[eDebate] T, I am sorry

omar guevara oguevara
Mon Aug 4 12:32:23 CDT 2008


T.
 
I want to apologize to you for my behavior for in the post-round in the quarter finals round at CEDA.
 
I wanted to approach you in person at GDI and chat with you, but Glen made me judge a whole bunch of debates and then Doug made me have a few drinks with him at the bar...so when i saw you outside on the cell phone I did not think it was the right time and place for an apology.
 
But it is now.
 
I hope you know that I in no way wanted my comments to hurt you. And if my behavior has somehow been interpreted as contributing to the events on that horrible video, I apologize to everyone. I hope folks who have a long memory know that I tried do the right thing then (and probably failed), just as I am trying to do the right thing now (hopefully with some success).
 
My best T.
 
OG
 
 





Omar G Guevara II
Director of Forensics
Department of Communication
College of Arts & Humanities
Weber State University
Ogden, Utah
 

801.626.6220 (Office)
801.668.6910 (Cell)
 
Oguevara at hotmail.com
Oguevara at weber.edu
 


"I am the stone that the builder refused..."  


Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:38:24 -0700From: basaindon at yahoo.comTo: edebate at www.ndtceda.comSubject: Re: [eDebate] In Round vs Out of the Round, and Verification as a norm



I believe Mr. Glass chimed in with this comment:"Look at that youtube video and tell me that violence was not a strong possibility at that moment."Having close ties to both parties, having been in the room, and knowing a bit about their interpersonal interactions with people on a regular basis, I can assure you that physical violence was NOT a strong possibility at that moment. That perception comes as much from the decision of others in the room to physically impose themselves between the two arguing parties (toward what end and motivated by what, you would have to ask the intervening parties). Both Bill and Shanara are direct, though sometimes brash, communicators, and obviously have a lot of passion. That quality is quite virtuous at times (you always know where you stand with them -- they are not interpersonally duplicitous), but can also be uncomfortable for the argumentatively frail. They are clearly both angry, but I do not sense, in either watching the video or in talking to both parties afterward, that either one of them feel that they are in any physical danger. Both are pretty strong minded people and capable of handling themselves; I doubt they need the protection of others then, or the supposed protection of others now.This is not to comment on the perceived fault, appropriateness, etc. of the conflict. I find it interesting that we are having a public hearing on the issue, yet neither of the main parties in the video are at the forefront of the conversation. In fact, I believe neither of them are subscribers to e-debate. It makes it very easy to use footage of their conflict in the service of one's own agenda, whether that be the institutional remedies for interpersonal conflict, or to resurrect the hackneyed discussions about the so-called "performative" turn in debate (a label that does not do justice to the immense amount of argument innovation that has occurred over the last several years).BTW, while not really taking a stance on the issue, the concern about out-of-round verification is a problem that is particularly acute in so-called "fiat" or "policy" debate. Remember, we use textual evidence of events that are supposedly occurring in the world, usually in places we don't live, have never visited, and know nothing about, except what we read and see on television. This verification problem fueled some of the really old kritiks in the early and mid 1990s, or so I have been told. However, one of the unfortunate side effects of debate is that it is a playpen for the young, and as a result, we tend to have a short institutional memory. If you can't talk about what happens outside of the room in probabilistic terms (Bush will probably invade Iran; the other team probably struck the judge we MOST wanted to keep), then really, what do we have to talk about. What you want is selective verifiability, but as a practical matter, a difficult thing to justify.Another aside: it is interesting that while a few felt the need to condemn making this video public (perhaps the justified fear that they too one day, in their worst moments as people, might be subjected to prolonged public scrutiny), nobody has discussed the strategic moment of its introduction: 3 months later, on the eve of a new debate season; this smells like a coming discussion in debate rounds. Whatever hurt was felt at that time, these are not new wounds. However, if this is a coming debate strategy, then things are about to get a lot more personal over the next several months, so you might as well get ready. As much as I would love to believe that it is an innocent gesture of opening public discussion, it is interesting to me that those closely involved with posting the video see the guilt and innocence that it displays as so clear cut that it does not really merit much discussion.Nearly everything is strategic. Adam: that also includes Towson's decision to strike me (as much as you might insist to the contrary). I do not blame you for your strategy; it seems quite reasonable (I'm sympathetic, but not without some degree of reservation concerning the arguments at hand -- not unlike the vast majority of people that judge you). But, you do me insult and disservice by suggesting your decision to strike me is done through my allegiances, not your strategy. I may be close to Bill, but to be honest, I don't know the FHSU debaters at all (couldn't even tell you which one is which). Shanara, to my understanding, is also very close with many of you, and from my conversations with her, particularly Mr. Cooper. Yet, I also would never question her integrity when judging any of you. I have not attended FHSU in many years, and the strategy they deployed I have almost no familiarity with. You paint me as an ideologue with allegiances that will inevitably and unfairly cloud my judgment, while suggesting that Shanara is completely capable of overcoming hers. It is nice that you respect her and give her credit (respect that very much deserves), but it pains me to say that you do not give me much. I feel like I deserve a little more.Finally, I'm very saddened that, given that everything else is online (and some I suspect without the consent of the involved parties), we do not get to have the clip of Omar. I respect Omar's decision, and it seems inline with what little I know of his personality. But besides the fact that it is Omar's dissension that ignites the anger of both parties involved initially (though it gets off the track real fast), there were also some interesting elements of that discussion that had nothing to do with pre-text, that make the emotional charge of the scene more clear, and that blur some of the boundaries of guilt and innocence with regard to building an inclusive community.Now back the regularly scheduled programming of calculated judgment and the grinding of old axes...Brent Saindon--- On Mon, 8/4/08, David Glass <gacggc at gmail.com> wrote:
From: David Glass <gacggc at gmail.com>Subject: Re: [eDebate] In Round vs Out of the Round, and Verification as a normTo: "Aaron Kall" <mardigras23 at hotmail.com>, edebate at www.ndtceda.comCc: "Kade Olsen" <kade.olsen at gmail.com>Date: Monday, August 4, 2008, 11:27 AM

Hi Aaron,
 
It does seem that once topicality is no longer deemed a legitimate limiter to a debate on the aff, and/or that direct competition with the plan is no longer a legitimate limitation on the neg,
then there is no logical stopping point as to what can be discussed, or happen, in a debate round.
 
This has been pointed out  for years, as offense for fiat theory, and as an example of the "slippery slope" that happens when such theory is abandoned for alternate forms that fall outside this ideology.
 
As just one, rather trivial example, a debater could be called out for being a Red Sox fan, and arguments could be made as to why this constitutes grounds for rejection, even if no sign or reference to the Red Sox was made in the debate. As for concepts like "verifiability" ....   in a debate system where people are willing to argue that everything is up for debate, even the call for verifiability - as in "do we really know person X is a Red Sox" fan - could be shrugged off as being unnecessary.   How much verifiability is really required in a world where our government just makes things up?  A person could be simply labelled a Red Sox fan, just to make a point about the Red Sox,  or to make a point about the government, and then voted down.    Really, the call for "evidence" as being necessary seems almost quaint in a world where non rational forms, expressive forms, or simple negation in the form of silence, are deemed allowable.
 
As for the idea of "appropriateness", how shocking is it that an individual moons someone in an environment where people take their clothes off as an argument? Or that a coach engages in discussions with judges during a debate, when the judges' impartiality or "responsibilities" are deemed appropriate discussion points for a debate?
 
All of these slippery slope arguments were made previously.  It is  just sort of a point of curiosity at this juncture to see if and where people will finally see they've simply constructed true and utter anarchy, and that this is not actually a good thing, where no meaningful interaction or exchange is feasible;  what will be the final step?  We've already had physical violence initiated in debate rounds - in the form of pies.  And even that was found to be amusing and defensible by some.  How about when the pie is deleted, and there is only the plate?  How about when the plate is then tied to an incendiary device?  
 
Look at that youtube video and tell me that violence was not a strong possibility at that moment.  If there is no distinction between what happens in a round and outside of the round, why couldn't that same behavior be reconstituted in a debate, as an example of how people were hurt emotionally by that moment.  And why couldnt escalation occur?  
 
Either people want to have actual debate, or they do not.  But once you are willing to vote for these alternatives, under a framework that says structural norms are not relevant, good luck finding a limit.
 
It seems quite clear that tournament directors and debate organizations need to start enforcing norms.  Norms of behavior in and out of a round, including what sort of forms are appropriate for discussion.   As has also been said before, this is no different than any other activity or sporting event, where such norms are enforced.   That really is the only alternative...  people keep rejecting it as "silencing", and then the slope keeps getting steeper as to the sort of things they want to say and do and not be "silenced" from saying and doing.   
 
David
 
 
David Glass 
Asst, Harvard debate
 
On 8/4/08, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote: 


these two claims are not the same: appropriateness and verifiable.  It is easily verifiable in the same way old evidence challenges were verifiable.  Aaron's "inside/outside" round is and has always been artificial.  With the advent of the internet and text messaging, there is no longer a separation of the two.  But even when I debated, if you made an ethics challenge that a card was out of context, judges often went to get a copy of the article or a different version of the card to resolve the dispute.  Corn-dog's decision to tape record a debate, then play it back to resolve a claim of how much evidence was read was no more "inside" the round than going to the tab room to identify whether a team struck a judge.  If a team makes the claim they struck a judge, it's easy to verify.
 
You can ask the tab room and they can verify it.  The "absolute privilege" to protect confidentiality at all costs in all instances is simply a community comfort, not grounded in any real justification.  Like other rights or privileges, one must balance it against competing community issues.  Taking concrete and meaningful actions to address the large gender and racial disparities in who judges debates seems like a decent community claim, even if it is uncomfortable to some.
 
As far as appropriate, perhaps in an ideal world it shouldn't be appropriate to bring the judge selection but it is.  It is appropriate to bring judging concerns into debates because there is no other forum to address such concerns in a meaningful way.  The system gives absolute power to teams to decide who judges debates in ways no other activity does.  There isn't even a mechanism in place to address judging problems or issues.  Every collegiate athletic competition has some sort of sanctioning process for umpires, referees, officials, even in cases like non-conference games where the home team can pick the officials.  
Your appropriateness claim could be made Aaron of all procedural arguments, which suggest how the debate occur.  These have become subjective issues left to the debaters for resolution, and who gets to judge is no different.  As long as the community prefers to delegate all procedure making to the debaters, you then open Pandora's box.
 
The question should more likely be: is there a more productive way to have these debates?  I'm not sure I know the answer, but Aaron is again blaming Towson for making the argument in the hopes it will "go away" by communtiy censure, instead of making any honest effort to address solutions to the problems created by the system, in this case absolute reliance on MPJ. 
>>> 




From: 
Aaron Kall <mardigras23 at hotmail.com>

To:
<edebate at ndtceda.com>

Date: 
8/4/2008 12:56 AM

Subject: 
[eDebate]  Quarters of the Ceda
as kade mentioned, having a debate in a round over who struck who from a strike card is not appropriate and ultimately non-verifiable.take this hypothetical example-Team A accuses Team B of striking a particular judge and says Team B should lose because of this for whatever reason.  Team B says "No, we didn't strike that judge- you have no evidence we did and you can't prove we did."There is obviously no way team A can be proven inside the round who Team B struck and the judges would have no way of determining it.  No tab room would/should ever publicly disclose strike information, so there would be no way to ever resolve this debate.  Also, many teams probably aren't even aware who was on their card/struck from their card, as coaches sometimes make these decisions without the input of debaters.Finally, just because a judge doesn't end up on a panel doesn't mean they were struck.  If both teams strike the same judge, the tab room chooses the three judge panel out of the remaining four judges at random, as there obviously can't be an even numbered panel.aaron 

Get more from your digital life. Find out how._______________________________________________eDebate mailing listeDebate at www.ndtceda.comhttp://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate_______________________________________________eDebate mailing listeDebate at www.ndtceda.comhttp://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
_________________________________________________________________
Reveal your inner athlete and share it with friends on Windows Live.
http://revealyourinnerathlete.windowslive.com?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WLYIA_whichathlete_us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080804/e5039cd0/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list