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

Re: racism, judging et al

	Just a couple of points.

Mr. Kuss says
There is no reason why "we" cant "GET IT." I have never been
in shackles due to my skin color but I sure as hell know that I
would never want to be and that such as action is outright
illogical and morally disgusting.

	I think your response is evidence that you dont GET IT. 
I have never been shackled or raped either, and I can certainly
agree that I dont want to be. But that doesnt mean that I GET
IT.  I can sympathize with these people and their problems, but
I cant EMPATHIZE. There is a difference

Mr Kuss says
Who are you to tell them it is only a game? A participant,
perhaps. Does that mean you give free reign to any judge that
has come in contact with something a debater hasn't? Doesnt
this eliminate the use of evidence in the round, if empirical
experince takes priority? What if the author I am using
has had more experience than the judge?

Im a little confused here, your post below from Feb 5th says it
is a game.  Would I give free reign to a judge with experience? 
Of course not, dont be silly.  First, it isnt up to me to give free
reign to anyone. My point is simply that how much reign you
want to give a judge is irrelevent.  You can preach all day that
they shouldnt let their views of racism (or whatever) influence
them, and it will carry about as much weight as if you didn
t say
anything at all.  It is a moot point.  Just because you, or others,
declare that they should remain unbiased on the position doesnt
mean that they will, or even can.
Mr Kuss had said on Feb 5th-
It is key to understand that debate IS a game. It isnt trivial, but
what is being discussed has implicit and explicit guidelines to
follow. The ballot of the round DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A
LEGITIMIZATION OF ISSUES, rather arguments.
	Would I give weight to personal experience in a round?
Most certainly I would. Would it outweigh the mighty diety of
the written card in debate? Beats me. It might. Depends on the
credibility of the person with the experience, and the credibility
and date etc of the source.

I said in a previous post (that Mr Kuss was responding to)-
>       If a judge tells you that they do not like a certain position,
racism or anything else, do not run it. It is as simple as that. Do
you only have a single position in those files?  If you run it
anyway, then be willing to accept the consequences. The judge
can not magically turn off their predispositions.

Mr Kuss replies-
I dont think anyone would argue this, to any extent.  If the
judge warns you ahead of time, there isno excuse for offending
that judge later in the round on that issue.

	The reason I included the above in my post was because
there have been several occasions where you have posted
material which did imply that a judge should be required to hear
whatever it is the teams want to run, regardless of the judges
feelings on it. Below are some of the statements by Mr Kuss
which led me to assume that. If you are indeed saying that
teams should not run positions that a judge has said they dont
like, then what are you talking about?  The only way that would
become known is if the judge INTERVENED (by your use of
it) and told them.

Mr Kuss says-
I am sorry, but this sounds so melodramatic. You are
dehumanized? What on earth does that mean? You are less of a
human than before the round? As I also said in the other post,
hiding racism in debate wont solve anything. In a debate round
you are never personally insulted, as in the many examples you
provide. If you tell the debaters that you will vote against any
racist arguments, and none are made, you have only avoided the
problem and inno way addressed it.

Mr Kuss says-
Sorry. The fact that you have to listen to such arguments is one
of the only real-world aspects about debate. You shouldnt
shape debate to be a safe haven for yourself, absent anything
you find the least bit offensive. Debate should be an open
forum, and openly judged.

Mr Kuss says
 Most racism debate doesnt involve any use of theword nigger.
I say you should not take offense due to the context of the
argumentation.

Mr Kuss says-
 It supports needing to end racism by acknowledging it exists,
not by hiding it and hoping it will go away.

Mr Kuss says-
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.

 Mr Kuss says-
 But if both tems engage in the discourse, the judge shouldnt
mold debate into what he or she simply desires. Let it mold
itself. As I had indicated previously, debate is not here to serve
as a safe haven for the judge or debater, free of any non-friendly
ideas. Simply put, if you feel that strongly, dont subject yourself
to possible dehumanization by judging.

Mr Kuss says-
 I see you as a judge listening to argumentation. With being a
judge there are other obligations you have, and these
obligations may come in conflict with your right to make moral
judgements on discourse. I am not implying that you are
either human or a judge. Rather, as I have advocated before,
debate is not there for you to make into a safe haven. It is there
for issues to be hammered out. Sometimes these issues may
offend but it is part of the activity. Perhaps we should have
pro-active judging in which a full profile of the judge is
provided to the debaters ahead of time and the debaters must
not only win the round, they also must avoid upsetting the
judge in doing so.


	So, finally, I just wonder a couple of things about your
reasoning, Mr Kuss.  Are you saying that a judge should not go
into a round a say that they dont like positions dealing with x? 
If you are, then you are asking them to turn off their
predispositions. I would think it would be more ethical to warn
a team, especially one you knows runs a potsition that you are
offended by, then to just let them walk into it blind and suffer
the consequences. If, as you say above, you wouldnt think
anyone would advocate a judge turn off their predispositions,
how do you recommend the teams find out about those
predispositions?  Unless we install hotlines to the Psychic
Network in every room, about the only way I see is if they are
told by the judge.

                Mark Whitney
                SUNY Morrisville
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page