[eDebate] can someone explain?

Kevin Sanchez let_the_american_empire_burn
Tue Aug 5 04:51:55 CDT 2008


http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075538.html

_

it's true that it's as contradictory for fort hays to run an anti-competitive
alternative while defending their strike as a 'strategic' decision as it is for
towson to strike judges while calling out the strikes of another team as
'exclusionary' - unless there's some relevant distinctions we're missing.
several defenses potentially dissolve both apparent contradictions...

towson might first make a distinction between appropriate strikes and
inappropriate ones. they could do this by citing an uncontested squad
affiliation (fort hays' coach actually coached the judge at issue) as an
appropriate strike when compared to striking a judge where no such
affiliation is present.

malgor: "So, given Towson's position on MPJ, what was so wrong about
the fort striking who they did?"

this hinges on what you characterize towson's position as. if they say
strikes are inappropriate as such, yet continue the practice, then there
is nothing uniquely inappropriate about fort hays' strike of reid-brinkley.
however, if they say some strikes are appropriate and some are not,
and one of the criteria for distinguishing between the two is whether
a strike hinders diversity, then fort hays could be held accountable for
their strike on those grounds.

after watching the round, i'd characterize towson's position as closer
to this second stance. they continually emphasize that anti-racism is a
positive task - it's not enough to say 'i'm not racist' or 'we didn't strike
her because she's black'. you're also responsible for the opportunities
you've eliminated.

m: "She did proclaim that she gave them 27s and that they "sucked" at
debate. It seems that they would be fools to put that judge on the
panel."

now, let's be very precise here. she said they did poorly *in that round*.
she did not say 'they suck (as debaters)'. she said 'they sucked (in that
round)'. when a judge gives you a 27, you can say, 'ok, i never want to
debate in front of her again', or you can say, 'ok, let's do better in front
of her next time'. considering the relatively small number of qualified
judges, the former seems more foolish to me: you're likely to argue in
front of a particular judge again, so you might as well begin as soon as
possible the campaign to convince them you don't suck. but even if you
disagree with that assessment, it is fort hays which claimed that other
values can trump purely strategic ones. there are forum-preserving or
forum-enriching values which keep the competitive backdrop intact and
give significance to wins. fabricating evidence might prove strategic, for
example, but it also undermines the structure of fair competition. so too
with striking a black judge. it might prove strategic in the short run, but
in the long run, it might hurt the game. who wants to pick up ballots in
an all-white boy's club?

_________________________________________________________________
Your PC, mobile phone, and online services work together like never before.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108587394/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080805/34fe3dce/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list