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

nrichter at umsis.miami.edu nrichter
Mon Apr 10 13:20:38 CDT 2006

Quoting kathryn rubino <kathrynrubino at gmail.com>:

> "This topic creates a specific barrier to debate that only womyn have
> to deal with. Womyn should not be forced into a position where they have
> to
> debate or judge something they have or potentially could have a real
> personal
> stake in."
> So are you saying we should never debate any issues involving identity
> politics?  I disagree.  I debated on the title 7 topic, which as it
> mandated a discussion of gender or racial discrimination had the same
> problems that you identify above, and as far as I know there was no
> dramatic
> decrease in diversity that year.  In fact I thought it was a great
> topic.
> Yes some rounds were painful because they forced debaters to deal with
> issues of privilege and discrimination that they normally could ignore--
> but
> isn't that why debate is a good thing?  And sometimes I felt like I was
> the
> object of the resolution but I feel that way about "real" politics too,
> and
> most importantly I felt that debating on that topic gave me a voice to
> express how I felt and the tools to say it in the best way possible.

I am not saying we should not debate identity politics, look at my response to 
Scott. I think title 7 was a great topic, I think we should model our topics 
off of topics which are more progressive in nature. 

> I also stand by the fact that you can run an overturn Roe 1ac from
> a feminist sensibility that is powerfully pro-choice (and is topical)--
> I
> wouldn't overlook that as a reason to vote for this topic.

THIS IS MY FEAR!! This adds evidence to my position that this topic will only 
make it more likely that people find compelling reasons to overturn the 
decision. Even if these arguments can be defended from that perspective, I do 
not believe that the court in its current makeup will adopt this liberating pro-
choice perspective.

> As for the composition of the topic committee, I have to say I was
> equally
> outraged when I noted the composition of the committee.  But the fact
> is
> these are the people that the community elected, yes people maybe
> should
> have considered that when the cast their ballot, but they didn't.  That
> being said I believe that the members of the committee have been
> actively
> soliciting input from people outside of the committee in order to deal
> with this.  No it isn't a perfect solution, but it is what we have.  And
> I
> attended the topic meeting at CEDA and I felt my opinions were listened
> to
> and respected even though I was not formally part of the committee.

But why were they elected by the community? I am not personally attacking 
anyone that was elected, but I am questioning why we only elected men. I am 
glad you opinions we listened to at the committee meeting. I hope my opinions 
will be considered by the topic committee in the same way. It seems like at 
this point, many people in the community do not seem to be "respecting" my 

> Kathryn

More information about the Mailman mailing list