[eDebate] 2006 Debater's Choice Awards Results
Sun May 14 23:57:24 CDT 2006
Stop trying to get on Crossfire.
(1) I did not "miss" you argument about the authors publishing their
own bios. I actually agree with this idea. That was (a) neither the
original agreement nor (b) what was said in the DCA 1-6 email. Which,
(c) means that my perm is neither severence nor intrinsic. AK should
not take the fall, obvi. Individuals publishing their own work is
certainly a good thing, at no point have I or would I disagree.
(2) I actually get confused with the rest of your email. For those of
you keeping track at home, your original crit was that "Censorship is
technically done by governments," which I disagreed with. Hoe now
argues: "Censorship occurs at all levels all the time," which I am
pretty sure was my arg. So far so good.
(3) "Sparked a discussion" arg: God forbid I that argued for more
discussion about gender discrimination in college debate. Mybust.
Okay that's is not fair. Hoe's argument is good, and gets to the
heart of all censorship debates. It is of my opinion that what was
publicly stated should not be censored. The fact that the authors
admit that it was a lie seems to me to be a reason why people should
not like the authors' work, not why posts should be censored (or
removed). More importantly, I think the perm solves this, so it may
not be important to argue.
(4) Hoe writes: "You are certainly right that this should not effect
the bios that are not potentially damaging..." The original argument,
and again, I want to be specific about this, was that self-censoring
is an indication that the rest of the bios are WORSE that what we
have seen, which is (a) real bad and (b) very worthy of a public
discussion. But again, perm solves.
(5) I am not nor do I need to defend the idea of publishing
inflammatory material for the purpose of discussion. I thought that I
made this clear in the previous email. Not my job. This exchange has
been important and is thus not a warrant for a blanket no bio policy
(this is not to trivialize those that have been outed, hurt, etc --
rather, I think it's better to call people out publicly than
encourage private ideological discourse to ferment).
(6) This discussion has been going on for a decade arg: Maybe, I
don't think that THIS discussion has, but I can't really say.
Censorship, especially self-censorship, has never resolved social
stigmatization or prejudice, at least historically speaking. So I say
let us have a convo.
(7) I did not give warrants for my "discussion good" arg. True. I got
some cites though.
Re: [eDebate] 2006 Debater's Choice Awards Results
From: Josh Hoe (jbhdb8 at gmail.com)
Date: Sun May 14 2006 - 23:40:22 EDT
> My point was that any DCA author could still post those bios. You
> seemed to
> miss that one.
> You make the comment that it is not: a smart, productive, or
> appropriate way
> of proceeding. But make no arguments for why that is true.
> Your next point about how good it was that those people were outed
> publically because it sparked a discussion is pretty weak in that
> its a
> discussion all of us have had for a decade. Not sure those peoples
> pain is
> worth your discussion. Especially when the authors admit they lied
> much of it. Is this really your argument?
> Censorship occurs at all levels all the time - it is illegal when
> there is
> something valuable contained in the utterances that were/are
> censored. You
> are certainly right that this should not effect the bios that are not
> potentially damaging....but what if the next one was just as bad or
> worse....should DCA post it anyway so that there can be more
More information about the Mailman