[eDebate] Physical Assault in debate

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Tue Mar 18 08:02:48 CDT 2008


Why draw the line at physical assault?

Since we have allowed people to do anything  in the name of Lritils, I am at a
loss as to we people so quickly draw the line at physical assault. (insert
sarcasm here) There is plenty of critical literature out there on why violence
is often justified in response to oppression. If X's team's rhetoric is so
oppressive tot he other team, why not allow the opposing team the opportunity
to slap the other team down as a performance and then have the partner
"interpret" and justify the violent act with some really cool Sendero Luminoso
philosophy of revolution cards? Why can't a team, in response to a Neitzche
Kritik, simply run the other team head first into a brick wall, grab the ballot
and give themselve the win as a permutation to the K?

I find it rather interesting that a community that allows revolutionary forms of
criticism and the "there are no rules in debate" mentality, all of the sudden
become white-bread conservatives when it comes to violence. Don't you all find
the appeals to the CEDA Constitution and other "rules" of debate to be wholly
inconsistent with the entire kritical theory movement in debate? To
deconstruct, why is violence a line that people do not want to cross, but
allowing people to act out rape scenes is legit? Why is violence verboten, but
someone taking a dump in a plastic bag is cutting edge?

For the record, I don't think violence is legit for the same reasons why I think
affirmative's get fiat and topicality is a voting issue---because debate is an
academic game. As a game, there should be certain rules. The real issue is
where to draw the line and create such rules. People that take the game as part
of their "personal advocacy" open up the activity to a whole host of problems
that will make a pie in the face seem rather passe.






More information about the Mailman mailing list