I'll be honest, Ede. I don't completely understand your question. Let me
answer it as I think I understand it: Criticizing someone's method isn't saying
they aren't a debater. This is particularly true when the debate in question
concerns the best strategies and/or tactics for breaking down power
hierarchies, increasing the participation of excluded groups in debate, and in
other privileged structures.
As to the second part of your question, I have seen instances where people's
arguments against your teams have been "authentic" (that is, sincerely
delivered from the best understanding possible of debaters' social locations,
delivered from the heart, and with a genuine respect for and acknowledgement of
your teams' arguments--up to and including AGREEING with Louisville's central
argument and merely differing in the most minor way on tactical questions), and
instances where they have not been any of those things.
mjs
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 22:44:26 -0500From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]: RE:
[eDebate] [CEDA-L] The costs of a game, part 1: An unethical, amoral center
Matt,
I can and will answer your question Matt, but only after you answer a couple of
mine. What strategy do you know of that over the last seven year's engaged
without somewhere, someway made the claim that Louisville's method is bad?
Let's go a step further, do you think that when my student's criticize the
dominant paradigms of debate, that the personal nature of Louisville criticisms
against student's using those norms and procedures and the same or different in
terms of personhood, than claims made by the dominant group against Louisville
students? Do you think a method that defends someone's personhood is the
same or different than a method that at least on face, isn't tied to one? I
look forward to your answer.
Love,
Ede>>>
From:
matt stannard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Ede Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:
11/16/2007 1:20 AM
Subject:
RE: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] The costs of a game, part 1: An unethical, amoral
centerEde: You write:"Over the seven years, it's been really hard for them to
consider themselves debaters, given being told literally even round they are
in, that they aren't." I inquire:I assume you meant to write "every" and not
"even." So that your statement should be taken as: In every round they are in,
they are told they are not debaters. But I know this is, literally, untrue.
So please clarify. mjs
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:09:31 -0500From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] The
costs of a game, part 1: An unethical, amoral center
For someone so concerned with people "playing the victim", you certainly are
good at diverting attention from your unethical behavior by launching a
landslide of bad arguments which were already answered with evidence to
generate offense. We use to call this debating through a wall. You got to
answer the original arguments which dust your position, before we can consider
voting for the new ones. Well actually, the new ones aren't really new either.
Except maybe the ethics charge, but let me say this again since you really
want to characterize what we do as blaming students.
I am a oppressor, not intentionally, but I participate in a game that makes
policy decisions through it's norms and procedures that unintentionally creates
a disproportional amount of pain and oppression on minority groups.
Sounds better each time I say it. I will concede that our debaters need to get
better at admitting they are part of the institution too. Over the seven
years, it's been really hard for them to consider themselves debaters, given
being told literally even round they are in, that they aren't.
Hey, if it feels better for you to say that you don't participate in the
institution, go ahead. It was "pretend day" on Nick Jr. today.
Ede>>>
From:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Ede Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:
11/15/2007 6:50 PM
Subject:
Re: [CEDA-L] The costs of a game, part 1: An unethical, amoral centerEde and
anyone else who could possible care,Whatever. You can ask Gordon Stables that
the e-mail that was posted on CEDA-L,(which, by the way, I do not retract one
bit) was sent one or two days prior toit actually being posted on CEDA-L. The
only way I found Ede personal attacksagainst me was by doing a google search.
Ede, you can tear me down all you wantbut I still find your "project" to have
become a joke.I e-mailed you earlier to ask what was up with trying to finger
me as the "Man,"when there are plenty of other people that are much more
responsible for thecurrent state of policy debate. To paraphrse Bob Dylan, "it
ain't me man, itain't me." I wasn't even around when your project started. But,
you are nowtrying to drag me down. I think it is because I am one of the few
out there whois actually willing to honestly engage you. Many people are not
willing to tellyou the truth--that your project is interesting, but becoming
more and moreirrelevant every week. They would rather simply nod their heads in
agreement,buy you a beer, and continue doing debate the way they have done it
for thirtyyears.It does not matter what you think of me and the parameters of
e-mail ethics. Ifind what you are doing to be unproductive and unethical.I find
a lot of what you are doing as unethical. You and your teams are runningaround
blaming other students for the problems that are inherent in thestructure of
the activity. You and your debaters are running around pointingthe the
collective finger at other minority students and women, essentiallyclaiming
that they are Uncle Toms, because they choose to debate at full speedand do not
decide to rap or use fourth-grade-level metaphors. [I have seen itdone in
person]. You have raised blaming the victims to a new art-form. You areon par
with blaming a poor child for being poor. Yeah, telling freshmen debatersthat
they are complicit with racism really advances the cause for
institutionalchange.You refuse to actually try to change the formats of
debates, or theinstitutional structures that perpetuate the problems you claim
you want toaddress. These changes are done at business meetings, not by beating
upstudents within debate rounds. You run away from real responsibility when it
ishanded to you and a real chance to change the activity is presented to you on
asilver platter. You would rather run back to your ivory tower and
writeself-congratulatory tomes about how you "shocked the world" a few years
ago.All the while, nothing has really changed. And, nothing will change.You are
too blind in your own fevor and rhetoric of emancipation to realize thatyour
"project" is hurting other victims of institutionalized elitism. From mypoint
of view, all I have seen as a result of your project is some Louisvillewins,
perhaps a few good showings at National Tournaments and a few
liberalsexperiencing the ecstasy of collective guilt. But, American policy
debate isstill, for the most part, research intensive; speed friendly; and
biased infavor of programs with large resources, debaters with high school
policybackgrounds, and multiple coaches.Your quote from your book tells me a
lot of what you are aboutEde--self-aggrandizement and self-delusion. Just
because you had some teamsadvance to elimination rounds at a National
tournament DOES NOT mean that youchanged the world. I think the evidence is
pretty damn strong that your projecthas been a total failure when one looks at
the overall trends on college policydebate. The debate world pretty much
functions the same way it did before yourproject--but now people just have
their "we ain't racist" and "speed good"answers down.But, I know you won't
listen to what I have to say or push for real change. Itis easier to whine
about racism than it is to actually make real changes. Theonly real changes
that can occur will be at the CEDA business meetings.You keep delivering the
irrelevant rants within debate rounds. You keepalienating people who believe
that policy debate places unecessary hurdles toaccess. That's cool. You keep up
the good fight. You are really winning peopleover to your point of view and
building up alliances all over the place. Youshould look in the mirror a little
closer before you start launching the ethicsbombs.Scott
Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook – together at last. Get it
now!
_________________________________________________________________
You keep typing, we keep giving. Download Messenger and join the i’m Initiative
now.
http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGLM
_______________________________________________
CEDA-L mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
