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

Re: spare me your elitist bribery

When I first read this post, I was offended, and pissed off that I would 
be labled unethical, a sell-out, an elitist, and engage in bribery to get my 
choice for a topic area chosen.  Then I reread Matt's post, and 
relaxed, because not only do his arguments make zero sense, but 
it could only hurt his credibility (and unfortuneately, the topic he is a 
spokesperson for the topic he is arguing when his best way to deal 
with Mr. Segal's gracious offer is to hurl insults (even at 
people who aren't even connected with this discussion) and not 
even consider how Segal's idea could be carried out.  Matt, why 
don't you read Patrick McMullen's or Michelin Massey's 
responses...they are logical, understandable, and (surprise) polite. 

Here goes:

On Thu, 1 May 1997, Matt Stannard wrote:

> So the advocates of CFR are now attempting to bribe the
> debate community with promises of being "hooked up"
> with "real  policy makers."  I will ignore the ethical
> questions (such as, does this legitimize me making a
> promise--and keeping it--that if civil rights is chosen, I'll
> bring Jesse Jackson with me to nats?) concerning turning
> the topic selection process into a game of celebrity
> brinkpersonship, and concentrate on the phrases and
> assumptions of Mr. Donald and Mr. Segal.

No Matt, we're not bribing you...your'e treating the debate community 
like a bunch of sheep.  If they think that Mr. Segal's offer is a 
reasonable one, why can't they decide for themselves and consider the 
possibility a reason to vote for the topic, especially if they were 
leaning in that direction anyway?  Unethical?  Maybe if I offered them 
money....but if someone is in a position to expose this topic to those 
outside the debate community, why shouldn't they offer to do so?  And 
plus, I originally posted it because I thought it was an interesting 
idea, something a lot of people would be excited about.  Bring Jesse 
Jackson if you can Matt, although you probrably don't speak with Jesse 
very often, and the difference is, Segal has earned the position to talk 
with someone who can do something.  He's fortunate, and so are we.  

> Oh boy!  Obviously our nipples are hardening and our hearts pounding!
> Why is this
> a reason to prefer the topic itself?  

Hey Matt, are funny words like nipples (he he, gigle,gigle) your first line 
of defense, or last?  And again, I've already done a fair job of giving 
other reasons to prefer the topic, I just wanted to throw in something 
that might strike up some added interest, god knows with posts like "cfr 
is boring" going around, it could use some more exposure.  But I guess 
that's more "bribery."  And hey, not everyone wants to seen the government 
overthrown you know, perhaps some of us are INTERESTED in the idea of 
debating in front of policymakers.

> 
> And what about those of us who philosophically object to the term "real"
> because
> it is couched in the kind of "objectivism" that characterizes statist,
> capitalist thinking?
> As a radical educator, I would encourage my students to attend such a
> meeting only
> for the purposes of some good old Marcusian protest.  
> 
I welcome them.  Sorry that Segal used the word "real," I think that in his 
excitement in having the opportunity to GIVE BACK TO DEBATE, he didn't 
whip out the thesaurus for us.  By the way, I'm a REAL good cook.  I'm 
thinking about buying a REAL Fry Daddy Deep Fat Fryer, to make some REAL 
curly q's.  Statist curly q's, that is.

> In all seriousness, meeting policymakers is fine and dandy, good for the
> connections and resumes as they say.  But "college debate" will not be
> hooked up--only a small, infintesimal portion of college debate.
> Perhaps
> a team or two.  Perhaps whoever can afford to go to Washington.
> Certainly
> not all the bread-and-butter teams who will debate the topic.

The point is at least some representative of the community will have the 
opportunity to speak to them, again perhaps as a reward for winning the 
national championship tournaments.  And hey, where in the world was Scott 
just talking about congresspeople?  There may also be a possiblity to debate 
for members of a PAC, especially one who is pushing campaign reform.  


> 
>  We should be concerned with the merits of the topic itself--the
> research 
> burdens, the social significance, the fairness and division of ground,
> and its 
> aesthetic value.  We shouldn't give a rat's ass that it was written by a
> member 
> of Bracewell and Patterson who  knows (gasp) real policymakers.  (Don't
> we 
> all know a few of those anyway?) 

I'm not sure if you do, I'm not even close.  And he's not just a lawyer, 
he is involved in the political process that is pushing for campaign 
reform in washington.  He suggested to me the idea of placing a debate in 
front of a committe meeting, or at least submitting some of our arguments 
to the OPEN dockets at these proceedings.  We're not just talking about 
how scott knew some dude in college that's now a senator---he has 
legitimate access.

Mr. Segal was a VERY good NDT debater, 
> but his position in a law firm (and his alleged connections with the
> elite)
> matters as much as Hays and Trice's positions as coaches, or Meany's 
> or anyone else's--that is, none at all.
> 

This was just unnecessary.  I find it amusing that Matt's best way to 
advance his argument is to slam random people that have nothing to do 
with the post. Perhaps he'll go after my mom in his next attempt at 
coherency.

> "Real change" does not happen when policymakers condescend to a
> photo-op by listening to college students have a debate round.  It
> took millions marching in the streets to make policymakers listen
> to arguments against Jim Crow laws, the Vietnam War, anti-abortion
> laws, etc.  

I think CFR will be a little bit easier to swing than some of the 
revolutionary changes that you listed above, especially considering that 
congress is attempting to find a solution to the problem in the first 
place.  And your lableing of all political actors as shallow "sell-outs" 
is a bit oversimplified....the committee members are indeed looking for 
change, as are the PAC's involved in lobbying for it.  I'm sure we can 
root out someone who isn't intent on oppressing you, Matt....Scott is a 
resourceful guy.


> Who is "us"?  What about those of us who choose to interpret the topic
> radically?  Globalistically?  Anarchistically?  Through a feminist lens?
> Do you really think those powderpuff ruling class yokels will listen to
> good debates which challenge long-held imperialistic assumptions?  In
> fact, would anyone who had a chance in hell of running radical positions
> be chosen to debate in front of these "policymakers?"  By trying to
> entice
> us with the chance of hooking up with these types, you are SELLING OUT!
> Undermining the critical possibilities of debate.  

Matt, if you can get a team to win the national tournament, then you can 
run those arguments all day long.  My point is that by the time the topic 
is over, each debater should have an understanding of the topic that 
would enable them to devise a plan that would work in reality, or at 
least argue effectively in front of those who can do something about it.  
Sorry I sold out CEDA folks, I had good intentions.  Ruling class 
yokels?  VERY compelling.


> 
> I have nothing against a CFR topic.  In fact, it is running a close
> second or
> third for me right now, because of its radical possibilities.  But stick
> to the
> very good arguments you were making earlier, Steve.  This attempt at
> building
> support for the CFR topic was weak.
> 
I'm glad that you have been reading my earlier posts, and even more 
pleased that you decided not to call me Satan earlier for something I 
mistakenly took as a good idea.


Steven Donald
Follow-Ups: References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page