[eDebate] Dear Policy Debate R Us...
Mon Apr 13 18:34:45 CDT 2009
You conceded the neutrality double bind and the desirability of stasis
(through both concession there and rejoinder elsewhere). If Devon has final
authority over the reading of his argument, I claim the same for mine.
Security links conceded: k/policy border and 'too few K teams in octos', as
well as assuming my original post attacked your debating (it didn't, OU GW
does very good link work). No warrant in the sexism counter-charge. Also, I
suggested it was systemic, not individual. The relationship you demand
between card and tag line assumes neutral standards in argument structure,
which is another link to the neutrality double bind. The card does suggest
the term 'whining' has historical attachments so using it in place of an
argument is likely to conjure sexism if the audience completes the enthymeme
I'm not really sure what the point of this discussion has been, but I can
already sense that the lack of a stable point of stasis is beginning to
dismantle the litany of evil that co-habits the world with your assertions
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 6:02 PM, RJ Giglio <byrdrebel69 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I said a couple of points.. and you can ask Devon I was correct in my
> reading of his argument.
> Maybe Harvards a K team maybe they aren't. You don't even want to know the
> sins bobo has committed that DEMANDED his excommunication from the K
> community. IF you're really interested you can ask him though (be sure to
> include asking him about the sins I committed in his tent)
> Cal BP? Eh
> I dunno where I said 'policy debaters represent a clear and present danger'
> to anything
> I also think it's sexist to say whining is a sexist term. Your card just
> says women were called whiners. I agree.
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman