for my team if I
am destroyed, degraded, or outed in a round by some punk kids.
I am not trying to kill the courts topic, but I do think we should consider
the effects on agency that "overrruling" will have. I do not think the
court topic accomodates the critical concerns that muddle debate now. And
Andy's cooption arguments ring true to my empircal experience with debate.
Also, if the courts topic is picked, we could debate pornography with more
safety for women in our REAL community (although I am increasingly unsure of
how much). We could also address the state's control of the body in ways
that will not disenfranchise the voices of so many debaters and force others
On 4/12/06, Matt Cormack <mattedebate at yahoo.com> wrote:
> *Nicole <nicole.colston at gmail.com>* wrote:
> 2)The following is the worst thing I have read so far, from Marissa-
> "People who have had an abortion don't necessarily have to talk about it -
> like I said the debates within this community should hopefully be a lot more
> high-tech than that."
> What good is a debate about abortion law if people who have had abortions
> can't access the debate??? Shouldn't the resolution provide safety as well
> as ground?? Also, when does this community stop priveleging technique over
> Just to clarify
> I don't want to speak for Marissa but I think this is a misinterpretation
> of what she is saying. She isn't saying those who have had an abortion are
> excluded from debating, but IF abortion is raised in a particular debate
> there are inventions of the debate community (the PIC) that avoid it from
> becomming the central question of the debate. The term high-tech doesn't
> mean they can't be in the debate, to the contrary it means they can control
> the direction of the debate on the aff (choosing a case) or on the neg (cp,
> K, even T).
> Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates
> starting at 1?/min.
Take a visible stand for peace!
Take a visible stand for peace!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman