[eDebate] can someone explain?

Kevin Sanchez let_the_american_empire_burn
Tue Aug 5 13:40:15 CDT 2008


http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075543.html
_

glass: "any and all of us would have struck that judge."

then my only response is, be able to defend your strikes better than the
fort hays team did in that particular round. i didn't say there's no possible
defense for having struck her; i say 'common practice' isn't much of one.

glass: "her behavior in that video, and the reported
behavior by her...
sitting behind thd judges during that round...  does not make that judge
look very rational."

of course that behavior had yet to occur at the time of the strike, and
occurred in response to the strike and its aftermath, but here's where
i see a big problem with what you've written...

if you say, 'we as a debate team felt uncomfortable with her as a judge
because we're not sure *we* are good enough to pick up ballots from
her', that is, 'we doubt *our* ability to win her over' - that's one thing.

but if you say, 'we as a debate team felt uncomfortable with her as a
judge because we're not sure *she* is able to rationally adjudicate the
round', that is, 'we doubt *her* abilities to give us a fair hearing' - that's
something else.

your position, dr. glass, seems closer to the second proposition and, to
me, it's much more vulnerable to reflexive kritiks of white privilege. 

the question becomes, do you think she gave the fort hays team 27s
more because of the quality of their speech-acts - what *they* did - or
more because of her own irrevocable bias - who *she* is as a critic?

if you believe it's what they did (their 'sucking') that resulted in the 27s,
then you probably also believe there's things they could do to alter that
result in the future - adaptation is possible (though, again, they might
argue that having to adapt in out-rounds hurts their odds of advancing
farther in the tournament).

shanahan acts like he's got hold of the winning argument the moment
reid-brinkley says 'they sucked'. i disagree. if ken strange had said 'they
sucked', most of us wouldn't have taken this as any indication that he's
incapable of judging them fairly in the future. if ken strange had given
them 27s, i bet they wouldn't have professed discomfort. that's because
we respect ken strange as a judge; we know he's able to rise above his
own biases. if he says 'you all sucked', whatever else we might permit
ourselves to feel about this remark, we don't assume it to be irrational:
we assume it had must've had something to do with the way the debate
went down. why a different standard for shanara reid-brinkley?

...

and you know what? since you only seem to respond when i write
something that's slightly less defensible (e.g., you dropped this post:
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075517.html),
i'll happily write something slightly less defensible to give you fodder to
snippet and lampoon...

HAD fort said, 'we voted against her because she's black', i may've had
more respect for their stance. they could've said, 'look, we're not black;
we're two indie kids and we read eureopean literature written mostly by
white guys, so we think we'd have a better shot with a white judge. we
are hockey players, not basketball players, and we don't expect a black
person to suddenly go crazy for our sport. juries are selected on racial
and demographic grounds everyday -- this is nothing new and nothing
objectionable'.

BUT what 'feeling uncomfortable' sounds like code-language for, however,
is something that's far more insulting: 'we voted against her because she's
irrational'. that hurts. i for one would rather openly be called black than
subtly called a loon.

...

in any case, we can agree there's a contradiction inherent in fort hays'
position: if they truly didn't care solely about winning, they should not
have passed up the opportunity to debate in front of a judge who knows
the post-structuralist/post-colonial literature and who has a deep well of
personal experience to share. the 2a.c. analysis coming out of towson is
brilliant here, and you can watch it sans spectacle:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=567966331243825646
-- at 27m:31s. 

really, in a lot of ways the ph.d throw-down was the least interesting
aspect of this round.

_________________________________________________________________
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/20080805/d72f539a/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list