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

Josh Hoe jbhdb8
Thu Apr 13 15:41:03 CDT 2006


Not going to respond to the claims about topics...That is all I said.

Here is your opportunity - what the hell is your argument - if I am so
wrong, and Brad is so wrong, and Larson is so wrong you are doing a pretty
poor job of getting your point across.

As near as I could tell you were saying affirmative flexibility is
good....traditional topic construction bad.  If that is somehow NOT what you
are saying by all means flesh it out for all of us EXPLICITLY right here
right now...I will cut and paste this response - put it in a Jackie folder
on my desk top and literally cut and paste it whenever I reference "Jackie's
argument."

Please, I am serious, we are maybe all incabable of reading but if we all
missed it some clarification might help.


You did use the "people who have quit because of T and the topic" as
emotional blackmale - saying you did not is absurd.

Josh


On 4/13/06, debate at ou.edu <debate at ou.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060413/a307c943/attachment.html 



More information about the Mailman mailing list