[eDebate] WTF is a Meagher? asnwer within
Tue Apr 29 19:36:33 CDT 2008
I find your post amusing and your title ignorant. Also, in a way your post is
somewhat sad, because you can?t actually engage in what makes the activity so
useful, which is an open dialogue. This is the reason that we will
continue to have issues, because just like the chat, whoever Jayhawk is ( which
is clearly doing damage for and to the KU squad) refuses to engage into the
argument and instead wants to become an instigator of issues. Attempting
to ?be funny? or ?defend my friends? who clearly don?t need your defense, as
they were able to get to the final round without you?btw congrats to the KU
squad from a) someone who isn?t afraid to sign their name and b) someone who
was had many long ago battles with talented Jayhawks and their tricky and smart coaching staff, led by S. "sweet jumper, nothing but the bottom of the net" Harris) take away from the post
of why we should have reparations and whether or not the critical learning that
is happening in the various snippets of the evidence that is read in the rounds
is actually beneficial.
This brings me to one of my favorite movies and a discussion
between Woody and Wesley in White Men can?t Jump?
Deane: Look man, you can listen to Jimi but you can't hear him. There's
a difference man. Just because you're listening to him doesn't mean you're hearing
You may be listening to Tom, but you didn?t stop to hear
what he was putting down. I for one, think that a sincere apology is the
first step to understanding. Upon my first reading, I thought that it was
written with a little hyperbole. He apologized and clarified his
statements. To that, a bigger question presents itself? What is taking
something out of context mean? Would you take offense to someone saying
that the team has set up a straw man fallacy? If so, then you why
wouldn?t you also be okay with calling something out of context? Is there
a difference in the intentional out of context, where the writer (author of the
block) misrepresents something, and the accidental, I read a card that is
disproven later ( Lewis comes to mind) or is refuted later in the book?
Having not seen the round, but spurred to reconnect
with a part of my graduate work, I researched the cards that are
discussed. Jayhawk, can you say the same? It?s not relevant what my
conclusions/thoughts are, but did you go back and look at the two works side by
side? I did, and I bet you did not.
I didn?t know that the quals to post in this forum where
that you had to be a national champion, from a national championship caliber
program ( which KU certainly is) or have college debate experience. I
would respectfully ask that you de-cloak and reveal who you are. I don?t
expect you to, because you would have done so in the beginning. I don?t think
that you would have the quals to speak here by your own rigorous standards. ( I
don?t either, since I didn?t win the NDT (I won a whopping 5 rounds in two
years) or CEDA Nationals)
I know what a Meagher is? he is a man who is looking to
improve the activity that your posting makes worse. He is a man that was an
outstanding high school debater that any program would have been thrilled to
have and I wish that he was a debater for me in college. Far too many
people make the choice to focus only on debate and leave the academics for
last. Just like sports, we have too many people who exhaust their
eligibility, but don?t leave with a degree. School is not for everyone
and I totally support that as well. As someone who took almost six years
to finish my college education (for a lot of the same reasons that hinder
others, transferring, drop out for a year, playing intercollegiate sports)
insinuating that someone couldn?t cut it is pathetic. Tom will be MUCH
better served in life (and ready to make a difference as a coach/administrator)
by eschewing the trappings of the race for the Copeland, for the riches of the
books. Some people can balance both and be awesome at both. There
are too many of them to mention here, ( we all know the ones) but I applaud the
choice he made, as it seems right for him.
Thanks Jayhawk, your post inspired me to get an edebate
account and not sit on the sidelines, while you spout ignorance.
Director of Debate
St. Vincent De Paul HS/Santa Clara University
(although soon to be moving down to Harker?who funny enough
are also Jayhawks, I think)
Hilarity ensues below?
I am not on the KU team or coaching staff, but found the
Meager critique of KU's arguments bothersome.
Let get me this straight. A high school debater watched the CEDA finals online
and decides he will critique the final round in order to improve the quality of
research in college debate. Okay.
Former high school debater, now college graduate and high
Fascinating. Has the the goal of openness so blinded the community that they
are compelled to engage such drivel. No academic thinks their work is being
accurately represented when ti is reduced to cards and then used as a debate
argument. And while the discussion interesting with the people who actually do
the work, it is inane and pointless when it involves folks who fancy themselves
experts on the work of other people.
This is where you seemingly make his argument, plus make
an argument for a different style of debate that is LESS dependent on the ivory
tower of academia and more so to the ability of the debaters themselves to
engage in arguments from the heart. I totally agree? we need to KILL OFF
debate as we know it.
The tone and content of the post stinks of the typical early 20-something kid who
thinks he could have been a national champion debater if only he hadn't been
forced out of the activity by mean coaches and a desire to do something
meaningful with his life. Like Jesus, he merely seeks to offer some helpful
guidance to those in the activity who do not have the benefit of his immense
Hmmm? do you read that in any of the posts? I
missed that point where he waxes poetically about missing the NDT, because the
clock stuck twelve. And by the way, he could have been a national champion
level debater IF he had competed. Are you sure you were not one of his
many high school victims? Difficult choices were made and he made
them. I guess regrets are a bad thing. I regret that I read your
post, but then it lead me to sign up for edebate, so some good can come out of
S#@t. You also seem like the type who pushed away coaching to do it your
way, albeit unsuccessfully? that?s why you hide under the veil of
Mr. Meager, you are not qualified to be in the final round of a national
tournament, let alone judge such a debate. I know that judging qualifications
is old-school and hierarchical., but could care less.
I am dying to hear what your
standards are for judging the final round of CEDA or the NDT. What are
the qualifications? Should it be only former champions and final round
participants? So, I bet that blacks and women are not qualified either? In the
hood, we play a game called big bank take little bank. The rules are
quite simple. Pull out your stack and the biggest one keeps the smaller
one. Dying to see your stack. I guess that I am willing to wager someone
who read the text, versus someone who hasn?t. You no read, he read
good?game, set, match.
While you may owed the KU team an apology, whether such an apology was ever
provided is ultimately of no more consequence than whether or not my 6 year old
apologized to KU because he laughed at the way they looked when he saw the
online footage. Both his laughter and your deep thoughts are the stuff of
unqualified outsiders who are in no position to evaluate the strategic and
argumentative decisions made by successful college debaters and their coaches.
First, you reproduced? Wow, science is a powerful
tool. Didn?t think they had a viable workaround for the cowardice
gene. Hopefully, they got your wife/life-partner/baby?s mama
intelligence, because I don?t think that you are working with that much.
Second, your child (boy/girl/self identification) is only
an outsider, because you make them. I have seen so many children of people
involved in debate get into debate at a young age. Part of the problem is
in your post, all kidding aside ( I actually mean that I am kidding about the
comments about you, since I don?t know anything about you, other than you are a
coward) is that you have artificially set up this dichotomy between outsiders
and insiders. It?s like you didn?t watch the debate at all either. (at
least Tom watched it) Who determines who is qualified to post in the forum and
express thoughts about the round? Intellectually it might have been over
your head, but shut the hell up for the rest of us that are attempting or
understand what his point is.
Third, as Mick pointed out, it wasn?t that successful,
since they lost. But, the loss is not the point, it is are we using
evidence strategically, when we can use evidence to facilitate another
discussion about a myriad of things like privilege, race, gender etc?
Fourth, Monday morning QB sessions are happened
everywhere. This is food for thought for coaches and debaters to think about how to answer various arguments that come up during the round. This is nothing new, as this happens in programs everywhere.
As in, you got tag-teamed and broke off? I don?t get
In summation,The KU squad is pretty awesome, although I don't know them or Towson (who is equally as awesome and congrats), their coaching staffs are awesome, and the card(s) in question (in my opinion after actually reading both) are not supported by the body of literature of the author.
Clemente: Sometimes when you win, you really lose, and sometimes when
you lose, you really win, and sometimes when you win or lose, you actually tie,
and sometimes when you tie, you actually win or lose. Winning or losing is all
one organic mechanism, from which one extracts what one needs.
Express yourself wherever you are. Mobilize!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman