[eDebate] Loons

JP Lacy lacyjp
Sat Apr 25 22:11:55 CDT 2009

Since I've been one representative of the "old guard" on this list, I 
figure that I should voice my opinion.

This whole controversy makes no sense to me.

Debate is good.

Promoting debate is good.

No debate is bad. (I stole that from Ross Smith.)

I'll repeat: "No debate is bad."

You can read that statement several ways, but to me it means "Anything 
you can do to promote debate is good." & "Absence of debate is worse 
than the alternative."

I really don't know how a debate workshop can possibly hurt debate. To 
me, it is utterly impossible for any un-learning to take place at a 
debate workshop. No-one will be dumber from participating. Many have the 
chance to drastically improve their debating. If people want to promote 
a particular style of debate & run a successful camp, let them!

"New Strega" is attacking an approach to debate. To what end, I don't know.

I may or may not disagree with "The Call of The Loon's" methods, but in 
the end, I know they want debate.

I may or may not disagree with some of "New Strega's" criticisms.

That is beside the point. "New Strega's" ad-homs don't promote debate. 
"Donnie's" critiques of others teaching are interesting, but not relevant.

Debate workshops are good, I wish I could attend all of them!


New Strega wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Nicole <nicole.colston at uvm.edu 
> <mailto:nicole.colston at uvm.edu>> wrote:
>     who are you?  i am one of those participants you say makes up debate.
>     my lifestyle is not really the point or up for debate, but i sincerely
>     hope you got a good laugh with your friends.  miserly people need to
>     smile too, thats what I always say.
>     the indict of camp is very weak. . .especially the only actual
>     argument about needing an exact topic wording.  you seem to be the one
>     failing to paying attention.  where do you teach? could you possibly
>     be a teacher?
>     it seems we share an interest in culture-jamming, but i wouldn't
>     really ever want others to know i actually read your posts. . .  i
>     just wanted to suggest some anger counseling (or maybe even some
>     prescribed drugs) because what I say shouldn't mean soooooooo much to
>     you.
>     good luck with all your fun and games
> You asked for it.
> ill start with the private reply before i answer the public post.
> its probably problematic to champion epistemological concerns and then 
> claim that your lifestyle is not up for debate. Without a topic to 
> focus our discussion around and if the personal really is political 
> then shouldn't we be allowed to question all that goes into 
> advocacy--- western thought, positions of privilege and lifestyle 
> included? its no secret that you are a huge pothead,  I've never even 
> spoken to you and i know that to be the case---shouldn't the stuff you 
> say be  filtered through that lens? Mind you I'm not passing judgment 
> on the lifestyle choice that you have made(and done so with such 
> conviction) merely stating that it might account for the flaws in your 
> arguments and be a reason why thinking people should disregard your 
> input. I'm not  even suggesting that everyone who commits so fervently 
> to the white rasta credo or who regularly partakes of Jah herb should 
> be disregarded on face, some very brilliant people are "heads", I'm 
> merely suggesting that you are not one of them.
> Miserly means "of, relating to the characteristics of a miser."  A 
> *miser* is a person who is reluctant to spend money 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money>, sometimes to the point of 
> forgoing even basic comforts. i am not stingy, nor do i forgo basic 
> comforts for my own personal financial gain. I think that is what your 
> camp does tho, odd how that works. I, my stoned little friend, am a 
> hater. A hater is some who engages in "hating". Hating, the result of 
> being a hater, is not exactly jealousy. The hater doesn't really want 
> to be the person he or she hates, rather the hater wants to knock 
> someone else down a notch.  I think you were trying to call me 
> miserable---and that's fine and maybe that's true--- doesn't seem all 
> that relevant in a world where i make many arguments that go 
> unanswered--- if you really want "miserly" people to be happy maybe 
> you should try answering an argument or two---debate makes me happy--- 
> crushing you so very badly like this, while it will entertain me for a 
> spell will get boring rather quickly i suspect.
> The arg on the camp is weak is it? So indicting the entirety of your 
> approach to the problem of  difference in debate doesn't apply to your 
> little camp?
> I guess ill address the camp more directly here:
>  Let me get this straight-- you want 15 people to pay
> $750.00($11,250.00 total ) to spend 10 days in the woods with NO Internet,
> no topic to research,  listening to a whose who of debates degenerate 
> pothead
> crowd blather on about the the trees and shit?
> This is the worst idea i have ever heard and is transparently a scam
> to give Jackie and His hippy girlfriend  a means to do next to nothing 
> this
> summer. Think about it--food for 20 people for 10 days cant be more than 2
> grand(and that's assuming you went out everyday, oh wait you are 
> camping in
> a rundown hotel that probably doens't have electricity) so that means 
> you'll
> buy in bulk and spend a grand tops. That brings the total down to 10,
> 250. The fellows or scholars(if we could call them that considering 
> this is
> the least scholarly "camp" in history) can't be making more than 500 a 
> piece
> so that's 1500 which brings us down to 8,750 then you pay Nader and 
> Toni 1000
> bucks a piece(how the two of you got suckered into this i will never 
> know...
> guess times really are tough) which leaves Jackie and Nicole with a cool
> 6,750 for ten days "work". They aren't paying for the facilities, not 
> paying
> for the insurance that they should most certainly have(i mean say nick 
> watts
> gets bit by a rattle snake and the indigenous knowledge that everyone
> assumes is legit turns out to be bullshit and the medicine wheel made 
> from blunt wrappers doesn't do jack) its lawsuit time. If you really 
> cared about building community and all that jazz it would be done as 
> a  co-operative(I'm assuming Jackie, at least,  would be smart enough 
> to advertise that if it were the case) and not just way for Jackie and 
> Nicole to exploit those who cant see the forest for the trees.
> And lets be clear here, by "work" we all know were actually talking 
> about---
> camping in a house that time is quickly forgetting, smoking more weed than
> should be humanly possible and filling young minds whose stupid parents
> sent them to Jackie and the Loon camp  with half truths and inflated 
> rhetoric
> visa vie the evils of "traditional" debate.
> i digress let me address the brochure proper:
> "its all about bringing together college student and coaches interested in
> alternative debate styles"
> "alternative debate styles" assumes that there is such a thing as
> traditional debate styles and in doing so over determines what 
> "traditional"
> debate is. Many of the teams that perpetuate critiques of traditional 
> debate
> are quickly finding out that its getting easier and easier to wiggle 
> out of
> this link precisely because debate(and the vast array of styles 
> deployed by
> its participants) is not some monolithic hegemonic force to make war on
> but a collection of individuals all doing different things for different
> reasons.  If the divide between traditional/non traditional is a false
> one(which it obviously is) then calling one form of debate alternative
> perpetuates this problem as much, if not more than,  those who just do 
> what
> they like because they like it.
> "Join us in celebration of alternative debate education! Enjoy canoeing,
> hiking, campfires, and great food amidst the solitude of the Adirondack
> mountains"
> There is no internal link between the first half of this statement and the
> second. What in gods name does a camping trip have to do with Debate? and
> why does it cost 750 dollars? Most everyone lives within 50 miles of place
> to go camping... and could do it for much less money and not have to
> participate in Jackie and Nicole's pseudo-debate oriented, weed habit
> supporting, bad argument perpetuating, shenanigans.
> "bring your authors, and thier books"
> Um yeah i called Zizek he said this was some bullshit and he ain't coming.
> "The CALL OF THE LOON institute utilizes critical theory and pedagogy as a
> tool for alternative debate education and intellectual community building.
> Reasonably-priced program accommodations blend nature?s beauty with
> experienced instructors and family-style accommodations."
> Um really, i mean really, Nicole Colston is an idiot, Jackie Massey is a
> crazy fucker, Toni is well, qualified, Nadar is gonna hate this cuz he's
> urban as fuck, Nick is again qualified which makes me think he's being
> blackmailed and Chris is well, Chris. oh yeah Marnie... awwww Marnie. 
> is the no booze policy cuz she's not old enough to drink or because 
> Jackie kills people when he's ties one on?
> Again this brings up the question of what "alternative" debate 
> education is?
> alternative to what? the best part about debate is that ANYTHING can be
> utilized and deployed by it's pedagogy. This links to all the 
> arguments i made before that went unanswered about needing to position 
> yourself outside so that you have something to debate about,  you know 
> the part where i called you a stupid coward.
> Oh Wait!!!! the topic isn't out yet so the possible topics of conversation
> are as follows: Heidegger, Indians, Nietzsche, Spanos(spurlock is 
> there don't
> forget), a terribly  misinformed eco-fem perspective, maybe some critical
> pedagogy(tho that is quickly falling out of fashion), and maybe something
> about why war is bad(  in case nukes or Russia become likely ). Save 
> your money, go to the library, take the books you get there to Burning 
> Man, read them and smoke reefer there. I bet i just saved you 400 bucks.
> I  really wonder if there will be spirit walks and shit, some peyote 
> maybe, maybe
> Jackie will gather everyone around and tell ghost stories about the time
> immemorial before giving back the land was a viable strategy(its 
> really not,
> you all have been tricked)...  Bottom line is that this is a stupid 
> idea and
> if you go to this camp you are fucking stupid a probably deserve to 
> get bitten by a rattlesnake (or at the very least get Lyme's 
> disease)and have to sue the hippies that brought you there when your 
> leg gets amputated.
> ALL of this still links. you havn't provided a single warrant as to 
> why what you are suggesting isn't already happening or answered the 
> crux of "traditional Topics are BEST for everyone" claims.  ill apply 
> my argument specifically here:
> 1) a topic worded to provide positive ground for
> the identity politics debate on both sides, 
> WRONG!!!!! the reason why teams win UNIQUENESS with these arguments is 
> because the topic ignores their particular standpoint---(classic 
> example is when a team is critiquing the institution of debate cuz it 
> perpetuates some big evil linear disad, they win U cuz its doing 
> that.  A topic that didn't link to that would make all of the ID teams 
> business non-unique. "Debate is already solving for X in the squo" is 
> a common argument but not a very convincing one until we adopt a topic 
> that DOES something like that--- this also applies to all of your 
> agency claims.) The impact of this is taking strategic viability away 
> from the teams who K the topic.  A good interp of functional  K ground 
> on the Aff should be "getting to K the topic or debate".  The aff that 
> disregards the topic or relates to it in some tangential roundabout 
> way in the service of identity should get to say "you saying our aff 
> is unpredictable/unfair/ cheating  is a reason why it is needed". Also 
> there is a problem of practicality---one can't construct a topic that 
> accounts for diversity---the very notion that one could craft a topic 
> that "accounts for diversity" is antithetical to the notion of 
> "difference" and denies "alterity" cuz it positions "the other" as 
> something to be accounted for or managed instead of something that can 
> never be known and must be left "wholly other". This is basically the 
> internal warrant for the argument i made earlier(that you failed to 
> answer) about why incorporation and inclusion is usurpacious and 
> co-optive.
> 2) for the rez to access a
> meaningful and real-world point of change,
> This isn't explained, those are vacuous buzz words that i suspect you 
> have heard much smarter people say a half dozen times and are now 
> trying to use to make yourself feel better about being differently 
> able. Without explanation this is also non-unique-- the res does that 
> in the squo as much as any alternatives to it would--  if you don't 
> want the USFG to be in the res then say that and get crushed like the 
> other people who said that did-- The fundamental problem with this 
> claim is that even if the res said that "we should all take to the 
> streets and fight the man" or something to that effect it wouldn't be 
> any more real world than any other res. And it would only produce 
> slightly different debates than the ones happening in the squo.  The 
> question of whether we position the state as primary actor or reactor 
> is largely immaterial.  Teams good at running policy oriented plans 
> would still be good at that.  Teams good at impact turning t would 
> still be good at that--- teams good at link turning the K and ignoring 
> the res would still be good at that. The agency claims are always 
> going to be problematic because debate are always going to be about 
> what we should do and talking is different than acting--- the only 
> "agency" that any one can deploy in the debate round to change 
> anything "material" is through the choices they make when they 
> interpret the res. If the res is about itself(which is what it would 
> have to be) then it become even less about the real world and more 
> like a bird flying up its own ass.
> 3)to consider the authors
> which have dominated our critical literature in our verbage
> Do you think about things before you say them or do just string words 
> together and hope that a sentence comes out--- again no idea what this 
> looks like or why it links to "traditional" debate or why you get away 
> with over determining "traditional" debate or essentilizing it even if 
> you do have a link--- in short, these are concerns that are not the 
> job and should not be the job of the resolution--- You should have 
> spent a few more years in JV.
> 4) to consider changing the way we write resolutions to challenge notions
> of agency in debate to provide new and meaningful learning
> experiences."
> vacuous, just completely vacuous...  all of this suggests that shit 
> isn't meaningful in the squo-- who are you to say that, what arguments 
> do you make to support such claims? why are you doing this?
> OH I GET IT!!!!  no one has signed up for your stupid camp yet and you 
> want people to think that it will like change their lives or something 
> so you are bloviating about nonsense that is suppose to be all 
> inspiring and "changey".  That's cute but i think the QUALITY of 
> argumentation and education should probably be more important than the 
> ideology that drives it. You have exhibited nothing but vacuous 
> unsubstantiated claims that i pray to god no debater is dumb enough to 
> align themselves with. People work really hard to make this community 
> better and some of them are really really good at it--- You are not 
> one of those people-- and will likely make everything you touch 
> dumber...  PARENTS copperheads, diamond backs, bears, mountain lions, 
> black widows, brown recluse, deer ticks, and hippies without insurance 
> are all waiting for your children at the LOON--- please send them to 
> WDI, ADI, Wyoming, or even Towson. THE LOON IS DUMB, DANGEROUS, and A 
> For those of you who might think that the LOON will change your 
> life---it won't unless being out 750 dollars will change your 
> life(which it might, probably not for the better).
> As for me not caring about the stuff you say, believe it or not, this 
> is fun for me.  I don't really care about what you say however I do 
> sort of care about debate and its not that i am worried that you could 
> destroy it--i just fear that you might make it dumb and anything i can 
> do to protect debate from being dumb is well worth my time.
> And, Jackie... words are  indeed weapons and although i havnt been in 
> a fight since the third grade and yeah she was a girl but i kicked her 
> ass then and im kicking you all's ass now.
> ---donnie
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

More information about the Mailman mailing list