[eDebate] To be blunt
Tue Jul 17 17:14:49 CDT 2007
> Matt's proposal fails. I have nothing but the highest amount of > respect for the cooperative and the endless amount of time and energy > Matt puts into it, but the cooperative has not produced one program > that has been successful in the elitist structure that would not have > been successful anyway.
I simply disagree, and at the risk of sounding arrogant, I think I know more about the relationship of our project to those programs. Send some kids out here and see for yourself.
I appreciate material differences (obviously), but if they are as insurmountable as you say they are, they'll exist and warp the debate community regardless of the resolution. You can't "overdetermine" those differences in one part of your argument and then "overdetermine" the role of resolutional wording in another.
I even appreciate arguments about improving the topic process and the wording of resolutions, but the link argument is important: If programs don't leave because of the resolution, if they leave because of material difference, and that difference remains after the topic process is improved, what have we accomplished? I'll say again that I'm all for novice resolutions and/or better open topics and/or whatever will improve a process so many people are clearly upset about, but I think the ebb and flow of programs into and out of leagues will remain unchanged.
I'll let others address the argument that the merger has to end. The Wyoming program has always already been "merged," as Callaway and his alumni will tell you. Same goes for the school I debated for (Weber) and every school I've coached at.
stannard of the dangling prepositions
Local listings, incredible imagery, and driving directions - all in one place! Find it!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman