[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Rogers' response

> To the "invalid:"
> 
> Yes, the backchanneled message was real.  Thanks to Professor West for the 
> "confirmation" message.  I'm sorry if you have mixed emotions concerning its 
> anonymous use.

Sorry, but I couldn't tell what was "exaggerated" or "pumped up". I 
thought it may have been that anonymous post.

> My point here is that even though some of the arguments that I made were 
> somewhat exaggerated, I think the post is very clear.  There are many "smaller" 
> schools that compete almost exclusively at the "regional" level that are:
> 
>  1) tired of what they perceive as a "larger" "national circuit" bias.  The 
> fact that many of the "larger" schools do not believe that this is either a) 
> true, or b) worthy of consideration does not change the fact that the 
> perception - right or wrong - exists.  My point is that if the perception 
> exists, "flaming" or "belittling" the occasional critical post does nothing but 
> widen the misperception.  If it takes "tweaking" a few noses to point this out, 
> then so be it.

And I still do not understand how folks have been engaged in belittling 
or flaming. If anything, this has been generally a very detailed 
and civilized discussion. Too often I see posts of this nature that 
discount strong argumentation on behalf of a position as a "flame". If 
the shoe fits wear it. (Oh BTW, I find this statement to be an incredibly 
weak argument as well. All it says is "I'm not willing to support my 
position, so I'll just throw it out there and hope that people will 
accept it as true by self-examination.")

> 2) It is interesting that -- as it was pointed out to me by more than one 
> CEDA-L "listener" (23 backchannels in four days) -- when one of the "less 
> elite" responds passionately to a passionate post by one who could be consider 
> a member of the "elite," that the "elite" is suddenly offended and responds 
> with "this is not appropriate argumentation" messages.  Perhaps, as it has been 
> suggested to me that "fire" is still best fought with "fire?" :-).  My response 
> has been that "fire" only burns people.  However, it did get some attention, 
> right or wrong.

I can only take responsibility for my discourse. I dislike the use of the 
word "elite" - you use as if it describes a class of schools or people. 
The "elite" are the schools and debaters who win. That changes from year 
to year. ABSOLUTELY no offense is intended by this comment (you know I 
love all of you) but it would be a stretch at best to call Kansas State 
an "elite" squad last year but this year you could easily, as you could 
the year before that (y'all at K St know I love you, so don't get mad :)
Response and dialogue is the opposite of silence. I can;t see how people 
are silenced. The more accurate argument is that people are marginalized, 
but that street goes both ways. You could say that I am marginalized if 
the topic I desire is not selected...it won;t make me happy and it may 
hurt me, but I'll live. I won;t ever argue that I was "silenced" by some 
of the passionate replieds I received on the "topic" thread.

> 3) As far as the "anecdotes" vs "empirical data" argument goes, theory backed 
> by empirical evidence is fine, even persuasive, in most cases.  However, most 
> people have a tendency to rely on what they know via experience when it comes 
> to theories that they have a vested interest in.  We all know that most 
> debaters have "empirical" studies that prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that 
> the world will end tomorrow due to "pick a cause." We vote against them because 
> our "real world" experience discounts the validity of the argument.  All I'm 
> saying is that I would like more than "assurances" that MPJ will work.  

The data are intended to prove that "mere assurances" are not the only 
"protection" teams receive from MPJ. If you disagree with the validity of 
the data that's cool. If you draw different conclusion from the data than 
others, that's fine too. My point is that for me these data prove with a 
high degree of certainty that MPJ isn't evil and benefits all teams. If 
you don't draw the same conclusions I can try to persuade you otherwise. 
If you don;t change your mind, then I guess that's the way it is. I don;t 
think that you can say that the supporters of MPJ have been operating in 
the dark with no data to back their claims.

> 4) As for the "chilling effect" of not posting.  The sad thing is that it does 
> exist.  Mr. Klemz, you were flamed for what I consider to be an honest 
> miscommunication on your part.  You added fuel to the fire by trying to 
> discount your responsibility.  The fact that you and I are willing to post 
> regardless of the flames that we generate does not mean that everyone will 
> accept our model, sir.  I have enough faith in the critics and coaches, that I 
> am not worried about what they might do to my teams because of what I post, BUT 
> that does not mean that everyone does.

Sorry, but I can;t accept that. The part that I can;t accept is the idea 
that I have the responsibility to avoid any confrontation with opposing 
viewpoints. If we all accept that model for posts then this listserve 
would devolve into posts on subjects we all agree with. If you mean 
people should be civil in their responses, I'm all for that. I know that 
I get carried away sometimes, but I have NEVER said that people should 
shut up and not talk. The dialectic is the way to CHANGE people's minds, 
not discount them. I am not here to anger people... at least not ALL the 
time :). Lastly if people are afraid to discuss this issue because of 
possible retribution then it seems to me that they will hardly post at 
all. If people believe that Tim Mahoney or Tuna will vote against their 
teams because of a post that they made there is some very deep-seated 
mistrust that neither I nor anyone can set aside regardless of the tone 
of posts. 

> 5) A couple of people suggest that if I did not have enough faith in the system 
> -- the "evil tabroom" thread -- that I should just quit.
> 
>  A. I did not start the "evil tabroom" thread." I just responded and picked up 
> the usage of the descriptive reference;
> 
>  B. This feeds the position that people with problems or concerns are often 
> told to quit instead of addressing their concerns.
> 
>  C. This dialogue would seem to indicate that I do have faith in the system to 
> resolve this issue.  You and I have contributed a great deal of time and energy 
> to its discussion.

I, too, am concerned with the integrity of tabroom staff given recent 
experiences as a high school coach. I can honestly say that I have VERY 
rarely encountered a tabroom that I felt was being run corruptly. If I 
did I would never return to that tournament again. As this discussion 
focuses on the National tournament I have to say this - I have absolute 
trust in Doug Duke and the others who run that tabroom. If you distrust 
THAT tab staff then there is a real problem, and one so deep seated that 
NO amount of argument and data can change. If there are people who feel 
that way about nationals then I feel terrible for them.
 
> The posts seem clear enough to me.  I simply ask each of us to examine the way 
> in which we communicate and how that communication is perceived by others.  The 
> "experiment" ticked off a few folks, but hey, it worked.  If the shoe fits, 
> then wear it.  If the shoe doesn't fit, then why get so angry?  Thanks to 
> everyone for contributing to the dialogue.

I agree. Self-examination of one;s rhetoric is always beneficial. 
However, I still feel that your "exaggeration" is inappropriate. I don't 
understand how it is any different than posting "The 'national circuit' 
is an 
evil empire that tromps on smaller programs" - then retracting and saying 
"I was exaggerating. If the shoe fits, wear it". You can see above about 
my feelings on that statement, which I consider to be a cop out.

Aaron Klemz
University of Minnesota - College of Natural Resources
Assistant Director of Debate
The Blake School
Minneapolis, MN
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page