[eDebate] ans Warner

Ede Warner ewarner
Wed Nov 7 15:08:32 CST 2007


Scott,
 
It seems we agree on most everything than I guess, except for your claim essentializing comments about "performance debate".  Look, I'm not sure when or what you've seen Louisville do in debates, nor do I know what you mean by the term performance debate, but let's be clear: what we do can be taken to any administrator at any time and I can feel confident that it won't hurt support for our program.  That is action and not just "complaining about diversity in debate."
 
Since you think all we do is complain about the lack of diversity in debates, let me throw you a few bullets:
 
I suspect we are currently one, if not the only, team in the country that uses Affirmative Action judging to prefer our judges.  Do you know of any others?
I suspect we there are few current teams with more diversity, in terms of debate style relative to the broad population and in terms of demographics.
I still haven't defended the types of performance you are critical of and you can't explain why Louisville debate creates those types of performances.
Louisville debaters asked opponents to substitute their preferred judges for lay judges two years ago.  Not sure anyone else has.
We have more competitive sacrifices in the interest of diversity than anyone in this community: bar none.  
While we haven't consistently supported regional debate as much as I would like, we have more than most squads in this country.  And our lack of support has little to do with lack of interest since many of our competitive sacrifices have kept our program in constant flux and instability over the last couple of years.
Of course, all of this ignores that I made a choice to try something that created an entirely NEW population of students in this activity, who have spent careers dedicated to challenging some of the things in rounds that you claim I should be supporting...
So when you say that I should "follow your lead", I ask?  What have you done that's worthy of my support of your leadership Scott?  From where I sit, all you do is run your mouth on edebate and complain that Louisiana doesn't have any programs.  Anything else?
 
Stop being ignorant and then I might respect what you have to say,  And yes, I find your flippant insults wrongheaded AND personal.
 
Ede
>>> 

From: <scottelliott at grandecom.net>
To:<edebate at ndtceda.com>
Date: 11/7/2007 1:15 PM
Subject: [eDebate]  ans Warner
Ede, why do you think I am mounting some type of personal attack. I am not
trying to discredit you. I am trying to point out some factual issues.

I agree with you that the speedy nature and over-reliance on masses of
"evidence" led to and continues to lead to the decline of CEDA debate.

However, I do not think your "project," and debate as performance art is going
to stem the decline or bring schools back into the fold.

Lay judges and "experts in the field" are fine with me. I had to adapt to my
judges all the time when I was a debater. I have been pretty consistent in my
criticism that MPJ creates the insularity you speak of. This shift occurred
primarily after, and because of, the merger between NDT and CEDA.

I have some very simple and concrete proposals that I do not think are
contridictory and I have advocated for years:

1) focus on regional debate rather then the national mega-tournament death march
to the NDT

2) Topics that are narrower. Or, minimally, topics that constitute a coherent
declarative sentence. LOL

3) Semester long topics

4) Topicality as a voting issue.

Example: I read the case outline of SFSU. I even went and read the "I was a sex
slave for the Taliban" article they cite. [Very nice, I am sure administrators
would love to read that during budget time.] I don't think they offer a
security guarantee or forieng assistance. And, they should lose, even if they
break me of my heteronormativity through their discourse. Making T a voter
would go a long way toward reigning in those who believe that shoving bullwhips
up their ass is the only way to explain sadomasochism's critique of patriarchy.

5) getting rid of mpj


Almost everyone of these issues arose immediately prior to or as a consequence
of the NDT/CEDA merger Ede. Frankly I was shocked to see the extent to which
policy debate has died when I returned to coaching. I went off on the CEDA
hierarchy because tournaments were not posted in time to make travel
arrangements--only to find out there WERE NO TOURNAMENTS. Look at the Spring
Schedule. After January, there is virtually nothing other than NDT Districts
and a littany of "National Championships."

If you truly support diviersity--which I believe you do--then I am at a loss as
to why you do not join me in supporting these changes. But simply stating on
e-debate or having your students claim in debate rounds that debate is not
diverse is not enough. There are real changes that can be made to the structure
of CEDA (I give no hope for NDT) that would make the world of debate a better
and more diverse place.

Scott





_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com 
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071107/0cad0d44/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list