[eDebate] An apology and a brief discussion

Ede Warner ewarner
Sun Apr 16 10:45:42 CDT 2006


Hello,
 
I'm not sure what to do when my posts don't drawn much fire?  This is
new ground for me.  But I have a couple of quick things I'd like to
communicate.  First, I'm reminded by a good friend that language choices
are important in the effort to get folks to listen, and more so in the
effort to persuade.  I want to apologize for my language choices
positioning the critical/performance folks as the "left" and the
traditional policy debate community as the "right".  Why?  Because I
think that language is polarizing, but more importantly I believe it to
be largely inaccurate.  Those choices deal with political ideology,
although my use of the terms was dealing with debate ideology, and more
specifically, I'm usually focused on debating styles.  
 
I believe that everyone who is a part of this community believes in the
promise of debate, even if sometimes we discuss about method.  So,
again, I will try to use less divisive descriptors in these
discussions.
 
As a side note, the Louisville staff has been thinking a lot about next
year.  Early interest in debating next year without preference judging
seems likely.  A couple of reasons:  we believe our message should
target everyone equally, as our goal is to develop a method that bridges
across debate ideologies and can be something all can embrace (form of
course, even if not content).  Secondly, we think that since the fall is
in many ways a rebirth of Louisville from the last few years (and maybe
others will not perceive it as the large change we believe it to be),
but given it is a change, we think that everyone should be given a clean
slate in an effort to understand the community response to our method. 
I think we will attempt to persuade the debaters on using a random model
with strikes as the season develops, giving everyone an opportunity to
hear and experience what we are trying, but recognizing that everyone
may not like what we are doing, or unwilling to engage us in
constructive criticism. 
 
Our goal is to become the permutation that Mike Eber so eloquently
talked about as what should be the goal.  Engaging in topical policy
debate in a style that works for us. 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060416/fcd1160c/attachment.html 



More information about the Mailman mailing list