[eDebate] can someone explain?

David Glass gacggc
Tue Aug 5 08:42:40 CDT 2008

hi kevin,

really you don't help the "bigger project" with these arguments.  who in
right mind would NOT strike a judge who went out of her way to tell them
they sucked.

your precision in what she actually said does not change the impression she
gave to fort hays.

really... any and all of us would have struck that judge... it has nothing
to do
with wanting to debate in an all white club... and conflating the issues
hurts and does not help anti-racism.

oh and I wasn't there, but her behavior in that video, and the reported
behavior by her...
sitting behind thd judges during that round...  does not make that judge
very rational.   I'd strike her just based on what I've seen directly of her
we do need to be able to judge individuals as individuals.  to behave that
even after towson won the debate makes her seem deeply deeply mean-spirited.


On 8/5/08, Kevin Sanchez <let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> See how Windows(R) fits your life<http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108587394/direct/01/>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080805/de04d464/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list