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

dbteam dbteam
Mon Apr 10 13:20:55 CDT 2006

1) zero evidence, and i mean ZERO, that the in-round decisions in debates have 
influence - i.e., have any weight to actually be 'coopted' by the evil people 
created in this scenario - outside the pious minds of debaters who think they 
and their args matter more than they do.

2) wtf? is ANYONE who defends this position willing to actually answer the 
argument that Roe v Wade may not be as great as it is assumed and that it is 
possible to overrule it so as to increase abortion rights? i didn't just make 
this up off the top of my head. i debated a privacy topic, have done some 
research, and these args are made by folks who aren't the right-wing zealots 
described in this post.

3) i can't believe i'm having to explain the intricacies of "should/would' to 
people who are a) literate, and b) aren't in the novice lab at Kentucky. this 
entire post boils down to this: "well, the Bush administration wouldn't do the 
plan for the reasons the AFF wants to, so that proves it's a bad idea."

how in the world did the time machine that has obviously taken this discussion 
back to the debate community, circa 1953, manange to bring along the 21st 
century technology that is EDebate with it?!


>===== Original Message From "Andy Ellis" <andy.edebate at gmail.com> =====
>To me this is about cooption--while we pat ourselves on the back for the
>nuanced and creative ways we defend overtunring roe, we might as well pat
>the right on the back for cooking that kinda crack up and say way to go, our
>faith in our communities ability to delibrate has given you a new venue with
>which to push your crazy agenda...i cant believe that many of you are
>removed enough from the real world to think that args about the freedom of
>abortion coming with the repeal are likely to do anything outside of the
>rarefied halls of wherever the hell you come up with these crack pot
>ideas...come on people nicole is right about this, when roe is overturned it
>wont be for more abortion right or more privacy...thats not the secret ailto
>plan...hey i know we will really overturn this so we can have more
>abortion...what world do you live in?... Kathryn what about your legal
>traianing allows you to be totally blind to politics?...I think its great
>that you all have the faith in our community to contribute to this important
>social discussion in a meaningful way but the risk that we fuel  rightwing
>forces bent on their own special kind of revolution probably outweighs the
>small benefit we get...especially if those on the left are advoacting that
>topic as a way to avaoid the actual political climate...
>On 4/10/06, kathryn rubino <kathrynrubino at gmail.com> wrote:
>> "4. The point that Nicole Richter makes about Brown v. Board resonates
>> with
>> me."
>> I think the Brown analogy is a false one.  Overturning Brown is not
>> something we as a society are likely to face in the next 20 years-- the 
>> is not true for Roe.  I will also underscore Hester's post-- there are lots
>> of pro-choice voices out there that support overturning Roe.  This is not 
>> clear cut an issue as some posts seem to indicate...it almost seems... well
>> debatable, from a multiplicity of perspectives....hmmmm.  And I would argue
>> that the ability to look at this issue critically can encourage greater
>> women's participation, and furthermore it is that level of dexterity with
>> one of the most salient issues feminists are likely to face that
>> demonstrates the benefits of our activity.
>> "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"
>> Yes debates have gotten more personal over the years, but that is a choice
>> that debaters make, plenty of debaters, male and female, debate from a
>> "objective" perspective.  Additionally, no one is answering the Title 7
>> example and how debating things that are difficult is actually educational.
>> It not only forces debaters to engage a body of literature that they
>> otherwise might ignore, but I found it educational on the level of teaching
>> me how to deal with real world politics that become personal.  And trust 
>> I get how a world without Roe can seem scary but this is really happening
>> and how is society going to deal with it if some of the best minds in the
>> country refuse to even debate it in an academic setting.  A vote for a Roe
>> resolution (and lets be clear a vote for the courts topic is not a vote to
>> debate Roe) does not mandate that a debater must advocate something they do
>> not believe in.
>> Kathryn
>> _______________________________________________
>> eDebate mailing list
>> eDebate at ndtceda.com
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com

More information about the Mailman mailing list