[eDebate] can someone explain?
Tue Aug 5 09:31:21 CDT 2008
Thanks... I wasn't characterizing the arguments in the round; I was
responding to this paragraph of Kevin's (especially the last
line, which I've underlined):
"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?"*
(end of quote)
I was simply expressing the opinion that it hurts an anti-racism project
to argue that you are hurting diversity even by excluding a judge
who has gone out of her way to tell you she has a negative opinion of you.
that's not a very controversial stance... and it is not a judgement on any
arguments made in the debate (obviously i was not there and cannot comment;
obviously I get that Fort Hays' particular args put them in a poor position
On 8/5/08, Michael Dickerson <michael.dickerson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dr Glass,
> You completely ignored Kevin's post explaining the distinctions being drawn
> (quite well, I might add) by the Towson debaters during the actual round.
> You say:
> 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
> hurts and does not help anti-racism.
> Go watch the 1AC cross-x. They never said fort hays struck her because
> she's black; they said fort hays struck her which proves they are not
> credible in their claims to be allied with Towson and to seek real diversity
> by promoting black participation on judging panels.
> This is not a judgment on anyone in this argument, but a clarification. I
> have nothing but respect for Dr. Glass, and so I'd like to see him at least
> arguing with the correct position rather than some intention-inferring witch
> hunt that never actually happened.
> Mike Dickerson
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman