[eDebate] The 1NC

Ede Warner ewarner
Wed Aug 6 10:58:10 CDT 2008


The times we live in...sound bites taken out of context to justify any
point we want to make.  And a good traditional debater is trained to
make as many mini-arguments as they can in a short amount of time to
justify any claim they want to make.  And make no mistake, you Deven,
are very good at offering bits and pieces of stories to construct any
story you want to tell.  But instead of debating the "line by line"
let's engage these pieces of fact with a non-traditional 1NC of sorts. 

 
I begin my 1NC by asking a question: Have you ever seen the movie
"Conspiracy Theory" with Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts?  Probably not, no
Black people in lead roles.  But there is this guy who is paranoid, I
mean really paranoid.  He always believes there are plots and people out
to get him and do him harm.  He is always taking extreme actions to stop
the plot that doesn't really exist.  People he knows generally choose to
blow off his crazy behind, but get this:  one day the conspiracy becomes
true.  And people are actually out to get him and all of his past
paranoid preparation serves him well in fighting off the threat.  
 
Well, that describes one of my personality traits, a flaw perhaps,
dunno.  I'm extremely paranoid.  A difference though between Mel Gibson
and I is that I tend to do incredibly extreme things on the front end
that create the conspiracy situation that I fear.  In other words,
people are out to get me because I do things that make people want to
get me.  Ironically, this paranoid creation started in about 1999, about
the same time I decided to radically shake up the debate community with
the first of several extreme decisions.  Even more ironically, you've
benefitted quite a bit from those decisions, even if you don't
acknowledge that you have.
 
So there is a lot of truth in some of your claims about who I am, an
extremist who doesn't always dialogue with students about the decisions
I make. Most of your claims however, are still devoid of context, like
conveniently ignoring the wholly disrespectful things that you or others
did that created some of my extreme moments that you critique, and now
discuss to show the world you are a victim of everyone:  the city of
Baltimore, the Baltimore UDL, the Louisville debate coach, the debate
community, I'm sure there are others.  You are really good at being
disrespectful.  You are also really good at telling stories in ways that
make you the victim.  Well, I'm not so sure you are good at it, as much
as I'm sure that guilt, perhaps white guilt in some cases, and extreme
levels of compassion by others allow people like you to let you get away
with it.  But it doesn't matter.  Back to my story...
 
Tria, that's my wife if you don't remember, always says that it takes
two to create conflict, and if only one is claimed to be at fault, you
probably haven't yet reached the truth.  After sixteen years, the fact
that we are still together is a miracle.  You think the squad room was
in chaos when you were here:  that's was the Barney show compared to
some of the dramatic extreme events that we've engaged one another with
in our home.  The lows have been really, really low, and the highs have
been, well, maniac.  Yet, we both stayed.  I'd like to say it's love,
but Tria has taught me such a greater understanding of my own reality. 
We stay simply, because we have similar levels of self-interest.  You
see Deven, as much as people like to deny it, shared self-interest is
the beginning, middle, and end of a coalition.  And given our big
similarities: our two children, our marriage, and a few other
similarities we share like our love for the humanization of Black
people, no one in this world has more of a similar self-interest to mine
in this world.  That's why I choose to trust her more than anyone in
this world.  Because I recognize that anyone else, at this moment in
time, has a more different self-interest than I do. Which her advice,
which will always be in the context of her self-interest,
 will almost
always benefit me because we have similar needs.  The person most like
you will likely give you the best, most honest, advice because they need
you to succeed for them.  I hope you one day find someone that can trust
enough due to similar levels of self-interest so they can give you
better advice than the choices you currently make.  Anyway...
 
When this all Louisville Project stuff started, I romanticized the
notion of a collective, I never really understood why or how collective
movements began, grew, sustained themselves, or died.  I thought I did,
but I was so naive and wrong.  You see, all that talk of us being a
"collective" in some noble sense of the word, was just an illusion and
the debate community knew that.  Did we debate a similar set of
arguments, dress in similar ways, and have a set of common experiences? 
Sure.  Did that mean we had identical or even highly similar levels of
self-interest?  Nope, not even close.
 
For example, the notion of "winning."  You are so correct that winning
drives me.  In fact, the entire Louisville project was created based on
the belief that I could win with it.  Yep, you nailed that one on the
head.  But again, context is important, there is a question of
uniqueness: I was winning a whole lot prior to the Louisville project. 
I was winning by taking white students, giving them my race arguments
that I had become very adept at creating within the constraints of the
policy framework, and adding their interest in other more traditional
debate strategies and arguments.  Before Liz and Tonia, Corey and RJ,
Jennifer and Ebony, and you with your multiple partners, I won with
Krsna and Dave Meyers, Dave Arnett and Jason Renzelmann, Jonathan
Westbrook and Michael Lee, and even Kate Charles and Kenda Cunningham. 
In fact, had I NOT created the radical team, Westbrook and Lee would
most certainly have competed for a national championship.  I won just as
much, if not more than I won with my predominately white teams doing
traditional debate as I did with my predominately Black teams doing it
differently.  So Deven, winning alone wasn't enough for me. 
 
Or was it?  I was convinced that contemporary debate trained students
to strategically avoid my race arguments and that if we could focus the
debate on just those race arguments, we could win even more.  I wanted
to win solely using my race arguments.  I knew that none of these
coaches could out-debate me on these arguments, nor were they interested
in doing so.  The rest of the game bored me, I no longer found it
interesting.  But these arguments spoke to me, my identity, my life from
long ago in Gary and Detroit.  And I could win with them too!  That
could keep me in debate, no doubt.So I went and found some students
interested in just talking about my race arguments: most of them just
happened to be Black.  But just as important, most of them were products
of middle class, two-parent backgrounds, who desired something more. 
That means they had home-training, they understood the value and
importance of some level of hierarchy and structure.  They also had an
activist yearning.  One last characteristic: most of them weren't
debaters or trained in academic debate or indoctrinated in the culture
of debate.  And that's important.
 
But a few things happened along the way:  the debate community didn't
just lie down and let us make our race arguments, and certainly didn't
let us win. Moreover, the primary bond of self-interest with my new
population of students wasn't solely a competitive one, as was my bond
been with past generations of mostly white debaters.  This new group
didn't come to debate just to win like I had, and like most of the
others I had coached in the past.  They had come to talk about race as
it relates to the debate topic, and winning was a secondary issue for
them.  Both events challenged my original belief about how competitively
successful this extreme idea should be.
 
But in the end, my interactions with several teams and judges, most
not
ably bill shannahan, but also Jon Bruschke, Melissa Wade, Adam
Symonds, James Roland, Toni Nielson, Will Baker to name just a few, I
began to create theory.  Ironically, theory building is a process that
required more than just me, as our debaters, even if not in the same
ways that traditional debaters were trained, how to ultimately figure
out how to make the theories work in the debates.  But that first
population of Louisville debaters, although sharing many of your
frustrations, were generally content with me and Tria at first, then
Daryl, then Tiffany, creating the theory and them figuring out how to
execute it.  It was a partnership based on self-interest that worked.
 
But while that first generation didn't create debate theory, their
perspective on the world certainly influenced it.  What I learned from
them was the limits to competition: when to stop competing, when to stop
trying to win at all cost, when other values became more important than
competitive success in a debate round.  You see, the debate community
could never have taught me that, because they had never been trained to
understand it.  Similar to the end of the Great Debaters, the
predominately white community simply didn't have a shared experience
comparable to the notion of not competing.  And the population of
students whose first priority was to advocate on behalf of race, taught
me that sometimes winning came at the cost of Black humanization, and in
those moments, it was time to stop trying to win.  
 
It was as these two things came together, our interactions with
supportive judges assisting our efforts to win differently, and a new
coalition of people based on the self-interest of wanting to have race
discussions, that we created a theory that could win.  And that's when
you showed up in 2004.
 
In the first generation of 2000, only 1 student was a UDL graduate, and
she had only 3 tournaments in her high school career.  However, the 2004
success changed all that.  Your incoming class was almost all UDL
students, with a couple of exceptions.  This population of students
having been trained in the UDL system totally had a very different value
system, regarding both race and winning.  Most came with a promise of a
style of winning debate that could also promise students access to the
growing racial alienation and frustration that was a by-product of that
success.  The strategy tapped into much of the frustration and
alienation that UDL students generally felt, and African American youth
felt.  The tools we were using to win were in M.L.'s words, creating
more distance from the rest of the community.  So a majority UDL
population of students won less, in a community becoming more
desensitized and distant from the method of winning, and all of that
hostility and frustration was brought home to our squad room.  And for
that, only I can take responsibility for those consequences.  It was
withing this context that your criticisms of me occurred.  And it was
within that context that they should be evaluated.
 
All of that "pre-text" said, we now have your 1AC on the table.  It
seems you have made the following claim: that you are unwilling to
debate the topic because you never said I should be terminated.  
 
Resolved:  Doc Warner should be terminated as Director of Debate for
the dictatorial way he treated Deven and the other debaters in 2005.
 
Kind of a critical aff I guess, unwilling to debate the topic and all. 
However, although you claim to be above the fray, unwilling to engage
the topic, you are just willing enough to just casually throw out there
a few additional insults:  that I intensely care about winning as much
as you do; I repeatedly mistreated you and the other students in 2005; I
take things too extremes without adequate dialogue; you have faults that
I didn't give you time to mature because I lack patience as a grown up
dealing with a child, and that I want to destroy you publicly.
 
What's missing here and it usually is when you engage in your version
of critical r
eflection, is what, if anything, did you do?  How ethically
did you act as these events unfolded and whether or not your actions
created, contributed, or worked to reduce the conflict?  
 
This is classic Deven-speak to avoid responsibility for his actions. 
Just because you don't directly call for my termination when you send
posts calling me a dictator and silencer of your voice, doesn't me that
isn't the affect of such a post, even if I'm a bit paranoid.  Son, there
are consequences to your actions, remember you initiated the very public
decision to call me names, just because you do it indirectly, doesn't
mean you haven't done it.  And when you make that decision to go public
with allegations that can possibly get me terminated and discredit me, I
go to war with you.  And that's where we are at, war.  
 
So get your plastic hat and gun Mr. Toy Soldier.  Cuz' remember, policy
debate teaches us that an allegation unanswered is an allegation
believed.  And I let this slide publicly once already, so this time it's
shoot to kill.  And a bunch of y'all been whispering and screaming these
white liberal "Warner's a dictator scare tactics" for quite a while. 
Guess what, when the folks that teach you to fight the power and resist
all authority get bored with their fiat fantasy: they will cut their
hair, stop smoking weed, put on a suit and get a job and accept
authority all over the place in their lives.  
 
You however, WILL NEVER, EVER, EVER have that privilege which is why
you should really think twice when following the "it's all about the
student doing whatever they want, whenever they want crowd."  People
training you that debate is about individual empowerment and say and do
whatever you want, that's white privilege talking, something you don't
have.  Without sending crazy emails on the listserv, your chances of
getting a job are about the same as a convicted white male felon.  That
CNN story was deep, wasn't it?   But keep believing you have the same
privilege as those who teach you to fight all authority in a search for
individual empowerment.  Jennifer used to call that a being set up on a
"boo-boo" mission.
 
I remember more than anything, a comment you once made in one of your
many moments of frustration: "all you tell us Doc is about taking
personal responsibility for our actions."  You were utterly, utterly
frustrated by my repetition of this apparently "conservative" political
statement.  I see you still don't get it.  You, as an over 20 year old
grown man, want to selectively imply that we have an adult-child
relationship at times, and then casually throw disrespect at someone in
ways that can get you fired, scholarship taken away, even killed,
whether directed at a man or boy.  Then you turn around and expect or
feel entitled to some sort of protection, as if that's unconditionally
my role, even now that I'm no longer your coach, in the name of a
mission statement.  Even as quick as you make verbal accusations that
could threaten my career, you attempt to just back off and act like I'm
the aggressor.  Who is telling you this is acceptable or smart behavior?
 Is this what debate trains you to believe?  In your words, WOW...
 
Yeah, I'm going after your ability to compete because that's the only
thing that matters to you.  It matters so much that I saw you commit
sickening acts of unethical behavior over and over again in your single
focused quest for competitive success.  While we both have competitive
urges, mine have limits and yours don't.  So the next time you try and
flip a coin so it lands on a predetermined side so you could be
affirmative, or the next time you sneak a peek at other people's files
before a debate to try and get the opponent's strategy, remember that I
was the one who used my totalitarian power to admonish you and tell you
these acts were over the line.  I'm blessed and thankful that some
people have crossed my life's path along the way that taught me how to
create some limits and context and purpose for those competitive
de
sires, something it's apparent you still haven't learned.  But guess
what, you've got a championship...but you might want to hold on tight,
'cuz if I have anything to say about it (and I will) a repeat is going
to be a real, real rocky road.
 
I got my pen out, ready to flow the 2AC...hope you got an add-on or
something.  How about some Tria swore at me stories or I play hardcore
rap in the van...I can't wait to add some context to those.  I got some
serious privilege stuff ready for the block...Time to spread out the
1AR!
 
Doc

>>> 

From: Deven <bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com>
To:<edebate at www.ndtceda.com>
Date: 8/6/2008 04:31 AM
Subject: [eDebate] WOW YOUR INTERESTING...DR. WARNER
LOL 
..Dude please as if you didn?t care about winning at all
coming
back from tournaments when we would go 0 or 2 or 3 out of  8
you?d be
pissed at us and throw rants about how we were lacking, but yet it was a
problem in coaching. And your right I was immature, selfish, and angry
and we all can work on our imperfections but I see your name calling
doesn?t change much...how about let those past people say it for
themselves but oh
their not on the team anymore nor graduated from the
program cause they were kicked off or quit
.And your just WRONG about
the partner situation because in all 2 years at Louisville I debate with
 JOHN, SHAUNTRICE,PAUL, and STEPHINE
..Don?t think that?s 5 in 6
months..You know why I didn?t give you credit because none of the people
on your team came to watch any of our out rounds, which was suppose to
be a norm on the team to watch black people if they break
and yea I
could have thanked you for the morning that you came in and told the
team to choose between YOUR wife or Paul and I

or do you forget we were
put off the team right then and there when the team would decide..
and
we were called back and for the sake of not having a prorated
scholarship I came back, or could I thank you for the constant picking
at me because I wasn?t changing fast enough for you, or I could have
thanked you for pushing me to have to quit, making the environment
uncomfortable with the constant cussing out we?d get. 
I guess calling the UDLs a plantation was in the best interest of the
community too huh? And By the way bill only voted for us once out of the
4 times he judged us if you want to check debateresults. You didn?t
create the arguments I used
you advocated them
I?m sure bell hooks, Tim
Wise, Charles Mills, Shelton K. Hill (thanks for the Hill article by the
way) others created those args that you no longer felt were
useful
Original thought? Yea ok as if the strategy we used to win
CEDA wasn?t an original thought
I guess MPJ is an original thought that
is really working for Louisville
.and there is quite a few words for you
but I won?t call names like certain ?grown ups?
Sir I never said you should be terminated, you said that
..you always
want to take stuff to the extreme without dialogue
I won?t debate that
cause that?s what you base your life around is debating so I won?t give
you that pleasure. But I see you would enjoy trying to destroy someone
in public with all your vindictiveness.  You destroyed my educational
career enough with your facade of family at Louisville, and sir the
other may be in other situations but I wasn?t going let you be the one
impediment to my potential success. I don?t care what you have at
stake
I don?t want to come in between your family and job
.but damn I
see the level that your on man
.guess you had that bottled up for a
while LOL
WOW opponents can use this in debates? Cool
whatever that means 
I?m not even going to engage you anymore because I?d be participating
in what I critiqued
You have a great long lived life SIR
..

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/7282725e/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list