[eDebate] Debaters who became policy makers
Wed Apr 18 22:09:53 CDT 2007
i larely accept your framework. however i largely dont think it is the
status quo framework.
i do think no matter what calm may exist in articles and edebate posts
there is a tendency in rounds to hyperbolize and mythologize the
impacts of national policy making paradigms.
the responses that i have received today indicate that your paradigm
is closer to the reality of where most people end up...
however the paradigm you suggest seems to indicate that resolutions
which did not only focus on usfg action would also accomodate the
learning that all citizens should have, ad while national and even
governmental issues are always important they should not be the sole
ground or soley accessed through ntiona policy change.
the mythical quality of the status quo is that the only good policy
debate can occur within the literature base of national policy
change..that some how in the hinterlands of other disciplines the gods
would not be as glorious and the feats of rhetorical bedazzlement some
how lacking their 'securitized'umph.
so why am i marginializing instead of working toward your definition
of policy maker? and why if national level policy making literature
is the perfect storm for debateability should we not criticaly
question the claims the create that debateability...i think sometimes
i have more faith in the community to find effective interesting
successful and educational debates from within in any good lit base
than others are then again...i dont have to give a a 2nr ever again,
so maybe that influnces. my thoughts
On 4/18/07, Ross K. Smith <smithr at wfu.edu> wrote:
> Stop the marginalizing, Ellis.
> First you say, "I have often heard about the mythical effects debate has
> in placing people in the policy making world..."
> Mythical? You assert from the outset that the effect is mythical. Nice.
> Just asking an innocent, honest question, eh?
> Then it gets worse, " . . . excluding ross's definition where we are all
> policy makers..."
> Why not just say "ignoring" or, better yet, "marginalizing" my entire
> argument. You call it a mere "definition" as if I simply posited it and
> it had no significance.
> Instead you demand a list of "celebrity" policy makers? Ones with "real"
> power? My whole point was that the real power that matters is with each
> of our daily responsibilities to ethically conduct ourselves. Debate
> about public policy is a method of teaching us skills to help us in that
> inevitable endeavor. Every time we diminish the opportunity to engage in
> that form of education we hurt the people who miss out. Every round.
> Every program that disappears.
> I recieved not a single quibble with my argument. (Fir reference, it is
> here: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2007-April/070516.html
> I put a lot of work into taking the earlier questions seriously.
> Of course, in the long run if the attacks on policy debate succeed we
> will have no names to give you. No names of anyone, "significant" or not
> who has been helped by the unique learning opportunity that is policy
> Meanwhile, check out Wes Clark. Wanna see what he is doing with his old
> school NDT policy debate experience? http://securingamerica.com/
> But again, and finally, what is the point of your quest for names and
> positions? My argument is that we would all be better off if all of our
> officials, elected and appointed, had rigorous policy debate training.
> God knows our current president had none.
> Ross K. Smith
> Debate Coach
> Wake Forest University
> 336-758-5268 (o)
> 336-251-2076 (cell)
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
More information about the Mailman