[eDebate] On Fidelity and the Debate Community
Mon Aug 4 13:41:56 CDT 2008
I am reading this, and I am really just not getting what you are saying
(although this is the part of this discussion I am interested in). I was
not present at the round either, and thus I also have limited context in
which to draw conclusions about the video. However, it seems your position
in your email is that debate is a family and that people should be forgiven
for their transgressions in a family. At least, I think that is what you
But parts of your email really bother me. For instance:
(A) You mention that a person is being vilified, even though that person
has devoted much of their life to the community. Does a track record of
being a productive member of society excuse bad/inappropriate actions?
(B) Also, you state "Who knows if what happened following the quarters of
CEDA was reasonable or inappropriate on either side". Really? I can't see
how anyone could not know that the actions in that video were unreasonable
and inappropriate no matter what the discussion was.
(C) You state that it is "cruel and antithetical to anything this debate
community has ever stood for" to call for someone's termination. Let's
assume that hiring/firing decisions are not the responsibility of the debate
community (because they aren't). Would it be cruel and wrong to simply send
the link to the video to the offending persons department chair so that the
appropriate person could make that decision? What if that link were sent
with no explanation/no slant/no nothing?
(D) Finally, you mention that we should remember "actions about our
community have very radical effects on someone's livelihood and that of
their family". 1. Do you think that level of consideration was being
exercised by the offending people in the video? and 2. If negative things
effects were to be had on that person's livelihood and/or family, is not the
offender in that situation the one who should bear the blame?
I don't plan to forward links or anything like that, that is not what I am
saying. But at one of the schools I attended, there was a hazing
incident/scandal with our football team. The logic in your email seems to
indicate that in a close knit situation like that, there should have been
understanding, and that the players who were doing the hazing should not
have been identified/their actions brought to light because (a) they were
valuable to the team and had a momentary lack of judgment and (b) because it
could have ruined their acadmic/athletic careers. Is that right?
P.S. Some synonyms for Fidelity: Faithfulness; honesty; integrity; faith;
loyalty. While loyalty "may" fit what you are sayi
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Brent Culpepper
<brentonculpepper at gmail.com>wrote:
> We were not present during the quarters of CEDA and only have the limited
> context of this discussion on edebate and the video itself from which to
> draw conclusions. That being said, we feel like there is one very real
> underlying issue that has gotten lost in this discussion. One of the best
> parts about the debate community is that, theoretically, we should be able
> to have a passionate, heated discussion about whatever we believe but
> afterwards be able to go have a drink with someone whom we viscerally
> disagree. The idea that almost all the commentary following this episode has
> largely centered around blame induced personal attacks is disturbing.
> Ironically, the argument that is typically made against framework is
> exclusion, but it is no different here where instead of engaging an
> identified problem of whether or not strikes are legitimate argumentative
> ground, this discussion has chosen to vilify a person who has devoted much
> of their life to this community. A person who quite frankly ushered in a
> style of debate that makes the quarters of CEDA (debate round, not
> post-round) possible.
> Who knows if what happened following the quarters of CEDA was reasonable or
> inappropriate on either side, but POSTING that we should encourage the
> community to write to universities seeking someone's termination is cruel
> and antithetical to anything this debate community has ever stood for.
> Moreover, the idea that someone would garner enjoyment or thrill from this
> conflict is disheartening. Given some of the behavior the debate community
> finds acceptable or at a minimum forgivable, we find it strange that this is
> the instance that starts the battle cries for the end to someone's presence
> in the community.
> We encourage everyone to put down your arguments about debate for just one
> moment and realize that, at times, actions about our community have very
> radical effects on someone's livelihood and that of their family.
> Brent Culpepper & Michael Greenstein
> P.S. The authors do not consent to this being used as evidence to beat
> policy debaters.
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman