[eDebate] Do not put it on the BALLOT
Mon Apr 10 14:06:58 CDT 2006
One more thing,
I know I can seem reactionary (although in favor of the sq)....But every
single semester the same thing happens - - Topic area announced, people go
crazy.......I would like to suggest that because of being caught up in the
madness of tournament prep people are generally too busy to notice the topic
discussions/announcements every year. I guess my question to the community
is this - why does everyone always assume its because there is a secret
topic cabal that excludes the larger community?
The topic process on edebate goes like this:
a) Area announcement - - edebate freak out b) slate of topics announcement
-- edebate freak out c) topic voting results announced -- edebate freak out
Maybe we should talk about ways to accomplish what the topic committee needs
to accomplish during a year at the same time we increase community inputs
rather than always assume there is evil afoot. For instance, Nicole's
webcast suggestion sounds like a good idea but for that most people in
debate probably dont know how to do it (I know Tuna does).
On 4/10/06, Nicole <nicole.colston at gmail.com> wrote:
> *The Summary*: Debate is the real world. Professional politics and
> competition drive our topic decisions, not education. Education on Roe
> v. Wade will be minimal. The Debate Community impacts to debaters and
> female coaches will always "outweigh".
> * *
> *Debate is the "real-world":*
> First, I understand there is a "real world" outside of CEDA/NDT debate
> where policy is made. I also understand that debate has the awesome
> potential to empower the future policy?makers of the world. Shit, I love
> Debate that's why I have made it my career. . . I do not believe my argument
> is Debate Bad or Topic Committee Bad or Political Conservatives Bad.
> However, I will maintain as central to my entire case that our debate
> community is the "real world," more than a neutral academic space. It is
> my professional and social space. It is often a life-changing and
> value-forming activity for my students (and this is so despite the current
> "social contract," style, and theory that neutralizes the personal debate
> space and limits breadth/nuance in argument). My students and I have a
> right to discuss the implications to us, to our debate community, and to the
> '"real world".
> I resent the comments that I am not open to both-sides or that I fail to
> see the educational potential/need. I am not stupid. I simply think that
> it is a bad decision in light of the many choices we face.
> *Professional politics and competition drive our topic decisions*
> In the 'D'ebate world, we as educators can make choices about the way we
> educate our students. Often, these choices are made on competitive,
> political, and professional decisions- not on the best education. We all
> know that public topic discussions end up being about generic DA ground,
> research burden, and the harms of bi-directionality.
> My post harps on the topic committee because I think that the topic
> process is not neutral. Richter talks about this?and I think there is
> plenty of empirical and narrative proof of deliberate exclusion and
> delegitimization of women's voices throughout the history (and present) of
> debate. It is important, and more people should be aware of what is
> going down. In the future, I will be more involved, trust me.
> I don't blame the topic committee?I just think the whole process should be
> more important to everyone, duh! I want to know why the meeting wasn't
> announced loudly and largely. I want WEBCASTING!!! Lastly, I do not
> think that past apathy is an excuse for not addressing the implications of
> "overturning Roe v. Wade" now. Don't change the subject.
> *There will be little education and much desctruction*:
> I reject the idea that the "overturning Roe v. Wade" debates will be
> educational for a number of reasons:
> 1) We all know that debate cases do not represent the actual legal
> process. Debate on this topic will not teach us how to deal with the
> social, religious, and personal implications of this policy- I think
> that specific politics links are the closest we will come. Except for
> maybe some teams who try to argue the issue from more value (aka critical)
> perspectives who will be subject to Topicality and "no alt." debates in
> which they are told they can only discuss the actual "legal" issues.
> 2) Richter is 100% correct- "This topic creates a specific barrier
> to debate that only womyn have to deal with." The political ramifications
> for our debate community, my "real world", are far larger than your
> education impacts and switch-side good babble. Debate is useless without
> personal involvement by debaters and increased access by all voices. . quit
> bullshitting me about how the topic process and debates actually happen!
> 3) The semantic orientation, as well as the political orientation,
> of "overturning Roe v. Wade" would make adopting such a resolution an awful
> pedagological decision. We are the experts- we should know how to frame
> issues better!!!!!!!
> 4) We must ask ourselves, what will these debates look like and
> weigh that with the personal implications to female students and coaches.
> I did not choose to politicize 'D"ebate. It comes to me that way.
> Take a visible stand for peace!
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman