[eDebate] Do not put it on the BALLOT

Josh Hoe jbhdb8
Mon Apr 10 14:13:12 CDT 2006


 Nicole,

I explicitly said I was not responding to the part of your post about
Roe....but was responding to the input arguments it implicitly included.

Access could be increased for sure - but that does not mean the committee is
anti-access - they do what they know how to do....for instance, web cam
sounds like a great idea, however, I would bet a dollar that nobody on the
current committee has one or knows how to webcast.  Just like you we all
have limitations in our tech etc.  That doesnt mean we shouldnt improve
access....It just means people do what they know how to do - post on edebate
- schedule open meetings - etc etc.

Josh


On 4/10/06, Nicole <nicole.colston at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>  Josh-
>
> Refrom topics are different than well-crafted resolutions.
>
> ACCESS could be improved to accomodate and facilitate inclusion.  For ex.,
> my team often does not travel with a laptop to read day of stuff, I am the
> only coach, I get hundreds of e-debate and e-mail messages a day, I don't
> travel to Wake, and there is no topic paper for me to read!
>
> QUIT CHANGING THE SUBJECT!  This is not about the topic committee, this is
> about inclusion in debate.  The resolution that "overturns Roe vs. Wade"
> has the potential for more harm than good.  What will this do to inclusion,
> how will I explain this to novices?????
>
>
>  On 4/10/06, Josh Hoe <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Hello,
> >
> > 1. Is it possible that one can be for reform in debate but not believe
> > that "reform of topics" is the way to reform debate?  For instance, can you
> > believe in the current way topics are structured and believe that there is
> > sexism, racism, and classism in debate?  If this is possible, why is this
> > always presented in such stark and absolute us vs them terms.
> >
> > 2.  There is ZERO doubt that topic committee decisions are publically
> > accessible.  They are posted on here....The meetings dates are publically
> > posted and they are open to the public.  Steve even goes so far as to have
> > an open meeting at the Wake tournament that like 10 people max attend.  To
> > say it is not an open or available process is frankly insulting to the
> > members of the committee and the leadership of the organization.  If you
> > dont believe me feel free to do an edebate search.  You will find dates and
> > times for every meeting.  For the spring meetings over the year you will
> > find invitations and hotel info etc.
> >
> > 3.  The topic committee has announced LOUDLY over and over again for
> > over two years now that there will be a legal topic next year.  Over and
> > Over and Over again.  Again there are ways to verify this.  The best way
> > would be to see how many people wrote the "why wasnt I informed" email every
> > time its been announced.  BTW there has not been a legal area topic since
> > Title VII and not a courts topic for like 15 years.
> >
> > I am largely trying to stay out of this debate this year.  However, I
> > think its more than a bit unfair for people to keep saying they dont have an
> > opportunity to provide input into the process.
> >
> > 4. A good way to, in the future, not have to feel you are excluded is to
> > just email the head of the topic committee Steve Mancuso if you have
> > questions.  He is generally very interested in constructive input.
> >
> > Now, I will go back into my traditionalist shell.
> >
> > Josh
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  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
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Take a visible stand for peace!
>
>
> --
> Take a visible stand for peace!
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060410/ba433a4a/attachment.html 



More information about the Mailman mailing list