[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: JASON JARVIS/racist discourse and debate
i think you are mischaracterizing al's objection. i am sure he can and
will speak for himself, but here is how i see it:
some people occasionally believe in something that trumps any other
considerations. i think i can _imagine_ how that applies to al, but i am
not going to say i can _understand_...not an indite on white poeple (i am
white) i am just saying, i aint walked in those shoes...but an issue that
trumps all else for al, or you matt, or anyone else, once determined to be
sincere, should be respected. thats my humble opinion. An example: if
someone was raped and prefered not to talk about the issue, i would
respect that. the game of debate is not worth that persons feelings.
On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Matthew Kuss wrote:
> >Jason- thank you. I was starting to feel very much like a lone figure in
> >this debate. I don't think alot of debaters realize how this discussion
> >affects those who are affected directly by the issue. It is not simply
> >theory for many of us. To be chided because I'm not open to voting on this
> >position hurts in awy that is hard to explain. It is like telling me taht
> >as a minority membert I should throw off that which I am to make the
> >tellers of an old story feel good. It is dehumanizing, in that I am asked
> >to listen and judge that which affects my psyche directly. It does have a
> >very uninviting effect, and note that if I am not open to the argument that
> >to many there is something wrong with me. What a joke! Once again thanks
> >for the support.
> No one has indicated there is anything wrong with you. This is the way I see
> it. Debate is an agumentative activity, and the arguments, made by debaters,
> are to be resolved by the judge. The judge has many different ways of doing
> this, such as the logical validity of args, the applicibality of evidence,
> the lack of responses, and so on. The judge should not make arguments that
> were not made by the debaters.
you are implying that something is wrong with al, for example,becuase he
rejects a viewpoint like "racism is good" because it is an issue that
trumps all others (like being a "blank slate") for him. and i thkn what
you have written below makes that more clear...
> You are assuming that voting aff or neg legitimizes all positions held by
> that team? WHY?? By that reasoning, if you voted for the aff team one round
> and then the neg team the next, you would be a hypocrite, becuase you fully
> supported the resolution and then fully opposed it. Obviously that is not
> true. If a ref in a football game calls a penalty, is the ref rooting for
> the non-penalized team? No. You are simply an arbitartor, supposedly
> non-biased. You can vote in a round based on the sheer argumentation,
despite problems with your argument like "fully supporting" the
resolution and then "fully opposing" it, the
objection being made is more specific: it is an issue that is so intense
that it overwhelms the appeal/necesity of being an non-biased arbitrator.
and extending the concept to silly things like football doesnt't help to
clarify the issue. the objection is not: being inconsistent in decisions
= being a hypocrite. the objection is to betraying a belief or
feeling that _defines_ your person.
not only does voting for such an objectionable position legitimate it in
some way, it also, i think, is a compromise in your beliefs.
let me make this clear: "your beliefs" in this context is hard to
define/explain. my guess is people only have one or two issues that are
so imporatnat that they trump any other considerations. and the reasons
for me, the argument "racism is good" will be greeted by an attempt to
discuss the argument, its use, and the impact of its use on myself and
others, followed by a loss. it is an issue that makes my status as a
judge, employee at asu etc irrelevant. my beliefs about issues of race
trump my concern about these other things.
> If you are concerned about damagin your psyche and dehumanization, you had
> better avoid most of society in general.
how sensitive. the alternaitve to avoiding society is to attack every
form or racism that you encounter with with emotion and intellignece and
logic and understanding.
but you do make a good point, albeit by accident: we all make choices.
if i had to make the choice btw being seen as "non-biased" or voting
against "racism good" even if it was dropped, i would chose the latter.
if i had to make the choice btw working for asu or voting against "race
good" i would chose the latter. if i had to chose btw my parents
disowning me or voting against "racism good" i would chose the latter.
i hope this helps others to understand the depth and intensity of my
feeling on this _one_ issue. and what i meant above by "your beliefs"
> Most of debate isnt sworn
> testimonials of the debaters, it is positions formed with published
> evidence. It is an academic event, taking place in a special forum in that
> real world implications can be discussed but only within the context of the
> debate, and never actually get inacted. Of course we are all humans and have
> an obligation to act and debate in a moral way, but again, people seldom
> argue that "Blacks arent equal" or "Slavery is morally justified." We are
> talking about racism being evil, and looking for an end to racism.
well, i see al just responded so i will wrap it up. the _degree_ or the
arguments is a tough one: how they are phrased and how i percieve them.
that is why i try to be exteremly tolerant and hear out arguments, and
question the arguer. i hope all proceed with caution regarding this issue.
> Matt Kuss >
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (email@example.com)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page