RE: You won't be called a racist

[Matt Stannard <mstannard@AC.CEU.EDU>]

	Justin says:
	>>>
> THANKS FOR PROVING MY POINT...your own argument is that i am defending
> a 
> position, that we should not debate civil rights because of the ad hom
> 
> attacks that will certainly insue, and because i am defending this 
> positions, even if i would never partake in such slander, i am now a 
> person who "shares no such notions of GOOD WILL."  
      >>>
I believe you misinterpret Rob's reply.  I interpret him to mean that
you, Justin,
must have a pretty pessimistic view of the debate community to think
that we
would stoop so low, or that we would ignore good arguments in favor of
warrantless
insults.  Your offense at this implication was not justified.  Rob is
simply saying
that he is more optimistic about the community than you seem to be.

	>>>
> Any argument that you make against another 
> persons argument could be construed as being a personal attack
> especially 
> if you use such words as ABSURD.  If your reasoning that we won't say
> you 
> are being racist because of our good will...then no debate would ever 
> occur...
	>>>
Argumentation theory takes care of most of these problems.  There is
clearly
a difference between saying Justin himself is absurd and saying Justin's
arguments
are absurd.  

Sometimes there is institutionalized racism, and in that case, you can
call the proponent
of an argument "wrong" or "incorrect" precisely because that proponent
does not see the
racist implications of his or her argument.  For example, the Bell
Curve, in my opinion,
is a book full of racist arguments (and yes, I've read it...) but that
doesn't necessarily
justify me calling Murray and Hernsteinn "racists."  


	>>>
> Why would said team have no competitive success...you are assuming
> that 
> this is the only argument that the affrimative makes...which is not
> what 
> i am assuming.  This type of evidence certainly exists and i think
> will 
> be used by a number of teams to persaude the judge for voting for
> them.
	>>>
If, in the course of time, such a strategy continues to succeed, or if,
before the
first tournament even takes place, well-prepared teams do not know how
to answer
such a strategy, what does this say about our intellect as a community?
That we
are too dumb to debate civil rights because we'll get all emotional
about it?  I simply
cannot believe this and still stay in debate.


	>>>
> I have never said that it is too emotional to debate...yet it is most 
> likely the most emotional thing that you could debate for some...i
> just 
> don't think that the competitive atmosphere of debate is the place for
> 
> this discussion.  In this situation there has to be a winner and a 
> loser...
      >>>
I bracketed the above statement because it did not contain any reference
to
civil rights, racism, etc.  Now, please notice that we could put ANY
term
or proposed topic in place of racism/civil rights, and still come up
with this
statement.  To demonstrate:

"Justin, are you saying drug legalization is too emotional to debate?"

	Justin:  "I have never said that it is too emotional to
debate...yet it is most 
> likely the most emotional thing that you could debate for some...i
> just 
> don't think that the competitive atmosphere of debate is the place for
> 
> this discussion (etc)"
> 
"Justin, would a debate about immigration (which included arguments
about
poverty, police brutality, unemployment, etc, be too emotional to
debate?"

		Justin:  "I have never said that it is too emotional to
debate...yet it is most 
> likely the most emotional thing that you could debate for some...i
> just 
> don't think that the competitive atmosphere of debate is the place for
> 
> this discussion (etc)."
> 
Or my favorite:  "Justin.  Nuclear war is indeed a scary and emotional
issue.
Don't you believe the sheer terror of nuclear war renders it too
emotional to debate?"

		Justin:  "I have never said that it is too emotional to
debate...yet it is most 
> likely the most emotional thing that you could debate for some...i
> just 
> don't think that the competitive atmosphere of debate is the place for
> 
> this discussion (etc)."
> 
	>>>
> Additionally, my argument that in the literature the same ad hom
> attacks 
> take place is never answered.  Congressperson x says to congressperson
> y 
> that they are a racist or a biggot for not voting for this policy or 
> that.  If the people in the literature can't help them selves from
> using 
> the race card why should we expect ourselves to in a more competitive 
> environment. 
      >>>
Yes, and Reagan used to publicly say that he believed Russia was the
evil empire
known to Ezekiel as "Gog" which would destroy Israel, and that God would
ensure
our survival in the event of Armageddon.  Leaders say, and publish, bad
arguments
all the time.  That doesn't mean we have to use them.  We are smarter
than that.

I will let Rob defend his own post further on.

matt stannard

---

• Prev by Date: No Subject
• Next by Date: Water of a Duck's Back (with no reference to Northwestern)
• Prev by thread: Re: You won't be called a racist
• Next by thread: Re: You won't be called a racist
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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