[eDebate] REOPEN DEBATE ABOUT SS DEBATE - HALL - AND THE MONKEY

Josh Hoe jbhdb8
Thu Apr 13 15:01:44 CDT 2006


I am going to respond to only one thing in this post because I am REALLY
tired of the moral high ground blackmail that is present in alot of this
crusading:

 NOT MY GOAL ? I NEVER SAID "TOPIC" ? YES PEOPLE MAKE DUE AND TALK ABOUT
> "REAL PEOPLE" AND NOT NUCLEAR WAR.  THEY STILL BITE THEIR TONGUE AS THEY ARE
> TOLD TO PUT ECONOMIC PRESSURE ON CHINA.
>
> MY QUESTION TO YOU ? HOW MANY DEBATERS JOINED DEBATE THIS YEAR BECAUSE
> THEY LIKED TO PUT PRESSURE ON CHINA.  I KNOW FOR SURE DEBATERS WHO QUIT
> BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WANT TO DO SUCH, AND WERE TIRED OF ARGUING TOPICALITY.


A) In net speak speaking in all caps is considered YELLING in a
DISRESPECTFUL way.  Brad was trying to engage you in a polite and meaningful
discussion.  But, as usual, you dont want to hear what anyone who disagrees
with you has to say.  That might explain why you just continually restate
the exact same arguments over and over as if they are revolutionary.  It is
for this reason that I did not engage this debate at all this year - I have
said my peace.  Your argument is this: USFG actor bad - prevents personal
agency - personal agency = more important to student development than is
"fair ground." academic benefits of "switch side" debating, and traditional
notions of what "debate should be."


I am not even saying you are wrong anymore Jackie.  We clearly disagree on
this issue but whatever...you could be right I could be wrong.  Point is -
YOU COULD BE WRONG TOO.  If we had a topic with a different agent of action
it would test your theory but that doesnt mean the rest of the community has
to agree with you or that they have to support your experiment with voting
behavior.  Your best hope of getting people to support your experiment is to
listen with love to the people who think its a bad idea and try to work with
them to create the world as you wish it were.  For whatever reason, it would
seem, most people disagree with you - no matter how much the topic committee
changes membership - no matter how many people vote.  Otherwise the grand
topic experiment might have occurred.  Heck, maybe they dont even disagree
with you and are just afraid of the "brave new world" of non-USFG topics.
Whatever the case, you want a different topic format - you have to convince
people like Brad not people like you.

B) Stop emotionally blackmailing people - I know 100s of coaches who have
left or gradually decreased their support and committment for debate
precisely because of the direction it is heading (meaning post-modern
non-topic debating, personal beliefs and activism, affs that have nothing to
do with the topic etc).  In any conversation/debate you know someone is
losing when they go to the "well my friends say you are wrong" defense.
Even worse is threatening people with the invisible masses who run from
debate exactly for the reasons that support your case exactly.  Trust me, as
many people loathe the direction you want to take debate as loathe
traditionalists like me.  Lets stop using emotional appeals as a stand-in
for good argumentation.


Now, that said, as always, I am really staying out of the line by line -
USFG good/bad thing this year.

Josh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060413/1ae62faf/attachment.html 



More information about the Mailman mailing list