[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Response to Al Madrid's Ad-Hom's on Me
> i felt that your discussion with al was basically between the two of
>you. i only felt a need to respond when you characterized debate as a
>forum where the gamespersonship prevents intellectual discussion on
>important social questions.
The discussion was not between me and Al. It began when I voiced my
opinion on how our lack of civility in discussing rights on the "L"
might be indicative of some of the problems we will potentially see next
year with this topic area. It was you and Al that chose to make it
>perhaps i misunderstood you. but i don't think so. you still seem to
>maintain that the "game" of debate cannot "handle" the content of
>addressing important social questions.
Damn right, but not on all counts. The debate activity does a wonderful
job of critiquing and assessing the "real world" maneuvers of policy
makers in areas of policy that don't hit so close to home for the
community. I advocate that we "clean up our own backyard" and deal
with issues of civil rights within our own community before addressing
societal concerns with civil rights.
>i see no reason that the avenues you prefer: SCA forums, etc. are in
>way inconsistent with also debating significant social questions.
Not inconsistent. Just more productive for achieving true change in our
community. You can't really believe that "debating" Civil Rights will
make great changes in the ideas, views, policies, and efforts of our
community do you?
>i had no idea that my rhetoric was patronizing compared to you
>characterizing an activity many of us care deeply about as unable to
>discuss significant social questions. to me your claim is quite
>patronizing, not only to myself but to the entire debate community.
And for that I apologize if you mistook my comment for something that it
wasn't. Funny though, you are the only person that has written a word
that my post was "patronizing to the debate community." Are you the
voice for the debate community? Just speak for yourself.
>i will not make toulmin models of your posts. if the enthymemes were
>not clear i apologize.
>unfortunately our sparring didn't get very far. you still have no
>in the debate community to intellectually deal with significant social
>questions. this view trivializes the educational mission of our
>activity. we cannot discuss significant issues. now that makes the
>educational experience certainly worthwhile :)
You just don't get what I'm saying and I don't have the time or energy
to explain it again. Believe what you want.
>if i offended you, i apologize. perhaps i hit some nerve of which i
>not aware. i obviously have faith in the intellectual integrity of
>members of the debate community than you.
Don't apologize if you're going to conclude your post with a statement
like you did. You are an arrogant and self-righteous person and you
obviously aren't trying to understand what I'm saying and you would
rather just sit on your perch and make wild, unsubstantiated claims,
ad-hominem attacks, and pontificate on behalf of the debate community.
I don't need to deal with this bullshit. I am willing to just agree to
disagree but I'm sure you'll have some rude, unprofessional,wise-ass
comment to make. You can write back but i probably won't respond. I'm
sick of dealing with you.
Frank P. Irizarry
An advocate for REAL Change
Frank P. Irizarry Office # (315) 443-5143
Director of Debate Home # (607) 749-8715
Syracuse University Fax # (315) 443-5143
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (email@example.com)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page