[eDebate] Irony in Jakie's remarks--still can't give us the alt

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Fri Apr 14 12:27:36 CDT 2006

I still coach high school teams and I still judge college and high school
tournaments every now and then, not to mention I do research for some of my
students who are now debating in college. I even stopped by to watch rounds at
CEDA nats this year. So, I will take your challenge as to why I should be able
to "chime in" on this topic.

I find it quite ironic that "Mr. Inclusion" is trying to shut me out of a
discussion because I don't coach professionally. Jackie, some people have to
make hard choices when they have a family. Mine was to find a job that paid a
decent salary. So, I chucked professional debate coaching for a while to become
a lawyer. This does not mean that I have lost my desire to coach or to see the
activity prosper.

If your standard for the discussion is that only coaches and debaters can talk,
then I find you to be the same exclusive asshole as those that you are
critiquing.  I asked you a simple question almost a year ago. I have asked it
again this week. I believe Josh Hoe and others (though not as sarcastically)
have asked for the same thing-----Write a resolution that we can examine. Hell,
I don't even need a topic paper. I'd just like to see what a "personal agency"
resolution would look like. I'd like to see if such a resolution is even

You tell everybody that you are being misinterpreted, misquoted, etc., etc. This
is the same bullshit that I have seen in many a K round, "No--that's not OUR
Socialism, OUR socialism is different. We can't tell what it will be, but we
assure you it will be good." So, if the best resolution you can come up with is
"ban Scott from posting," your solutions are rather piss-poor.

I think you have not completely thought through your arguments. Namely, you have
a complaint that the current debate practices suck. But you offer no concrete,
testable alternatives to explore.


More information about the Mailman mailing list