Matt, Doesn't your question, whether the criticism of someone's method is saying they are not a debater--depend on the relationship between the method and someone's personhood? Wasn't that part of the reason so many Louisville debates became emotional. Didn't many in the community feel we were attacking their personhood? Scott Phillips once told us that fast, technical debate was part of his personhood, and he would defend it to the end. He worked hard to become the best and that it defined him in part. If that's true, why is it not also true that the argument "Louisville's method oppresses me", especially when that method is fighting for Black cultural inclusion, can have the same effect on my debaters? If Liz Jones spits a creative verse and the opposition says that your verse excludes me, aren't they saying that Liz's personhood is excluding them? And if you don't think so, that's cool. I'm just telling how my debaters felt as a result of choosing to be different and bring themselves to the activity, to be told that what they brought is oppressive. Matt, for me, the difference was that our criticisms were on how the system trains us to give up our identity, so I didn't feel that we were going after people's personhood, but rather, we went after how they were trained to leave their personhood outside the door. Now, clearly Scotty P. disagrees and perhaps others do as well. But if we can't agree that our creativity different choices were based in part of a Black cultural identity that defined my students, well we simply have to disagree. And that disagreement perhaps explains, why my squad is giving up, getting smaller and smaller, and losing faith that enough people will see the difference I've discussed to make them comfortable enough to stay without giving up themselves. And yes, I have seen debates where my students feel affirmed and respected that the opposing strategies affirm the criticisms of all of the participant's self, while engaging in a substantive debate. But those have been few and far between. The question of which debates are about minor details versus which ones challenge personhood I suspect is subjective. We've been in many debates where "personhood" was being attacked in subtle, covert ways, so I'm not sure I agree there.
>>> From: matt stannard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:Ede Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 11/18/2007 8:02 PM Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] The costs of a game, part 1: An unethical, amoral center 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 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 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 m ade 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 center Ede: 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 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 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 center Ede 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 to it actually being posted on CEDA-L. The only way I found Ede personal attacks against me was by doing a google search. Ede, you can tear me down all you want but 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 the current state of policy debate. To paraphrse Bob Dylan, "it ain't me man, it ain't me." I wasn't even around when your project started. But, you are now trying to drag me down. I think it is because I am one of the few out there who is actually willing to honestly engage you. Many people are not willing to tell you the truth--that your project is interesting, but becoming more and more irrelevant 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 thirty years. It does not matter what you think of me and the parameters of e-mail ethics. I find 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 running around blaming other students for the problems that are inherent in the structure of the activity. You and your debaters are running around pointing the the collective finger at other minority students and women, essentially claiming that they are Uncle Toms, because they choose to debate at full speed and do not decide to rap or use fourth-grade-level metaphors. [I have seen it done in person]. You have raised blaming the victims to a new art-form. You are on par with blaming a poor child for being poor. Yeah, telling freshmen debaters that they are complicit with racism really advances the cause for institutional change. You refuse to actually try to change the formats of debates, or the institutional structures that perpetuate the problems you claim you want to address. These changes are done at business meetings, not by beating up students within debate rounds. You run away from real responsibility when it is handed to you and a real chance to change the activity is presented to you on a silver platter. You would rather run back to your ivory tower and write self-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 that your "project" is hurting other victims of institutionalized elitism. >From my point of view, all I have seen as a result of your project is some Louisville wins, perhaps a few good showings at National Tournaments and a few liberals experiencing the ecstasy of collective guilt. But, American policy debate is still, for the most part, research intensive; speed friendly; and biased in favor of programs with large resources, debaters with high school policy backgrounds, and multiple coaches. Your quote from your book tells me a lot of what you are about Ede--self-aggrandizement and self-delusion. Just because you had some teams advance to elimination rounds at a National tournament DOES NOT mean that you changed the world. I think the evidence is pretty damn strong that your project has been a total failure when one looks at the overall trends on college policy debate. The debate world pretty much functions the same way it did before your project--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. It is easier to whine about racism than it is to actually make real changes. The only real changes that can occur will be at the CEDA business meetings. You keep delivering the irrelevant rants within debate rounds. You keep alienating people who believe that policy debate places unecessary hurdles to access. That's cool. You keep up the good fight. You are really winning people over to your point of view and building up alliances all over the place. You should look in the mirror a little closer before you start launching the ethics bombs. Scott Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook – together at last. Get it now! ( http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033 ) You keep typing, we keep giving. Download Messenger and join the i’m Initiative now. Join in! ( http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=CRM_WL_joinnow )
_______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list [email protected] http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
