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

debate at ou.edu debate
Thu Apr 13 15:18:08 CDT 2006


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

whatever - is that better -small caps -

> 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.

for those with net speak - i dont speak your language -- for brad - i am sorry if you felt i was yelling not being 
disrespectful.  i almost left out my elitism claim just because your at wake and i did not want to make such a 
false analagy

> 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 
> meaningfuldiscussion.  But, as usual, you dont want to hear what 
> anyone who disagrees
> with you has to say.  That might explain why you just continually 
> restatethe exact same arguments over and over as if they are 
> revolutionary.

--- and your argument is?

  It is for this reason that I did not engage this debate at all this year -
> I have said my peace.  

we have had disagreements before

Your argument is this: USFG actor bad - prevents 
> personalagency - personal agency = more important to student 
> development than is
> "fair ground." academic benefits of "switch side" debating, and 
> traditionalnotions of what "debate should be."

WHERE DID I SAY USFG ACTOR BAD TODAY ?

 
> 
> 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

if that was my argument i probably could be wrong - 

> 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 
> votingbehavior.  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 
> committeechanges membership - no matter how many people vote.  
> Otherwise the grand
> topic experiment might have occurred.  Heck, maybe they dont even 
> disagreewith you and are just afraid of the "brave new world" of 
> non-USFG topics.

see, non- usfg topics -- how about you show me where i said this today, and i will agree you are right with all of 
our disagreements.

> Whatever the case, you want a different topic format - you have to 
> convincepeople like Brad not people like you.

or i could set on my ass and watch the status quo continue - i choose not to watch

what is this emotional blackmail?  you and zizek  i gues, i dont understand him either.

> 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). 

all of your lists are examples of why i think current topic construction is bad -- non-topic debating, what the 
*(#@?


 In any conversation/debate you know 
> someone is losing when they go to the "well my friends say you are wrong" 
> defense.

and you know there winning when they say well my friends say you are right?

Even worse is threatening people with the invisible masses 
> who run from> debate exactly for the reasons that support your case exactly.  

you dont really know my "case" - see above ---
i like this invisible masses argument though!

> 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.

see the bottom of my first post --

i say lets put the critical back in thinking, and the critical thinking back into debate.

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

I bet you cant resist to respond.


jackie









More information about the Mailman mailing list