[eDebate] Irony in Jackie's remarks--still can't give us the alt

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Fri Apr 14 18:25:49 CDT 2006

Hey Jackie,

Its Dr. Elliott if you are going to use anything other than Scott. A Ph.D. in
Comm. Theory,  a sting working on the Yeltsin political campaigns, a J.D. from
one of the toughest law schools in the country, and
being a tenured professor already--I think I have earned the title. But I
prefer simply Scott. Mr. Elliott always seems to bother me. ["Hey asshole" or
"you evil bastard" seem to fit pretty well too]

As usual, and as many debaters have found out, you will find that I am probably
the MOST likely to vote for an alternative interpretation of the resolution--or
an alternative interpretation of what "debate" should mean.

Let's say that I agree with your criticism of the current debate structure--for
the sake of argument. Let's take the "legal topic" area as an example. Surely
Jackie you can give me three sentences, just three declarational statements
that embody what you believe academic debate should be.  Let me give you an

On the Court's overturn X area. I would write:

"Resolved: I think Roe v. Wade sucks."  or

"Resolved[kindofsorta]: I think I should be able to root anything out of my body
if I
want, when I want, including a fetus."

Does this give you enough "discursive room?"

It is difficult for the dunces out here to wrap their minds around what you want
unless you give us concrete examples. My "positive contribution" is pretty
simple and straight forward---It forces the advocate of change (You Jackie) to
demonstrate that change is (1)warranted,(2)has some sense of reasonability, and
(3) is workable (Goddamn old school logic, I am one logocentric bastard!!!!).


I don't think academic policy debate can "reach the masses" of college students.
Why? becuase the "masses" tend to be rather ignorant and unengaged. Sorry to
spout another truth. We have opporunties to debate issues that would bring in
more students--but those topics are apparently so "debatable" that no person
in the debate community will touch it with a 10 foot pole. [See e.g. the Roe v.
Wade discussion on this listserve]. Ask the average college student what they
would love to debate and you will get:

"Resolved: Ace should have been voted off of American Idol before Mandisa."
[Which, btw, I totally think Mandisa got shafted on]. Jackie, I have dealt with
the teeming masses. Believe me, you do not want them cluttering up debate
tournaments. Worse, you do not want the masses to actually judge debate rounds
in which your OU teams are competing. Again, I would laugh at your attempts to
persuade an "average" citizen of your positions in a debate.

I agree that there is little negative ground for banning me from edebate---but
under my objective standards for debate---i.e. even ground--that is an
independent reason for rejecting the resolution. LOL.

Peace Jackie.



Your resolution is dangerous. I turned down two debate coaching jobs this week
because I just committed to a job in Dallas. I would hate to have to be a
professional coach again just so I can make an argument on this listserve. The
money on the
outside is too good.

Quoting debate at ou.edu:

> Mr. Elliott,
> I was answering your humor with my humor.  Do you really think I would
> believe that only certain people
> shoulde be allowed to post on the listserv?
> at least it gave you the ammo to demonize me some more, so yeah, I suck.
> Also, we have no topic area yet, so I am really uninterested in resolutional
> wordings until we get an area.
> So your right, we got not topic area and i got no resolution.
> Yeah your right, I really dont include anyone.   I just want to keep things
> the way they are.
> I dont go out of my way to try and make the activity more acceptable for
> those less represented.
>  I probably stifle that representation.  Mr. Inclusion is really Mr.
> Exclusion.
> I dont see "THE K" as any different than any other debate argument.  It is an
> argument, but obviously it does
> something special to you when you think about.
> I never said I want a resolution catered to me (or my deabters) so we can
> decide what personal beliefs we
> would like to make the topic out to be.  It is very easy to ridicule the
> desire for inclusion when you have offered
> no alternatives to increasing that inclusion besides mocking or ridiculing
> those who are addressing the issue.
> What positive contributions have you made to this discussion?
> You provide something constructive, and I might change my resolution.
> Resolved: Scott Elliott shoud not post to edebate until he gets a team  (joke
> just in case you think i am serious -
> no neg ground in this topic)
> peace
> jackie
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: scottelliott at grandecom.net
> Date: Friday, April 14, 2006 12:27 pm
> Subject: Irony in Jakie's remarks--still can't give us the alt
> > I still coach high school teams and I still judge college and high
> > schooltournaments every now and then, not to mention I do research
> > for some of my
> > students who are now debating in college. I even stopped by to
> > watch rounds at
> > CEDA nats this year. So, I will take your challenge as to why I
> > should be able
> > to "chime in" on this topic.
> >
> > I find it quite ironic that "Mr. Inclusion" is trying to shut me
> > out of a
> > discussion because I don't coach professionally. Jackie, some
> > people have to
> > make hard choices when they have a family. Mine was to find a job
> > that paid a
> > decent salary. So, I chucked professional debate coaching for a
> > while to become
> > a lawyer. This does not mean that I have lost my desire to coach or
> > to see the
> > activity prosper.
> >
> > If your standard for the discussion is that only coaches and
> > debaters can talk,
> > then I find you to be the same exclusive asshole as those that you are
> > critiquing.  I asked you a simple question almost a year ago. I
> > have asked it
> > again this week. I believe Josh Hoe and others (though not as
> > sarcastically)have asked for the same thing-----Write a resolution
> > that we can examine. Hell,
> > I don't even need a topic paper. I'd just like to see what a
> > "personal agency"
> > resolution would look like. I'd like to see if such a resolution is
> > evendebatable.
> >
> > You tell everybody that you are being misinterpreted, misquoted,
> > etc., etc. This
> > is the same bullshit that I have seen in many a K round, "No--
> > that's not OUR
> > Socialism, OUR socialism is different. We can't tell what it will
> > be, but we
> > assure you it will be good." So, if the best resolution you can
> > come up with is
> > "ban Scott from posting," your solutions are rather piss-poor.
> >
> > I think you have not completely thought through your arguments.
> > Namely, you have
> > a complaint that the current debate practices suck. But you offer
> > no concrete,
> > testable alternatives to explore.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> >

More information about the Mailman mailing list