[eDebate] Debaters who became policy makers

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Wed Apr 18 23:43:49 CDT 2007


national is a differentiation from your position and the status
quo..securitized is as well and often and impact to nationalsim...see
adam from tonight and will from  something recently...public policy is
good, neither i nor you i want r:andy should disetabismentaint in one
or more of the following places:policy debate...somewhere othe than
here...or in his head. i'm not frankly sure where i have recently
advocated topics about what individuals should do, though i would like
more of the ethical debates you and adam speak of.

what do you envision as non national public policy...? is there any of
it that you think is debateable?

On 4/18/07, Ross K. Smith <smithr at wfu.edu> wrote:
> My original comment addressed the need to debate public policy. It is
> public.
>
> "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)
>
> www.DebateScoop.org
>
>



More information about the Mailman mailing list