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

debate at ou.edu debate
Fri Apr 14 17:34:26 CDT 2006


Mr. Elliott,

I was answering your humor with my humor.  Do you really think I would believe that only certain people 
shoulde be allowed to post on the listserv?

at least it gave you the ammo to demonize me some more, so yeah, I suck.

Also, we have no topic area yet, so I am really uninterested in resolutional wordings until we get an area.  

So your right, we got not topic area and i got no resolution.

Yeah your right, I really dont include anyone.   I just want to keep things the way they are.
I dont go out of my way to try and make the activity more acceptable for those less represented.
 I probably stifle that representation.  Mr. Inclusion is really Mr. Exclusion.

I dont see "THE K" as any different than any other debate argument.  It is an argument, but obviously it does 
something special to you when you think about.

I never said I want a resolution catered to me (or my deabters) so we can decide what personal beliefs we 
would like to make the topic out to be.  It is very easy to ridicule the desire for inclusion when you have offered 
no alternatives to increasing that inclusion besides mocking or ridiculing those who are addressing the issue.

What positive contributions have you made to this discussion?


You provide something constructive, and I might change my resolution.

Resolved: Scott Elliott shoud not post to edebate until he gets a team  (joke just in case you think i am serious - 
no neg ground in this topic)

peace

jackie




----- Original Message -----
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net
Date: Friday, April 14, 2006 12:27 pm
Subject: Irony in Jakie's remarks--still can't give us the alt

> I still coach high school teams and I still judge college and high 
> schooltournaments 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 
> evendebatable.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
> 





More information about the Mailman mailing list