[eDebate] [CEDA-L] The costs of a game, part 1: An unethical, amoral center

Ede Warner ewarner
Fri Nov 16 22:22:58 CST 2007

at:  The conservative view of racism
We've covered this ground in the past Duane, but let's try in again. 
Perhaps your critical thinking skills have improved as a result of your
participation in the colorblind, fair debate you are defending.  Your
examples below are looking for intent to define racism.  That is not
what I'm talking about.  If that means you can't take my claims
seriously, so be it.  The fact that an institution today treats everyone
the same, doesn't mean that everyone is treated fairly, if the same
institution created earlier inequalities just before starting to treat
everyone the same.
You have two kids.  For grades 1-5 you lock one in the basement.  Then
in 6th grade you put them both in school.  Do you think the court will
say, "hey they are equal, they are both in school."  I so tired of this
ignorant, simplistic approach to race.  
If I ask you why the disparities created during segregation discussed
in recent posts, which all are exactly like your examples below, impact
how Black students must compete, even if other Black students choose to
compete that way, I suspect you'll babble about how history is
irrelevant. But because your critical thinking and research skills
selectively examine the nature and history of the problem (which I
suspect you do for any topic as a coach), doesn't make your righteous
indignation a better substitute for the lack of objective investigation
that you must engage in to come to your shallow conclusions.  So let's
here your answer.  My first question:  given that fast technical debate
began during segregation, and that created an unjust privilege for the
group creating the game, why should we not examine that history before
discussing the "fairness" you believe exists today?
at: I'm a victim
As far as your language of being the victim, let's talk.  I'm not a
victim.  I have been blessed with the opportunities and abilities that
allowed me to overcome any vestiges of the race conscious discrimination
called slavery and segregation.  But I recognize that I am the exception
and not the rule.  So when I fight and speak regarding race, I do so
recognizing the pain of racial stereotyping and offensive racial claims,
effects me a lot less than many others.  But when I talk about that pain
you label me a victim.  I don't debate, so the pain my students feel in
debates is what I speak to and advocate on their behalf.  I wonder does
your pastor say that you should fight on behalf of others less fortunate
than you?  Your rhetoric, instead of focusing on whether my claims about
offensiveness and insensitivity are "true", chooses to focus on me not
being grateful because I complain too much, and because you've voted for
teams that do things similar to what Louisville does, so be quiet and be
grateful and play the game.
The fact that minority policy impacts have a uniquely higher burden to
win in a world where the decision calculus privileges the largest impact
is ignored in your analysis.  The circular trap created is that minority
impacts can only win with the kritik, which requires an in round injury
to the student involved.  However, if I train students to make those
arguments, they are "playing the victim."  2nd questions for you Duane: 
In a straight policy framework, absent a create, how does a small
concrete empirical impact defeat a larger speculative one?  How easy is
it in the game of pretend debate to conjure up a big risk possibility
that really isn't?  How easy is it to divert any true notion of switch
side debate by having an agent discussion that makes the impact
invisible for the rest of the debate?  How easy is it to K or PIC that
impact out of existence?  If a really, really care about an issue, and I
want to debate it, let's look at the likelihood I'll get to debate it. 
First I need a topic that has some relationship to that interest.  Then
I am beholden to a topic committee and a vote to make sure my interests
don't get left on the cutting
 room floor.  Then if I get that far, I
still need to figure out how to make my minority interests strategically
beneficial.  And after all of that, it's likely that the game will
figure out a way to divert the issue entirely.  But when I do get to run
that case, and the negative chooses to engage, the arguments are usually
offensive right wing arguments that while they embrace popular opinion,
fail to muster any true academic merit: but work for a good spread dem
out strategy.  But you believe the world treats everyone in the game of
debate the same?
How about this?  My team reached quarters in spite of the hurdles they
had to overcome because they choose to try and be different in a
community that you call colorblind and I call culturally assimilative. 
We train folks to all be the same, and you what to wave a flag as if
that's a good thing.  You want to erase difference when I talk about but
celebrate it when you want to talk about it.  Why don't I have the same
right you have?  If you talk about the benefits of the community's
approach to race, why can't I talk about the problems?  Is that not true
policy making to discuss both?  
Has the possibility ever, ever crossed your mind that my experiences in
this community from trying to be different, might make me the most
qualified to come up with solutions for everyone regarding diversity in
debate?  Or can you only see my discussions of race as playing the
victim?  If you had a car break down, would you take it to the mechanic
that said his only mechanic experiences were on cars that already
worked, or would you take it to the person who talks about fixing broken
cars?  Why do my experiences, both good and bad, at being different,
especially when you say I've produced so much good?  Why do you assume
that I can't be balanced and assume that I'm bias?  What even makes you
qualified to make such a judgement?  Your limited experiences with
watching difference in debates?  Your ability to see a website with our
2004 record, with little first hand knowledge about what we do and how
others respond, outside of e-debate discussions?  What makes you more
qualified than me on issues of difference Duane?  I look forward to your


From: Duane Hyland <privethedge at yahoo.com>
To:Ede Warner <e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu>,
<scottelliott at grandecom.net>, <CEDA-L at ndtceda.com>,
<edebate at ndtceda.com>
Date: 11/16/2007 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] The costs of a game, part 1:  An
unethical, amoral center
Hi, Dr. Warner I'd take your claims a whole lot more seriously if you
could produce the name of one tournament administrator who has denied
your team's admittance to their tournaments. I'd take your claims a lot
more seriously if you could show me one tournament that has decreed that
African American debaters will have  less prep time their white or Asian
counterparts, if you could produce a single instance where your school
was charged more to enter a tournament than another, or if you could
show one instance of where your school's team was afforded less speaking
time than the other's. Since you probably can't - your claims that there
is somehow a racist conspiracy by THE MAN to hold y'all back are

When Louisville's football team takes the field they play football -
you know, forward passing, off-tackle runs, the blitz..all of that
stuff. And those games are governed by rules, and those rules are
enforced by referees who are well trained in the rules of the game. Why
in the name of God would you want your debaters to be judged by people
not familiar with the activity or the rules? As an academic, wouldn't
you want your teams judged by the very best judges, under the very best
conditions? I mean  what if your department hired someone off the
street, with no academic credentials, to teach Comm Theory - wouldn't
you be a bit resentful - I don't think you'd want your students, who you
obviously love and esteem, exposed to anything less than a quality
educator - why expo
se them to anything less than a quality judge?

I don't get you. I respect your work - and I've voted for numerous high
school teams running the style of debate you've created - because I
think debate is a contest of arguments and you vote for the best
argument in the round...but I don't get how you think you're the victim
some form of oppression - if memory serves correctly you had a team in
the quarter-finals of the NDT a few years ago - now, I guess you could
say that since that team didn't win the NDT there's a conspiracy against
you and your team - but I would say that perhaps you should spend some
time thinking about all the coaches in this nation who coach and who
never have a team get that far - heck, who never get a team to the NDT -
then maybe you'd see that you've been blessed not mistreated. My pastor
always tells me that when you think the world is against you - look
around and concentrate on what you've been blessed with, then the rest
of it won't matter so much - maybe you should try it.


"You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson"
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were
of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing
that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind

If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of
exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great
a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth,
produced by  its collision with error." John S. Mill
"Have a Cluckity, Cluck, Cluck Day"

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. (
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ) 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071116/806b8f6f/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list