[eDebate] Debaters who became policy makers

Ross K. Smith smithr
Wed Apr 18 22:45:25 CDT 2007

My original comment addressed the need to debate public policy. It is 

"Securitized" is a non sequiter and I said nothing about "national".

What meaning des "largely" have in your reply below?

On 4/18/2007 11:09 PM, Andy Ellis wrote:

> sir,
> 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
>> debate.
>> 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)
>> www.DebateScoop.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> eDebate mailing list
>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

Ross K. Smith
Debate Coach
Wake Forest University

336-758-5268 (o)
336-251-2076 (cell)


More information about the Mailman mailing list