[eDebate] Answers for Elliott1
Fri Apr 14 14:04:38 CDT 2006
Slight correction: "If you're going to stick with you're "elliot doesn't
post post because he doesn't have a team" resolution then I'd like a defense
of the possible and aff and neg ground on such a resolution."
That second "you're" should be "your". My mistake.
On 4/14/06, Alyse Kraus <alyse.kraus at gmail.com> wrote:
> I coached and judged all of last year. I think that qualifies me as being
> "in debate". And I think Scott's question was an important one. I asked you
> this same question last year after you denounce the China topic as being
> exclusionary, bad for debate, etc.
> So, as someone in debate, let me ask:
> What do you think the topic area should be and, as a subquestion, what do
> you think the resolution should be?
> If you're going to stick with you're "elliot doesn't post post because he
> doesn't have a team" resolution then I'd like a defense of the possible and
> aff and neg ground on such a resolution.
> And while we're on the topic of exclusionary resolutions, isn't your claim
> that just because someone might not be coaching debaters or debating anymore
> their opinions aren't valid a bit exclusionary? Is this really the sort of
> community you're trying to cultivate? It seems like your vision of debate
> might be just as insular if not moreso than the policy debate you criticize.
> When did the debate community become so self-righteous as to deem all those
> who don't coach or debate unworthy of offering their thoughts on our
> Just some questions I'd like to see you answer...
> - Alyse
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman