[eDebate] resolved: you are complicit w the war and you have no argument in defense
Wed Jun 21 23:53:17 CDT 2006
and the reason why debaters should restart their discussion of the
resolution and suppress their complicity with the war is?
can you formulate an argument in defense other than the provision of cause
censorship and war are good.
the resolution is worthy of discussion with a murder being committed in the
you have 3 great positions so far if you could only formulate them into an
let me help you. you need to say that mass murder is not happening in iraq
and that the resistance is in its last throes with imminent US victory and
that debaters are bureaucratic administrators removed from responsibility
for the policies that the system generates. you make the argument and then
you provide some reasons to back it up and then you are doing something
besides whining like a chickenshit little boy who is making the case for the
resolution look bad because his little boy case has no argument for it.
you could even get historical and claim that mass atrocities with stuff like
napalm didn't happen in vietnam and that would get you on the ballot for
prime minister of iran and bar you from the attendance of world cup football
can anyone in the "dabait" community make a public defense of their
prescribed activities during a war that involves mass murder? proponents
of this war like the stubborn vietnam diehards are either naive or sick with
the combination possible. opponents of this war need to reconsider real
quick whether classroom discussion is a sufficient measure of opposition at
this stage with over 100,000 iraqis dead especially given that the main
purpose of their opposition at the tournaments is to win debate rounds and
use mass murder for competitive ends and not to actually end the murder no
matter how much emotion you can stir up in your speech for the cause.
also, the nefarious possibility looms that if withdrawal does not happen
quickly enough more wars could be started to nullify the possibility of any
end to war for decades and basically make any future debate about war a
total sideline show of irrelevance. how can you possibly accept the
framing of your supposed opposition to the war into the abstract confines of
a competitive game? do you really think that winning a debate round with
the argument that the iraq war is bad will have any effect on the war other
than a possible attitude change from an audience member? what risk is
involved in that? is debate research on the resolution time effective when
it is so consuming for most participants and directly trades off with
possible time put into organizing a sit in on the campus?
what is the primary reason to learn debating? i remember old quotes about
the prerequisite of debate for democracy to function. is democracy
functioning when the republican party 1) suppresses the ability of
journalists to obtain information in iraq through access restrictions,
leaking of misinformation and military cover ups, 2) thereby distorts the
possibility for a real debate about the war, and 3) steers the congressional
debate about the iraq war in the direction of party loyalty and OFF TOPIC
mobilization of fear relating the iraq war to 9/11 despite no correlation
ever proven between saddam and 9/11?
no democracy is not functioning and we are sliding down the slippery slope
toward a modified fascist government. the republican party loves that
debate is happening in classrooms at college tournaments in the milieu of
experts because they get to make the argument that they are not completely
100% suppressing debate and that the modicum of debate necessary for a
democracy to function is happening at those tournaments. at most, the
opponents of the war deliberately restricting their opposition to classroom
discussion are providing cover for an administration under assault for
suppressing public debate. the competitive focus skews debaters from
questioning the historical role of debate in society and they become locked
down into a world of blinders where the only debate they know is the one
previously defined for them.
i suggest that since we are in the midst of the first major war with mass
casaulties since vietnam that the terms and conditions for the possible
legitimacy of the competitive debate structure have been altered and those
who are truly advocates of debate will rethink what is happening and realize
that they are being directly insulted and ridiculed by the administration.
it is possible that major historical events will void the importance and
relevance of tournament debate. if this war is not one of those events,
then tournament debate is among the most successful cooption tactics ever
invented. your total attitude of business as usual implied in your request
that i shut up and the resolution talk recommence is a major factor in the
demise of your own activity.
the debate community desperately needs to find a strategy of self-defense.
i think that a public demand for the clarification of the terms and
conditions necessary for adequate debate in democracy is unavoidable. a
sit in is the best possible means for this demand because it further
reinforces the free speech demands of the debaters and reestablishes the
terms and conditions for adequate debate in democracy by rejecting the
the community has devolved into a sick state of abstraction where evidence
about the iraq war is more often viewed through the lens of its economic
value for possible sale then it is through the lens of the victims of
murder. planet debate and other evidence whores are normalizing a devil's
bargain that complements the republican strategy to extricate debate from
influence on public policy and transform the major function of debate into
numbing the perpetrators.
thank you and goodnight...
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee?
More information about the Mailman