[eDebate] On Fidelity and the Debate Community
Mon Aug 4 13:31:25 CDT 2008
Hi Brent, Hi Mike,
Actually I'm not sure I agree with you on this one...
Adam Jackson and Andy Ellis seem to have taken a principled stand, letting
people know there
are consequences to behavior and actions.
This seems to be an important lesson for people to learn.
Obviously this has nothing to do with my views as to what is acceptable
WITHIN a debate round. I don't think this should be an in-round argument.
But do you not think people should be held accountable for
their actions, just in everyday life, and especially in professional
Again, this has nothing to do with debate arguments. This has to do with
how we treat each other, period.
It would be quite ironic if this guy Adam were encouraged to speak
forcefully within a debate round as an example of a "protest" or a
"movement" but then was discouraged or chilled from speaking out in "real
life" when confronted with something he felt to be reprehensible. I mean
seriously, there is a dfference between a "passionate" and "heated"
discussion, and what happened. And how can you endorse actual protest or
social action, but chill people from speaking out in actual situations, when
confronted in such a way? This is why we have laws against harrassment, and
other workplace norms. People need to learn to control themselves, and
behave respectfully to each other.
Okay, this is my last email of the day... work needs to get done...
On 8/4/08, 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