[eDebate] Fwd: "GOD" judges D Love vs M "Hate" Korcok
Wed Apr 9 22:18:40 CDT 2008
Yo, We at war
We at war with terrorism, racism, and most of all we at war with
God show me the way because the Devil trying to break me down
(Jesus Walks with me) with me, with me, with me [fades]
Overview on GOD's Judging Philosophy:
I choose to believe, like many Black folks, that my magical buddy as
Korcok refers to God, exists inside of me, not somewhere else. My
prayers are to a God that exists inside me, for a purpose: to help me
cope with oppressors that use abstract theories like colorblindness to
beat the shit out of Black folks. People standing on truth and justice
and their belief in the certainty of their positions to the extent that
they are unwilling and incapable of hearing experiences that run counter
to their belief systems.
I believe that God, exists inside me, like a townhouse, with the
tenants of love, empathy, and compassion. As such, proof that God
exists is pretty easy to find...sit in front of the White Castle on the
corner of Preston Highway and Outer Loop Drive in Louisville about
midnight and wait for the car with the DEBATE license tags...And he
looks a lot better than Alyanis Morrisette as GOD too! (reference to
movie DOGMA Mike)
And while you spend your time Korcok attacking those with different
beliefs, I spend my time wondering why you are incapable of love and
compassion, incapable of differentiating between attacks on your
personhood, your intellect, and your hubris from expressions and calls
for ending pain and suffering, especially when those calls exist in
manifestations that challenge your experience of what YOU think they
should look like (caps intended). Why aren't the tenants living in your
house, Mike? Is it your privilege, your debate training, and/or your
hubris? Wait, there is a threesome lusting together there, huh? Cue
I ain't here to argue about his facial features
Or here to convert atheists into believers
I'm just trying to say the way school need teachers
The way Kathie Lee needed Regis that's the way I need Jesus
So let's review before this epic throwdown. I, Ede Warner, "aka Doc
aka 2 Sweet aka Burch's boy" am GOD! I use my personal relationship
with and as God to organize my critical thoughts (logos), to contemplate
where and how I need to exist ethically in the world today (ethos), and
to pray for the love, compassion, and empathy I need to balance the
hate, anger, and pain that I feel (pathos). Although it's hard today
Mike, I love you.
God show me the way because the devil trying to break me down
The only thing that that I pray is that my feet don't fail me now
And I don't thing there's nothing I can do now to right my wrongs
(Jesus walks with me... fades)
I want to talk to God but I'm afraid because we ain't spoke in so long
ON TO THE DEBATE!!!! Ding, ding, ding...And in this corner, fresh off
his CEDA National Championship, it's D. Love!!!!! And in the other
corner, Mike "Bitter that I only got to the CEDA semis, but I'm smarter
than all y'all mo'fo's" Korcok aka "I thought we struck GOD" aka Michael
Judging this US Championship for the Soul of Policy Debate --- Oh shit,
GOD! aka Doc aka all those names above. Gary Larsen just posted that
Korcok forgot to turn his pref sheet in...oops, who knew?
The three round battle royale with cheese begins:
Round 1 Ethos-
D.Love - Discussed issues related to his social location. Gave several
examples, three I believe, specific to the debate community. Made it
clear that he speaks about folks he is comfortable with and has
experiences with. Limits his area of credibility to his social
location. Love establishes his ethos by relating who he is to the
context of the oppression that he challenges through his advocacy.
M. "Hate" Korcok- Discusses the number of social issues he participates
and their equal importance to D. Love's one issue. Implied is the "more
is better standard" as Korcok loo
ks for ethos in the magnitude of his
fight. Korcok is general regarding the process of his challenge of the
system, only saying I teach critical thinking to lots of students. Is
that critical thinking, solely "debate" or is it other things as well.
And why are those other things competitive with debate? Korcok goes for
the integrity of his congratulations to Andy, which he makes
conditionally, with backhanded compliments. Finally, Korcok attempts to
prove that Doc aka God lacks integrity because his criticism of Korcok
lacks accuracy in the minute details, a debate between Warner's claim of
"doing nothing" versus the truth of the arrogant, unproven claim, that
he doesn't do "as much as me." The big picture tone of his post is that
he is superior to D. Love in challenging oppression because he
recognizes the need for critical thought in a variety of places, not
just racial justice.
Winner - D. Love who understands the importance of speaking within his
social location, kept his credibility limited to his debate experience,
and contrary to wild, unfounded assertions of labeling people racists,
in fact, makes no ad hom's compared to the jabs and hubris of Korcok.
Korcok lacks any credibility by not explicating his method of teaching
critical thinking, and ignoring the context of focusing on racism as it
relates to debate, but trying to outgunn it with more and bigger
impacts. But God's a little to slick for that. D.Love - 1, Korcok -
M. "Hate" Korcok - Has no idea what this is, why it's important, never
been trained in it, and could care less about teaching it in his view of
critical thinking or debate. Hell, "arrogance and hubris is bliss" is
his motto. "Being an asshole is next to Godliness!" is the poster that
sits above his throne as King liberator of the oppressed!
D.Love- Tells powerful stories that make you think, but more
importantly make you feel. God's only criticism is that he didn't read
the Rashad Evans evidence which is on fire about how debate doesn't
teach people how to feel, and without that empathy, policy construction
lacks compassion, fuels alienation and frustration, and is selfish. Oh
and it doesn't work either because we don't share different experiences
on a common topic, the only way to produce the best evidence during
Winner - D. Love. Imagine the remake of the Great Debaters. At the
end, when the lynching story is told to disprove the commonly held white
belief that Civil Disobedience is never justified, and a room full of
white judges and audience members, feeling the power of the story, are
persuaded to reconsider their position, when Korcok stands up and yells,
"Your talking about lynchings in Texas fool, we are at Harvard! No
challenging law in these parts!" White folks converge and beat his ass
to death to end the movie. Dramatic, huh.
D. Love - Makes a fairly simple logical claim: my courage to speak
about my experiences--which include my research, my lived occurrences,
and my ability to see relationships to put the two together--are an
invitation for the community to rethink their personal experiences as it
relates to debate.
M. Korcok - I don't owe you my experiences; I have different and more
experiences; and Your experiences don't add up to what you think they
do. Oh, and I use a lot of big words that God doesn't understand too!
Korcok after the debate in the hallway, "This is a crush."
Winner- Your right. It's a 3-0 decision for D. Love, even without the
Evans evidence. And to think if Korcok added Lechtruck and Love added
Cooper, this could have really got ugly. Cue the music before Korcok
starts stabbing GOD. In the words of the great philosopher, Smokey aka
Chris Tucker, "Korcok, you got knocked the f*** out!"
I walk through the valley of the shadow of death is
Top floor the view alone will leave you breathless Uhhhh!
Try to catch it Uhhhh! It's kinda hard
Getting choked by the detectives yeah yeah now check the method
They be asking us q
uestions, harass and arrest us
Saying "we eat pieces of shit like you for breakfast"
Huh? Y'all eat pieces of shit? What's the basis?
We ain't going nowhere but got suits and cases
GOD HAS SPOKEN!!!! Oh, and God is never in the way...
From: Michael Korcok <mmk_savant at hotmail.com>
To:"edebate at ndtceda.com" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Date: 4/9/2008 05:17 PM
Subject: [eDebate] ans Warner
Mr. Love asked a question. I answered it conscientiously.
No one wants you to go away, Ede: just get out of the way.
I did not "attack" him. To the contrary, I offered a couple of
invitations for co-participation, expressed my view that his concerns
were important, and offered my public CONGRATULATIONS for winning CEDA
Nationals. I didn't do any of those things unreservedly or
unconditionally, however, nor will I.
Ede Warner has chosen to use my good-faith participation in a dialog
which was solicited by Mr. Love as an opportunity for dishonest
demagoguery. Ede, the reason almost no one will engage you in
discussions of race is because you will not do so honestly. Here is an
example of what I mean:
I never wrote nor intimated that Mr. Love did "nothing." Nor did I
suggest that he did "little" or "not enough." The closest I came to
such a sentiment was:
"Taken together, I do more than my fair share to "challenge the forms
of domination and oppression." I don't do as much as some, of course,
but I do more than YOU do. I know that's confrontational, but YOU
capitalized the YOU first."
Ede's response was to create an effigy of my point which he proceeded
to beat with a stick:
"When you assume that Dayvon does nothing..." and
"Dayvon chose to speak, is that doing something?" and
"Do you assume that sharing experiences is doing nothing?" and
"What about debating about things that are important to you, is that
Ede Warner's response was dishonest. Rather than addressing my point,
that I do more than my fair share, not as much as some, but MORE than
Mr. Love, he set up a strawman and went to town.
I think that's because Mr. Warner refuses to acknowledge that many
persons DO act against domination and oppression in this activity.
Rather than acknowledge that what I do has merit and certainly before he
concedes that what I do is even MORE than what Mr. Love does, Ede Warner
claims that I wrote that Mr. Love does NOTHING.
I wrote that one way I challenge domination and oppression is that I
challenge religiosity. I point out that religious belief often rests on
a worldview which depends on believing in the reality of imaginary
magical buddies. That initial deception, scam, and catastrophic failure
of intellect is a foundational move underlaying domination and
The God-King, the Holy Emperor, the Tribal Witchdoctor, the Sacred
Church, the Imam, the Right Reverend, and the High Father all sit in the
center of the worst dominations and oppressions. Historically they are
the foundational dominations and contemporaneously they are infused in
many other oppressions. That is because they connive to put into a
human mind the idea that the imaginary magical buddy has chosen some to
rule, guide, teach, and decide. Racism and religiosity overlap each
other, just as religiosity overlaps heteronormativity, sexism and
patriarchy, and classism.
Ede Warner's answer is to excuse religiosity. He writes:
"That's funny Mike. My thing is race AND religion. You see I
understand how those vested in slavery and segregation used religion as
a coping mechanism for overcoming their ills."
I see. Just so you understand: your "religion good" argument is, for
me, on a par with "racism good".
It comes to this: the local con artists who acquired power and wealth
by scamming the oppressed into believing in an imaginary magical buddy
and his imaginary magical heaven did a good thing.
and Ede writes:
"While I'm sure you have a superior alternative to suggest of what they
hould have done", or what damage their focus on religion creates for
Blacks today in their quest to address the legacy of slavery and
segregation, I wonder what evidence grounds your beliefs. Or perhaps
your challenge of religion operates ignorant of any of these experiences
or uses for religion."
I tend to avoid the consequentialist fallacy: I don't much care either
way whether belief in an imaginary magical buddy has good or bad
consequences. It is enough for me that imaginary magical buddies don't
exist. I am simple that way: you shouldn't believe that which is not
so. The next step is pretty simple too: people who convince others to
believe that which is false are doing so to dominate and oppress. Those
who believe fervently in imaginary magical buddies have been thoroughly
suborned by memes. That is bad quite apart from questions of whether
they feel good about it or whether we can use them to move heavy objects
around for us. Religiosity is a lot like ideology that way.
and Ede writes:
"Why do you believe that Dayvon's thing is his only thing? Why do you
believe that he too doesn't think about religion as well? Because he
talked to you about race? So you could in turn talk to him about
I don't think or believe any of those. I merely argued that his
"thing" is racism while my "thing" is religion. I did not thus imply
that it's either his or my only concern or that he and I don't think
about anything else.
That part was 1 of 4 ways that I challenge domination and oppression.
Which is what Mr. Love asked folks to list for him.
1. evidence and reasoning to challenge ideology
3. valuing individual persons rather than cohorts
4. Community College.
Ede interrogates: "What evidence do you use to assess the
effectiveness of the things that you do to challenge oppression? Your
beliefs? Study? None?"
The question was about what actions I take to challenge domination and
oppression. I answered about what I do.
I am ultimately unsure of how effective those are, but that wasn't the
I have evidence that I am, in fact, an effective teacher and advocate.
I teach 300 community college students a year. Funny that you asked but
I just had my picture taken for a "Student Success" dinner because a
student of mine selected me as contributing to her success. In any
case, I do know that I have as much evidence for my effectiveness as you
do for yours.
I mean... Ede... you have been in the challenging racism in debate
business for a while now... Towson CL just won CEDA Nationals by making
the argument that you have thus far utterly failed...
**** Serving Notice
Ede rants away:
"Dayvon, a 22 year old young man whose debate skills just won a
national championship, will not have this edebate fight alone. No more
attacks, criticisms, or challenges without being called out for the
hypocrisy that follows each and every one of you that do so. This is
called collective action, something your experiences may or may not
understand. His cap's are pain and frustration with a system that
people are complicit in, yours are attacks on his courageous choice to
1) share his experiences; 2) share his pain with an community that lacks
any compassion to try and understand it because they are so caught up in
defending the system by making illogical attacks that ignore the fact
that you both are doing the exact same thing. The only difference is
that you won't respect want he is doing, nor will you answer his
question. Why? Because the true answer is very, very ugly and ceding
to it requires change, and you have demonstrated change is something you
aren't interested in. So keep attacking and attempting to dismiss his
credibility through the fallacy of authority, and maybe he will go away.
WE are not going away Mike."
Yeesh. Dishonest demagoguery. Mr. Love asked what WE did to challenge
domination and oppression. I thought it an honest question and I
chance in giving an honest answer. Then you showed up to do your thing.
Not go away, just get out of the way.
Pack up or back up?use SkyDrive to transfer files or keep extra copies.
Learn how. (
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman