[eDebate] Malcolm jokes and then a serious Brown comment
Wed May 24 13:21:22 CDT 2006
This is beyond pathetic. The only reason to not support the Mavs is
because Bill Walton supports them. In Walton's defense, quoting a
sage mind in Detroit (I dare not even speak the name of evil
incarnate): "even the sun shines on a dog's...." well, yeah.
MG, the game has changed and I am sorry your anachronistic views of
basketball (shaped no doubt by the wonderful game that exists in KC,
including KU) do not allow you to see how the Mavs are a great team.
You have a rez suggestion, here is one even more limiting than yours,
resolved: the least incomprehensible thing Malcolm Gordon ever said
was his Chewbacca impression. Talk about affirmative side bias!
Seriously now, Brown v. Board. I am curious how this debate would go
down if specifically named in the resolution. I have no problem with
crafting a resolution that permits Brown debates, but I am wary of
what seem to be calls for a res that calls for Brown debates. While
Ede warns us to diminsh the importance of uniqueness and ground
concerns in the crafting process, this is a debate that is old hat
and as yet unresolved except to say most (the most vocal members?) of
the community disagrees with Ede. Dave's email is, I think, quite
poignant here. While Brown is worthy of debate there is no room for
ground/uniqueness in these debates as the Brown decision has been
reversed over the past 50 years without explicit USSC action on Brown.
That last clause may be inaccurate as the USSC may have whittled
Brown away in the past 50 years, but the accuracy of that claim is
irrelevant. There is not room for the negative to test the reversal
of Brown except in a world of the 1950's where Brown has effects that
are divergent from that world. If Dave (others also hint at this) is
correct then there is no ability to test disadvantages and case turns
to overturning Brown. While there is still room for debate, it is
severely limited ground from the game as normal, which is why a res
allowing these debates can be beneficial, but one that calls for the
Brown debate seems problematic.
I think that is clear. If not, I can at least take solace knowing
that it is clearer than any of MG's little jokes. MG can take solace
in the Royals.....well, yeah.
On May 24, 2006, at 1:33 PM, Malcolm Gordon wrote:
> I promised I would stay on everyone's ass. It's been about a week
> now, and
> I'm still lacking significant input from several regions. Oh, and by
> several regions, I mean every district but D3. In fact, the only
> non D3
> debater who has expressed any interest in what the topic will be is
> whose comments were very helpful. It's fine if none of the
> debaters the
> read edebate care about the topic, at least I tried to get the
> involved. This counts as doing part of my job.
> now i can focus all of my efforts on crafting a resolution that
> makes all of
> Andy and i's china affs topical.
> I can see it now, resolved: entities should take action now
> THERE'S your
> aff flexibility.
> now, to spark some real discussion.
> Mavs fans posting on edebate? disgraceful. Your team is a
> disgrace to the
> sport. The Mavs are probably going to allow the Phoenix Suns make
> it to the
> finals. This is shameful. Learn to play defense. You have a 7 foot
> shooting guard. it's like watching Harris drop bombs over my fat,
> 5-7 ass.
> unfortunately, a 7 foot SG is ALL dirk is. no post game, no inside
> D, no
> rebouding skill (unless he's crashing boards because he's too lazy
> to play
> transition D). I must go now, but don't worry, I have plenty more
> why the Mavs suck and Dallas fans should give up.
> malcolm gordon
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
More information about the Mailman