[eDebate] ???Overturning Roe v Wade????

NEIL BERCH berchnorto
Mon Apr 10 12:32:51 CDT 2006


Some quick thoughts:
1.  I'm not sure where I come down on this (and it doesn't matter much, as 
WVU casts its ballot democratically with each debater and coach getting a 
vote), but I think when two of our brightest young coaches say that this 
will cause them not to participate in the activity, we need to take a long, 
careful listen.
2.  Until I heard Nicole Richter raise this issue at CEDA Nats, it just 
hadn't occurred to me.
3.  I think that (beyond my density) this speaks to how ridiculous it is 
that the new topic committee is all-male (is it all-white, too?  I'm not 
clear on who is coming off the committee and who isn't).  I plan to get a 
bumper sticker for my car that says, "Don't blame me; I voted for Nicole!.
4.  The point that Nicole Richter makes about Brown v. Board resonates with 
me.
5.  Given the way that debate has become more personal, it seems pretty 
clear to me that debating Roe would put an additional burden on at least 
some subset of women debaters and judges.
6.  This is not the only case that might lead to such a problem.  I heard 
another respected coach say that they might find it impossible to vote for 
an aff that overturned Lawrence v. Texas.
7.  Both of those cases are about privacy to a large extent.  I think we 
need to be very careful about proposing resolutions that are likely to 
impinge on people's privacy as we debate them.  And that's what I think some 
of the responses to the posts by the Nicoles are missing.
8.  I'm not sure this means Supreme Court is a bad topic area.  I think it 
really depends on what cases are included.
9.  It is my understanding that Chief has committed to arranging a Web cast 
of the Topic Committee meetings in KC (another major contribution by 
Chief!).
--Neil Berch
West Virginia University


>From: nrichter at umsis.miami.edu
>To: "Steven D'Amico" <stevendamico at gmail.com>
>CC: edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: Re: [eDebate] ???Overturning Roe v Wade????
>Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:59:14 -0400 (EDT)
>
>I am sure Nicole Colston will respond to this, but I feel the need to do so 
>as
>well:
>
>Quoting Steven D'Amico <stevendamico at gmail.com>:
>
> > I'm really confused by this post. I see to two different points. The
> > topic
> > process is not open (fair opinion, while I disagree with it) and
> > debating
> > roe v wade is bad for women in debate.
>
>
>What do you think is good about the topic selection process? Do you not 
>think
>the lack of womyn on the committee is a problem?
>
>
> > My opinion is that it's about time the community debates roe. Not
> > because
> > it's a womyns issue (which it obviously is) but because it's a timely
> > issue
> > which is about to be adressed by our government. Remember all those SC
> > nominations?
>
>You conceed that this is a womyn's issue (which seems like perhaps womyn 
>should
>be consulted about this issue), but that is not as important as the fact 
>that
>it is a current event. There are tons of other current events we could be
>debating (refer to the list Nicole made in her original post like 
>pornography),
>why are we choosing to focus on this particular issue?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Nicole, I'm not trying to be a patriarchal asshole (I've been accused of
> > it
> > before, I like to point out I'm just an asshole to everyone, not just
> > womyn)
> > But I just do not understand this statement:
> >
> > "I will WITHDRAW my squad's participation in NDT/CEDA debate without
> > hesitation next year if Roe vs. Wade is included on the ballot.  I am
> > sick
> > over the extent in which this "activity" has no respect for women and
> > fear
> > the effects on female participation if Roe v Wade is included."
> >
> > I do not understand how including Roe means the community has no respect
> > for
> > Women. Please explain it to me. If the lack of this fact seeming obvious
> > to
> > me is an indication of me being a patriarch or whatever, tell me why so
> > I
> > can understand.
>
>Explain to me how debating this issue will increase female participation in 
>the
>activity? There is only a risk that some womyn will feel personally 
>excluded
>emotionally or intellectually from this debate, thus decreasing female
>participation. Because this is a womyn's issue, as you yourself have 
>mentioned,
>of course it will effect womyn in this community and the fact that womyn 
>were
>not consulted seems to prove the lack of respect. Moreover, the way it
>was "mentioned" in the e-debate posts with ZERO discussion on how this 
>would
>effect womyn in the community is major oversight.
>
>Nicole Richter
>University of Miami
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate






More information about the Mailman mailing list