[eDebate] Dear Policy Debate R Us...
Mon Apr 13 14:48:04 CDT 2009
First, to suggest that a team that won CEDA nationals in 2007, outrounds of
the NDT in 2007, a first round bid in 2008, was in CEDA finals in 2008,
and quarters of the NDT in 2008 is invisible or not technically proficient
enough to roll with the hegemons of this activity seems to overstate the
case a bit. I know you are referring to teams in addition to
yourselves....But this activity is suprisingly flexible and willing to
reward new approaches (OU semifinals of the NDT 2006, CEDA champs twice,
Wayne State semis of the NDT twice, Fullerton, Harvard, Towson, Northwestern
Morales team, Louisville).
If, at the NDT, the K teams get beaten down with a damn brick aggressively
and continuously how did any of this happen? How did Towson clear two teams
at the NDT this year?
There is privledge for sure, many debaters at the NDT have had MUCH more
debate experience and training than others....some since junior high
school. Many debaters, in fact the majority, start out at a disadvantage
because they didnt have the best coaches and teachers since they could first
read debate cards......However, your performance and the performance of many
others proves that with hard work, thinking outside the box (West Ga comes
to mind), and passion these things can be counteracted.
"Why do we always have to draw form the literature base that you find to be
acceptable and meaningful, when we have black literature and knowledge that
you should want to know or be educated by?.we learn your stuff
everyday?.those of us who are political sci majors?"
I say in regards to framework - which seems to be what you are discussing:
First, and most important, the reason we want a common literature base is so
that we can prepare to discuss and test the ideas that you present.
Traditional debate adherents believe that one of the points of engaging in
debate is TESTING IDEAS through a particular method called debate. The
point is not what the subject is - its that we are discussing the same
Second, you draw a false dichotomy between black literature and debate
literature. If you had read an aff filled with literature by black scholars
about farm subsidies, one that included rap, personal narrative, and/or any
other form you wanted...you would still be debating the topic. In fact,
making arguments about why your scholars are more qualified than "so-called"
traditional academics is clearly fair game.
Third, you are right that debating in this manner would prevent you from
debating "about debate." I agree its valuable to debate about debate....I
actually voted for you because you won this argument in several debates I
Finally, another argument, from the traditional side, is that there is a
spillover effect to advocacy and personal knowledge from debating different
topics every year and accumulating deep knowledge about entirely different
topics every single year. To say you "get all that in your Poli Sci
classes" is a bit of an overstatement (I am a Poli Sci undergraduate and IR
major). There is a huge difference between discussing the economics of
ethanol subsidies in relation to fossil fuel prices by reading the actual
studies and comparative studies...and talking about how ethanol might
increase food prices one day in a class accidentally. There is a massive
difference between learning about how subsidies function to much up world
trade and what the interests of the players are and alternatives to the sq
then there is to talking about some people might be starving because of
cotton subsidies in class once. You will have a hard time demonstrating,
oustide of taking actual classes on farm economics, that your poli sci
classes covered these in depth.
for those of you who think WE are just a phase for the season and that the
pendulum will swing back to the traditional debaters...you are sadly
mistaken..that really only occurs, at least in plain sight, when judge guard
the shield with their ballots in out rounds and prelims for political
People are/were very excited by the arguments that you make. I, for one,
thought your K of traditional debate in quarters was very powerful. Wake
didnt really do the type of speed and absurd impact comparison you
implicated by the white face performance so the LINK to the practice in that
round was not particularly strong...but it was a powerful presentation of
weaknesses in traditional debate by a very good team.
I was and am very excited about many of the things you did this year...I
found them constantly interesting and challenging...I also found they made
me consider my own privledge and my own part in the process of ideology.
However, this does not mean that every debate you lose was a conspiracy or
that all judges voted against you to protect the SQ. Hopefully, you don't
really believe that every single debate you engaged in was an all out battle
of you versus the world so that every loss was a repudiation of everything
you had presented over the years???? You had MANY more wins then
losses...and gained much more respect than dismissal. You changed how many
people look at debate. You should be proud of this.
Hope you can see that you can see that you accomplished a great deal!
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Deven <bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jackie I totally agree with you!! I don?t get why, I guess, the policy
> side think they are being treated so unfairly but no one sees the alt or K
> teams that are invisible because they are not technical or traiditonal
> enough to roll with the hegemons of this activity. Funny how at the NDT the
> K teams get beat down with a damn brick aggressively and continually by the
> gatekeepers in this activity, but they are the ones who aren?t getting fair
> treatment? Sound like privilege to me. Most of us debaters from the UDL have
> to conform to you policy standards for almost 4 years of our lives and when
> we see something that is more liberating and speaking to who we are?..we
> fear it because we are taught that it wrong to be radical or embrace your
> identity?this is kind of why I was turned off by the Louisville project when
> I was a senior in high school..because I had blinders on that stopped me
> from seeing the reality of how debate was crucifying my blackness and many
> of my peers to be those execptionalist hegemons that add to the power and
> privilege of white supremacy.
> The standards of fairness so called for in debate, is the fairness of the
> status quo dominant politics that seeks to silence those of us who are
> motivated to engage differently. If debate is to have the potential to help
> urban students it should let us do so in a way that speaks to our condition
> and not try to funnel us through a spectrum that allows you to control our
> expression to make you feel comfortable. Why do we always have to draw form
> the literature base that you find to be acceptable and meaningful, when we
> have black literature and knowledge that you should want to know or be
> educated by?.we learn your stuff everyday?.those of us who are political sci
> majors?for those of you who think WE are just a phase for the season and
> that the pendulum will swing back to the traditional debaters...you are
> sadly mistaken..that really only occurs, at least in plain sight, when judge
> guard the shield with their ballots in out rounds and prelims for political
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman