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

Josh Hoe jbhdb8
Fri Apr 14 18:41:04 CDT 2006


I think what people are asking for is a template - use last years topic area
as a guide and show us how you would have designed last years topic so that
it met your requirements for how a topic ought look.  I dont think anyone is
being particularly unfair here.

Josh


On 4/14/06, debate at ou.edu <debate at ou.edu> wrote:
>
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060414/1d3fc90b/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list